Posted on 12/27/2001 12:53:07 AM PST by John W
Calm down, my friend. This article, and your comment are both...well...unfounded in reality.
Plutonium is heavy, and if tossed into a body of water, would sink to the bottom and into the mud, where it would remain forever, doing absolutely nothing to anybody.
Don't believe me? Then try your own experiment. Toss a chemically-similar metal, "a few grams of lead" [a shotgun pellet would do] into a lake, and let me know when folks start showing symptoms of lead poisoning.
Backflow preventers have vacuum breakers - that's the difference from simple check valves.
If you're really worried about this stuff, use bottled water, distill/filter your own, collect rainwater, or better yet, move to the country.
This whole scare is just union propaganda to scare the gullible into clamoring for more union workers to "make their water safe".
oxymoron.
That shouldn't be the pain in the butt it has been in years past with all the bottled water out there. But yeah, for the other stuff it would suck.
touche...
...but it would appear, from the recent actions of the berzerkely city council,
that the acid scenario was a success.
Yikes!
What's the difference between a "backflow preventer" and a check valve?
Also, how would you prevent terrorists from disabling them?
See this article. I think it will answers those questions of yours.
D'Angelo refers to the ABPA's policy statement that says that a single check valve will not be construed to be an adequate backflow prevention technique. He asks: "What about two check valves? Detector check and alarm check? Detector check and wafer check? Are two check valves an adequate backflow prevention technique? What is an assembly?" Of course, D'Angelo hits the nail right on the head.
This is the question that has never been answered by any legislator or backflow preventer manufacturer. And the reason for this is that there is nothing to be accomplished by a backflow prevention assembly that is not accomplished just as well with two weighted check valves. Both configurations represent "double-check" backflow protection.
2.) Kill all terrorist and their sponsors.
3.) Remove barriers to energy self-sufficiency.
- or -
4.) Die.
Makes sense to me.
"We would've never worked on chemical/biological/nuclear weapons of mass destruction if the western press didn't continually repeat how easy it would be to do".
Just keep reporting this over and over until the ragheads figure it out and try it.
This is the only thing that would work. If I were a terrorist and there was a backflow preventer on the plumbing where I wanted to inject the poison, all I would need to do is disable it.
BTW, a bicycle pump or vacuum cleaner would have a lot of difficulty overcoming city water pressure. Not sure I understand how that would work.
What would work beautifully is the wide variety of pumps available for various purposes. Just look in your Gringer's catalog. Literally hundreds of workable pumps can be purchased from under a hundred dollars and up.
I used to do pressure washing, so I have some familiarity with pumps. Trust me, this ain't rocket science. I could do it in a couple of hours if I wanted to, starting from scratch.
We worry about LSD, but Cholera or even Giardia would make a lot of people sick. And you can get giardia from most mountain streams thanks to the lack of indoor toilets for beavers...
Beaver, deer and a lot of other animals naturally carry this parasite. I always found it funny that environmentalists absolutely cannot comprehend this and invariably refer to streams containing Giardia cysts as "polluted." Or I did think it was funny till I got giardiasis. That wasn't funny at all!
Don't understand this. If I create a high enough pressure to force chemicals back into the main line, wouldn't that cause the pressure to go up in the system, not down?
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.