Posted on 04/22/2006 10:44:17 PM PDT by bd476
WEST SACRAMENTO — A bomb squad was called in Saturday, after a man dropped a knapsack in a crowd of protesters outside a building President Bush was touring. Authorities later said it appeared to be a "sophisticated hoax device."
West Sacramento Deputy Police Chief Henry Serrano said the man dropped the knapsack in the middle of a street outside the California Fuel Cell Partnership, where Bush was giving an Earth Day talk on hydrogen fuel technology.
The suspect then ran into the crowd of about 1,500 protesters. Police who caught him said he appeared intoxicated and refused to identify himself.
The bomb squad later blasted the knapsack with a water cannon, and no explosives were found.
The bag, however, contained wires, junction boxes and heavy metal components fashioned "in a way that would lead one to not rule out that it was an explosive device," Serrano said. It appeared to be a sophisticated hoax, police said.
"The package was found while the president was in town. We're taking it very seriously," Serrano said.
Authorities said the suspect likely would be charged in the hoax. The man initially told officers that he found the bag and dropped it after being startled by its contents.
< Snip >
Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada said she was insulted Bush chose to celebrate Earth Day in her largely Democratic and environmentally conscious county, home of the "nuclear free zone" in the city of Davis.
'I just actually find it astounding and outrageous that he would come here on Earth Day," Yamada said. 'He's got one of the worst environmental records of all presidents in the last two to three decades...' "
(Excerpt) Read more at fox40.trb.com ...
"...The bag, however, contained wires, junction boxes and heavy metal components fashioned 'in a way that would lead one to not rule out that it was an explosive device,' Serrano said..."
Heavy metal components...?
Lol, I think I like your report better and you said it in fewer words.
Ping.
Love it when protesters just make up "facts".
ONE of the worst administrations in 2 OR 3 decades. Which is it?
3 decades takes us back to Carter, 2 decades takes us back to Reagan (or as the left refers to it, 12 years of Reagan Bush).
So W has ONE OF the worst environmental records out of the following list:
W
Clinton
Reagan-Bush
and MAYBE Carter
But the media will never question the rhetoric.
What a sad joke, the anti-W hysteria hever ends. For one thing, W has been so tied up with the Iraq thing that he hasn't had a chance to so much as start an "environmental record", yet alone have a bad one. Much to his detriment, and that of the GOP, there is still no opening of ANWR even as oil hits $75 per barrel. With ANWR not open, how on earth can any objective person say W has a bad enviornmental record? The spew that overflows from the liberal toilet never ends.
"...The bag, however, contained wires, junction boxes and heavy metal components fashioned 'in a way that would lead one to not rule out that it was an explosive device..."
I'm still puzzled by the reported heavy metal components in the bag.
The term heavy metal refers to any metallic chemical element that has a relatively high density and is toxic or poisonous at low concentrations. Examples of heavy metals include mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), thallium (Tl), and lead (Pb).
Heavy metals are natural components of the Earth's crust. They cannot be degraded or destroyed. To a small extent they enter our bodies via food, drinking water and air.
As trace elements, some heavy metals (e.g. copper, selenium, zinc) are essential to maintain the metabolism of the human body.
Heavy metals
Then there's this:
Chemistry International
Vol. 23, No. 6
November 2001
"Heavy Metals"- A Meaningless Term
by John H. Duffus
later published as a Technical Report in PAC 74(5), 793-807 (2002) John H. Duffus
Over the past two decades, the term "heavy metals" has been used increasingly in various publications and in legislation related to chemical hazards and the safe use of chemicals. It is often used as a group name for metals and semimetals (metalloids) that have been associated with contamination and potential toxicity or ecotoxicity.
At the same time, legal regulations often specify a list of heavy metals to which they apply. Such lists may differ from one set of regulations to the other, or the term may be used without specifying which heavy metals are covered. In other words, the term "heavy metals" has been used inconsistently. This practice has led to general confusion regarding the significance of the term.
The inconsistent use of the term "heavy metals" reflects inconsistency in the scientific literature. It is, therefore, necessary to review the usage that has developed for the term, paying particular attention to its relationship to fundamental chemistry.
Without care for the scientific fundamentals, confused thought is likely to prevent advances in scientific knowledge and to lead to bad legislation and to generally bad decision-making..."
Chemistry International Vol. 23, No. 6
November 2001
"Heavy Metals"- A Meaningless Term
Table 1 Definitions of heavy metal: Survey of current usage (April 2001).
In chemistry:
- the rectangular block of elements in the Periodic Table flanked by titanium, hafnium, arsenic, and bismuth at its corners but including also selenium and tellurium. The specific gravities range from 4.5 to 22.5 [17].
- any metal with with an atomic number beyond that of calcium [35]
- any element with an atomic number greater than 20 [36]
- metal with an atomic number between 21 (scandium) and 92 (uranium) [16]
- term now often used to mean any metal with atomic number >20, but there is no general concurrence [20] ladle [38].
< Snip >
Definitions without a clear basis other than toxicity
- element commonly used in industry and generically toxic to animals and to aerobic and anaerobic processes, but not every one is dense or entirely metallic; includes As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, and Zn [42]
- outdated generic term referring to lead, cadmium, mercury, and some other elements that generally are relatively toxic in nature; recently, the term "toxic elements" has been used. The term also sometimes refers to compounds containing these elements [18].
Definitions preceding 1936
- guns or shot of large size [1]
- great ability [2]
1997-2001 International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
Heavy Metals"- A Meaningless Term
These are the people who are piloting the course of the future of our country.
We are headed to the bone yard of used to be great nations.
Like them it will come from within right in front of the eyes of all and also like them most won't even know it has happened till after it's all over months or years later.
These people are absolutely nuts, but nuts are sometimes awfully dangerous.
BYW, their "earth day" is also Lenin's birthday...lol.
I heard this, breaking, on KFI this afternoon....so (thankfully) it was a hoax...?
onyx wrote: BYW, their "earth day" is also Lenin's birthday...lol."
Ah gee, kooks, nuts and illiterates trying to derail our country, calling their movement peaceful and they left their logic at home. A pretty discouraging scene.
Quite fitting in reality given their Left leanings.
It's DIRT Day. Sheesh, onyx. DIRT day.
:)
The bomb was a hoax, but the set-up, attention from the police, the crowd and media was not a hoax. The creep set up an elaborate fake device with wires and heavy metal components in a bag. Was it a test run or something akin to "the boy who cried Wolf." I wonder if he's pleased by the results.
What's worrisome is that one news account said that the creep would probably be charged. Probably??
Um. It's in there somewhere........
(gulp)
Oh sure. Alleged perp too, huh. (blech)
Those are excellent points, Weegee. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.