Re: insult to injury

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Buffalo, Jul 7, 2010.

  1. Buffalo

    Buffalo Guest

    §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    > Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    > http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    > cleaning
    >
    > SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking toxics,
    > they dont get compensated?
    >
    > BOYCOTT B


    Is there really any proof of that 'toxic waste' claim or is that just
    another scam for collecting money for doing nothing?
    I am interested in the truth, not the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric.

    Buffalo
    Buffalo, Jul 7, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Buffalo

    NotMe Guest

    "Buffalo" <> wrote in message
    news:i12ses$m6m$-september.org...
    >
    >
    > §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    >> Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    >> http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    >> cleaning
    >>
    >> SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking toxics,
    >> they dont get compensated?
    >>
    >> BOYCOTT B

    >
    > Is there really any proof of that 'toxic waste' claim or is that just
    > another scam for collecting money for doing nothing?
    > I am interested in the truth, not the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric.


    I've seem reports that BP is blocking press access to the beaches and the
    clean up boats due to 'serious' concerns for exposure of the press to
    harmful chemicals. There have been somewhat creditable reports that BP is
    limiting the use of protective gear due to concerns for the PR effects of
    media photos.
    NotMe, Jul 7, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Buffalo

    Clot Guest

    NotMe wrote:
    > "Buffalo" <> wrote in message
    > news:i12ses$m6m$-september.org...
    >>
    >>
    >> §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    >>> Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    >>> http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    >>> cleaning
    >>>
    >>> SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking toxics,
    >>> they dont get compensated?
    >>>
    >>> BOYCOTT B

    >>
    >> Is there really any proof of that 'toxic waste' claim or is that just
    >> another scam for collecting money for doing nothing?
    >> I am interested in the truth, not the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric.

    >
    > I've seem reports that BP is blocking press access to the beaches and
    > the clean up boats due to 'serious' concerns for exposure of the
    > press to harmful chemicals. There have been somewhat creditable
    > reports that BP is limiting the use of protective gear due to
    > concerns for the PR effects of media photos.


    Having worked in an advisory capacity for a company that owned and operated
    on land that had heavy industrial use for circa 200 years, I fully
    appreciate the point. The plot had had various uses over various parts. We
    needed to ensure that the contractors employed to investigate the ground
    conditions were suitably protected. The operation of the site had not been
    behind "closed walls" and was open for all to see ofr many years.

    Once we had guys in there with full protection gear on, the press had a
    field day, so I do understand that thought.
    Clot, Jul 8, 2010
    #3
  4. Buffalo

    NotMe Guest

    "Clot" <> wrote in message
    news:218Zn.280$2...
    > NotMe wrote:
    >> "Buffalo" <> wrote in message
    >> news:i12ses$m6m$-september.org...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    >>>> Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    >>>> http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    >>>> cleaning
    >>>>
    >>>> SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking toxics,
    >>>> they dont get compensated?
    >>>>
    >>>> BOYCOTT B
    >>>
    >>> Is there really any proof of that 'toxic waste' claim or is that just
    >>> another scam for collecting money for doing nothing?
    >>> I am interested in the truth, not the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric.

    >>
    >> I've seem reports that BP is blocking press access to the beaches and
    >> the clean up boats due to 'serious' concerns for exposure of the
    >> press to harmful chemicals. There have been somewhat creditable
    >> reports that BP is limiting the use of protective gear due to
    >> concerns for the PR effects of media photos.

    >
    > Having worked in an advisory capacity for a company that owned and
    > operated on land that had heavy industrial use for circa 200 years, I
    > fully appreciate the point. The plot had had various uses over various
    > parts. We needed to ensure that the contractors employed to investigate
    > the ground conditions were suitably protected. The operation of the site
    > had not been behind "closed walls" and was open for all to see ofr many
    > years.
    >
    > Once we had guys in there with full protection gear on, the press had a
    > field day, so I do understand that thought.


    The point was that BP use using mutually exclusive excuses in both cases i.e
    the site was hazardous and no one without proper gear was permitted but but
    but paid workers with access where not provided with proper gear as
    unnecessary.
    NotMe, Jul 8, 2010
    #4
  5. Buffalo

    Buffalo Guest

    NotMe wrote:
    > "Clot" <> wrote in message
    > news:218Zn.280$2...
    >> NotMe wrote:
    >>> "Buffalo" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:i12ses$m6m$-september.org...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    >>>>> Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    >>>>> http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    >>>>> cleaning
    >>>>>
    >>>>> SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking
    >>>>> toxics, they dont get compensated?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> BOYCOTT B
    >>>>
    >>>> Is there really any proof of that 'toxic waste' claim or is that
    >>>> just another scam for collecting money for doing nothing?
    >>>> I am interested in the truth, not the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric.
    >>>
    >>> I've seem reports that BP is blocking press access to the beaches
    >>> and the clean up boats due to 'serious' concerns for exposure of the
    >>> press to harmful chemicals. There have been somewhat creditable
    >>> reports that BP is limiting the use of protective gear due to
    >>> concerns for the PR effects of media photos.

    >>
    >> Having worked in an advisory capacity for a company that owned and
    >> operated on land that had heavy industrial use for circa 200 years, I
    >> fully appreciate the point. The plot had had various uses over
    >> various parts. We needed to ensure that the contractors employed to
    >> investigate the ground conditions were suitably protected. The
    >> operation of the site had not been behind "closed walls" and was
    >> open for all to see ofr many years.
    >>
    >> Once we had guys in there with full protection gear on, the press
    >> had a field day, so I do understand that thought.

    >
    > The point was that BP use using mutually exclusive excuses in both
    > cases i.e the site was hazardous and no one without proper gear was
    > permitted but but but paid workers with access where not provided
    > with proper gear as unnecessary.


    Is that a fact, or just your assumption, NotMe?
    Buffalo
    Buffalo, Jul 8, 2010
    #5
  6. Buffalo

    Buffalo Guest

    §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    > Buffalo wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    >>> Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    >>> http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    >>> cleaning
    >>>
    >>> SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking toxics,
    >>> they dont get compensated?
    >>>
    >>> BOYCOTT B

    >>
    >> Is t ere real y a y poof of hat 'toxic we' laim or is tha jut
    >> anoter sam fo collcing mony fo dong nohing?
    >> I a iteresed n th tuth, no th 'sk-is-faling' retoric.
    >>
    >> Buffalo
    >>

    >
    > Must be a problem with your newsreader.


    Naw, just a problem with your brain, of what there is of it. :)
    Buffalo
    Buffalo, Jul 8, 2010
    #6
  7. Buffalo

    NotMe Guest

    "Buffalo"

    <snip>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    >>>>>> Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    >>>>>> http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    >>>>>> cleaning
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking
    >>>>>> toxics, they dont get compensated?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> BOYCOTT B
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Is there really any proof of that 'toxic waste' claim or is that
    >>>>> just another scam for collecting money for doing nothing?
    >>>>> I am interested in the truth, not the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've seem reports that BP is blocking press access to the beaches
    >>>> and the clean up boats due to 'serious' concerns for exposure of the
    >>>> press to harmful chemicals. There have been somewhat creditable
    >>>> reports that BP is limiting the use of protective gear due to
    >>>> concerns for the PR effects of media photos.
    >>>
    >>> Having worked in an advisory capacity for a company that owned and
    >>> operated on land that had heavy industrial use for circa 200 years, I
    >>> fully appreciate the point. The plot had had various uses over
    >>> various parts. We needed to ensure that the contractors employed to
    >>> investigate the ground conditions were suitably protected. The
    >>> operation of the site had not been behind "closed walls" and was
    >>> open for all to see ofr many years.
    >>>
    >>> Once we had guys in there with full protection gear on, the press
    >>> had a field day, so I do understand that thought.

    >>
    >> The point was that BP use using mutually exclusive excuses in both
    >> cases i.e the site was hazardous and no one without proper gear was
    >> permitted but but but paid workers with access where not provided
    >> with proper gear as unnecessary.

    >
    > Is that a fact, or just your assumption, NotMe?
    > Buffalo


    Fact, if I'm to take the word of my extended family some of whom worked in
    the clean up and others who work for the local media.

    Might also interest you to know that many of those Katrina temp houses (the
    ones that had excessive levels of formaldehyde) are now being used to house
    clean up workers and in a few cases their families. (I doubt if BP has any
    direct link to these but no doubt BP will get hammered for the use
    regardless)

    FWIW we picked up two of these to use for hunting/fishing camps and despite
    extensive 'airing' they still not safe due to off gassing of formaldehyde.
    NotMe, Jul 8, 2010
    #7
  8. Buffalo

    Buffalo Guest

    NotMe wrote:
    > "Buffalo"
    >
    > <snip>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> §ñühw¤£f wrote:
    >>>>>>> Just when you think BP cant get any more abusive, they do:
    >>>>>>> http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bp-will-charge-fishermen-not-
    >>>>>>> cleaning
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> SO, if they choose to *not* expose themselves to the fucking
    >>>>>>> toxics, they dont get compensated?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> BOYCOTT B
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is there really any proof of that 'toxic waste' claim or is that
    >>>>>> just another scam for collecting money for doing nothing?
    >>>>>> I am interested in the truth, not the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've seem reports that BP is blocking press access to the beaches
    >>>>> and the clean up boats due to 'serious' concerns for exposure of
    >>>>> the press to harmful chemicals. There have been somewhat
    >>>>> creditable reports that BP is limiting the use of protective gear
    >>>>> due to concerns for the PR effects of media photos.
    >>>>
    >>>> Having worked in an advisory capacity for a company that owned and
    >>>> operated on land that had heavy industrial use for circa 200
    >>>> years, I fully appreciate the point. The plot had had various uses
    >>>> over various parts. We needed to ensure that the contractors
    >>>> employed to investigate the ground conditions were suitably
    >>>> protected. The operation of the site had not been behind "closed
    >>>> walls" and was open for all to see ofr many years.
    >>>>
    >>>> Once we had guys in there with full protection gear on, the press
    >>>> had a field day, so I do understand that thought.
    >>>
    >>> The point was that BP use using mutually exclusive excuses in both
    >>> cases i.e the site was hazardous and no one without proper gear was
    >>> permitted but but but paid workers with access where not provided
    >>> with proper gear as unnecessary.

    >>
    >> Is that a fact, or just your assumption, NotMe?
    >> Buffalo

    >
    > Fact, if I'm to take the word of my extended family some of whom
    > worked in the clean up and others who work for the local media.
    >
    > Might also interest you to know that many of those Katrina temp
    > houses (the ones that had excessive levels of formaldehyde) are now
    > being used to house clean up workers and in a few cases their
    > families. (I doubt if BP has any direct link to these but no doubt BP
    > will get hammered for the use regardless)
    >
    > FWIW we picked up two of these to use for hunting/fishing camps and
    > despite extensive 'airing' they still not safe due to off gassing of
    > formaldehyde.


    Sounds a lot like personal opinions and not facts, regarding the hazardous
    of the oil spill situation.

    Thanks for the reply.
    Buffalo
    Buffalo, Jul 8, 2010
    #8
  9. Buffalo

    chuckcar Guest

    "NotMe" <> wrote in
    news:i13p2u$bp4$-september.org:

    > Fact, if I'm to take the word of my extended family some of whom
    > worked in the clean up and others who work for the local media.
    >
    > Might also interest you to know that many of those Katrina temp houses
    > (the ones that had excessive levels of formaldehyde) are now being
    > used to house clean up workers and in a few cases their families. (I
    > doubt if BP has any direct link to these but no doubt BP will get
    > hammered for the use regardless)
    >
    > FWIW we picked up two of these to use for hunting/fishing camps and
    > despite extensive 'airing' they still not safe due to off gassing of
    > formaldehyde.
    >
    >

    Urea foam insulation perhaps?


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jul 9, 2010
    #9
  10. Buffalo

    NotMe Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DAFD64F0A5BCchuck@127.0.0.1...
    > "NotMe" <> wrote in
    > news:i13p2u$bp4$-september.org:
    >
    >> Fact, if I'm to take the word of my extended family some of whom
    >> worked in the clean up and others who work for the local media.
    >>
    >> Might also interest you to know that many of those Katrina temp houses
    >> (the ones that had excessive levels of formaldehyde) are now being
    >> used to house clean up workers and in a few cases their families. (I
    >> doubt if BP has any direct link to these but no doubt BP will get
    >> hammered for the use regardless)
    >>
    >> FWIW we picked up two of these to use for hunting/fishing camps and
    >> despite extensive 'airing' they still not safe due to off gassing of
    >> formaldehyde.
    >>
    >>

    > Urea foam insulation perhaps?


    Perhaps but the entire construction is obviously heavy on formaldehyde based
    adhesives. I'm guessing but since everybody and their brother got into the
    business of building these things and most had zero real world experience in
    the process it's likely if a little bit works a LOT works much better.

    The two we have have been placed on site with continuous power ventilation
    and still the levels are too much for anyone to be in the unit for more than
    one or two hours at a time due to headaches.
    NotMe, Jul 9, 2010
    #10
  11. Buffalo

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2010-07-09, NotMe <> wrote:
    [...]

    > Perhaps but the entire construction is obviously heavy on formaldehyde based
    > adhesives. I'm guessing but since everybody and their brother got into the
    > business of building these things and most had zero real world experience in
    > the process it's likely if a little bit works a LOT works much better.
    >
    > The two we have have been placed on site with continuous power ventilation
    > and still the levels are too much for anyone to be in the unit for more than
    > one or two hours at a time due to headaches.


    Sounds like a side-effect of not enough regulation of materials used in
    housing construction. Or someone ignoring the regulations.

    MDF is one of the biggest sources of formaldehyde in houses. Covering it
    with (formaldehyde-free) PU varnish is one suggestion for reducing the
    problem <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html>.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
    Whiskers, Jul 9, 2010
    #11
  12. Buffalo

    NotMe Guest

    "Whiskers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2010-07-09, NotMe <> wrote:
    > [...]
    >
    >> Perhaps but the entire construction is obviously heavy on formaldehyde
    >> based
    >> adhesives. I'm guessing but since everybody and their brother got into
    >> the
    >> business of building these things and most had zero real world experience
    >> in
    >> the process it's likely if a little bit works a LOT works much better.
    >>
    >> The two we have have been placed on site with continuous power
    >> ventilation
    >> and still the levels are too much for anyone to be in the unit for more
    >> than
    >> one or two hours at a time due to headaches.

    >
    > Sounds like a side-effect of not enough regulation of materials used in
    > housing construction. Or someone ignoring the regulations.
    >
    > MDF is one of the biggest sources of formaldehyde in houses. Covering it
    > with (formaldehyde-free) PU varnish is one suggestion for reducing the
    > problem <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html>.
    >
    > --
    > -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    > -- Whiskers
    > -- ~~~~~~~~~~
    NotMe, Jul 9, 2010
    #12
  13. Buffalo

    NotMe Guest

    "Whiskers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2010-07-09, NotMe <> wrote:
    > [...]
    >
    >> Perhaps but the entire construction is obviously heavy on formaldehyde
    >> based
    >> adhesives. I'm guessing but since everybody and their brother got into
    >> the
    >> business of building these things and most had zero real world experience
    >> in
    >> the process it's likely if a little bit works a LOT works much better.
    >>
    >> The two we have have been placed on site with continuous power
    >> ventilation
    >> and still the levels are too much for anyone to be in the unit for more
    >> than
    >> one or two hours at a time due to headaches.

    >
    > Sounds like a side-effect of not enough regulation of materials used in
    > housing construction. Or someone ignoring the regulations.
    >
    > MDF is one of the biggest sources of formaldehyde in houses. Covering it
    > with (formaldehyde-free) PU varnish is one suggestion for reducing the
    > problem <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html>.


    Interesting information but of little use in this case as we'd have to
    virtually disassemble the units to effect a fix.

    Right now the two are set up for 'extra' housing/dead storage at existing
    hunting/fishing camps. The hope is at some point the off gassing will stop.
    If not then dead storage will be the dedicated use.
    NotMe, Jul 9, 2010
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark_ Brown

    Help please I suffer from an hypoxic brain injury rtc.

    Mark_ Brown, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    478
    Bill Schowengerdt
    Jul 28, 2003
  2. powerpc

    Re: insult to injury

    powerpc, Jul 7, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    369
    powerpc
    Jul 7, 2010
  3. OldGringo38

    Re: insult to injury

    OldGringo38, Jul 7, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    OldGringo38
    Jul 7, 2010
  4. TheStoneCrusher

    Re: insult to injury

    TheStoneCrusher, Jul 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    403
    TheStoneCrusher
    Jul 8, 2010
  5. TheStoneCrusher

    Re: insult to injury

    TheStoneCrusher, Jul 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    joevan
    Jul 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page