To: Sonny M
its just more expensive, and not efficient.
Yes this is why I call it junk science
9 posted on
05/16/2003 11:35:23 PM PDT by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(CCCP = clinton, chiraq, chretien, and putin = stalin wannabes (moore is goebbels))
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran; Sonny M
junk science should be used to define things junk like magnets curing back aches. This is not junk science since the science part of it does work. It will produce "oil" in the quantities talked about. Will it make a profit? That is up to the free market and govt regulations.
10 posted on
05/16/2003 11:56:21 PM PDT by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
It seems to me, that getting rid of millions of tons of waste is worth the cost / benefit ratio.
Just getting rid of millions (billions?) of old tires would clean up the environment, and provide energy and recycled materials.
It's not like we have to depend on this process exclusively, but when used in a judicious manner, to solve problems concerning waste disposal, this method is preferable to shipping waste to some third world country.
12 posted on
05/17/2003 1:21:36 AM PDT by
Drammach
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson