It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
"Currently, there are two wood waste incinerator power generation projects being planned for Shelton. These projects are generating a lot of heat and discussion in the local environmental community. Works in Progress' Mike Coday reached out to speak with Pat Rasmussen, a local environmental activist with the World Temperate Rainforest Network and Duff Badgley of No Biomass Burn of Seattle about the Shelton biomass incinerators."
Originally posted by MaxBlack
"It is these new Biomass plants that in my opinion will one day be converted to disposing of human bodies. That process will instead of costing money to achieve, will actually create profits from the bio-fuels that can be produced by processing human corpses into some bio-fuel with almost no waste issues."
Originally posted by MaxBlack
"Such plants will be near Death Camps and that is why I firmly believe that they will try to locate the FEMA victims nearby or will perhaps they will just neutron a city and then it is a matter of body recovery and disposal. Add in bio weapons and or chemical attacks or death in large numbers from pandemics and these bio mass plants will serve to dispose of what the government chooses while producing a bio fuel in the process. Of course there will be no funerals for anyone during such process."
Originally posted by MaxBlack
"Well, it saves the government a lot of money in disposal process and it generates a beneficial end product. In such a way the new New death camps will operate and it is that understanding that we better grasp and share with others. Death camps with ovens is an outdated and unfeasible approach to mass genocide."
Henry Alfred Kissinger
"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."
Henry Alfred Kissinger
"Power is the great aphrodisiac."
"The proposed Adage and Simpson biomass incinerators would do these things:
- Emit, between them, 825,000 tons of CO2 per year, according to statistics from the federal EPA and Department of Energy. These high volumes of CO2 would stoke our unfolding climate crisis. This CO2 would also accelerate the acidification of waters, including the Puget Sound, now threatening the entire marine chain of life in Northwest waters.
- Emit nano-and PM2.5-particulate matter (PM) pollution so toxic, despite air pollution controls and permits, it can kill humans from a single exposure. The American Lung Association State of the Air Report-2008: "First and foremost, short-term exposure to particle pollution can kill. Deaths can occur on the same day when particle levels are high." Nano-PM (or ultra-fines) are unregulated and uncontrolled by any permitting process. They are the most lethal PM pollution."
Originally posted by MaxBlack
Thanks for the posting.
pollution so toxic a single exposure could kill.
Originally posted by C0bzz
pollution so toxic a single exposure could kill.
The article repeated this about 5000 times. A single exposure? Everything depends on the amount...
"To the point, biomass incineration is NOT clean and green, sustainable and renewable, carbon neutral and cost effective, or environmentally friendly and ecologically sound. It is quite the opposite of these beautiful and alluring marketing slogans. Biomass incineration is in reality quite polluting, unsustainable to the extreme and, in some cases, less environmentally friendly than coal burning plants."
"Remember the old-fashioned hospital incinerator that nobody ever wanted to live downwind from. Who would want mercury vapors, and the many other highly toxic aerosols, wafting through their neighborhood? Well, then, why would a community want a biomass incinerator sited within winds´ reach of their schools, subdivisions and businesses. The post incineration output of these biomass plants can be much worse than a hospital´s depending on what is being incinerated."
Let´s be clear about the assortment and type of contaminants which will inevitably show up in the surrounding air of these biomass plants. As follows:
(1) Dioxins and Furans
(2) Particulate Matter – 10.0, 2.5 and 1.0 microns
(3) Hydrogen Chloride
(4) Nitrogen Dioxide
(5) Carbon Monoxide
(6) Hydrogen Sulfide
(7) Sulfur Dioxide
(8) Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)
(9) Mercury, Lead and Arsenic
(10) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC´s) such as benzene, toluene and naphthalene
"Crutzen and Carmichael (1993) have recently suggested that biomass burning represents an important source of atmospheric hydrogen cyanide. The combined worldwide emissions of hydrogen cyanide and acetonitrile due to biomass burning have been estimated to range from 0.5 to 1.7x1012 g of N/year (≈1.1–3.7 billion pounds per year) (Crutzen and Andreae 1990)."
The term cyanide in this Toxicological Profile means a compound that contains the cyanogen (CN) radical. Since the CN portion of the compound is of concern in poisons, any reference to the amount present in air, water, soil, sediments, or other media refers only to this part of the compound. The term free cyanide refers to hydrogen cyanide and cyanide ion (CN–) (EPA 1981e; Oudjehani et al. 2002; Shifrin et al. 1996; WHO 2004b).
Cyanide (reported as cyanide, hydrogen cyanide, sodium cyanide, potassium cyanide, or copper (I) cyanide) has been identified in at least 464 of the 1,662 hazardous waste sites that have been proposed for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL) (HazDat 2005). However, the number of sites evaluated for cyanide is not known. The frequency of these sites can be seen in Figure 6-1. Of these sites, 462 are located within the United States, 1 is located in Guam (not shown), and 1 is located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (not shown).
"The amount of hydrogen cyanide released to the atmosphere in 2003 by U.S. industrial facilities sorted by state is given in Table 6-1 (TRI03 2005). According to TRI03 (2005), an estimated total of 1.14 million pounds (approximately 517 metric tons) of hydrogen cyanide was discharged into air, amounting to approximately 42.2% of the total amount of hydrogen cyanide released into the environment from manufacturing and processing facilities in the United States in 2003. The release of cyanide compounds (as X+CN–, where X+=H+ or any group where formal dissociation can occur; for example, KCN or Ca(CN)2) into air by U.S. industrial facilities is given in Table 6-2 and sorted by state (TRI03 2005). According to the data given in Table 6-2, it is estimated that 0.313 million pounds (approximately 142 metric tons) of cyanide compounds were released into air in 2003, which amounts to approximately 4.97% of the total environmental release. The TRI data should be used with caution since only certain types of facilities are required to report. This is not an exhaustive list. No information is available in the TRI database for other cyanide and thiocyanate compounds in this profile because these compounds are not included under SARA, Title III, and therefore, are not among the chemicals that facilities are required to report (EPA 1993g, 2001).
"Cyanogen is reactive and does not persist in the environment unchanged (EPA 1978c). Cyanogen reacts slowly with water to yield hydrogen cyanide and cyanic acid (HOCN) among other products (EPA 1979) and this hydrolysis reaction may be a possible atmospheric degradation pathway. Cyanogen has also been shown to react with hydroxyl radicals in the gas phase (Atkinson 1989). Based on a rate constant of 2.5x10-15 cm3/(molecule-sec) at 27 °C and assuming an average hydroxyl radical concentration of 5x105 molecules/cm3, the residence time for the reaction of hydrogen cyanide vapor with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere is ≈25 years. Therefore, the reaction of cyanogen with photochemically-induced hydroxyl radicals will not play a significant role in the degradation of this compound in air."
Originally posted by projectvxn
Your video is not a source my friend. That is an Onion production. It is satire. Look at the bottom right, that logo is the Onion logo.