UnfairAd7220

UnfairAd7220 t1_je63919 wrote

Go to the Merrimack Water District website. They explain what they're doing in good detail. They've been cycling activated carbon washing for a couple years now.
Last year, they ran a warrant to expand that capacity.

The water is lime softened and a little 'chloriny' to my taste, but it's perfectly safe...

1

UnfairAd7220 t1_je61ph7 wrote

Its a solvent based stitchery sealant that is evaporated and exhausted via air stack.

If you have teflon coated pots or pans, scotch guarded furniture or have ever seal a tent seam, you've dealt with those chemicals in high concentration.

The St Gobain operation made massive tents and tent like panels for places like the Denver International Airport and the structures around Mecca during the Saudi large pilgrimage periods.

None is 'dumped on the ground.'

1

UnfairAd7220 t1_jd9wth0 wrote

Fill 20 pound propane tanks? Go to the local dump, pick up half a dozen timed out empty tanks, lay your hundo on its side, on a table, preferably, and get one of those fill fittings for the 20 pounders.

Saying all that, I have NO Idea if that could work. The propane tank that fills those 20 pounders has a pump that physically moves the propane. I suspect that gravity could work...

2

UnfairAd7220 t1_jcc27rt wrote

I heard about them a couple years back and was hoping to, eventually, get a plant visit, just because I'm a technical geek and I serve on my town's energy commission.

The process would seem to be very clean. I'm wondering if those 'rule violations' are paperwork compliance mandates?

Of course they're necessary, but it doesn't damage the value of the process.

I've seen the WM waste sortation facility in Billerica and the sheer volume of baled #2 they get makes it a terrific source. They also have a #4 stream they simple get incinerated that could also go to Groveton. Might be a nice tie in. I'm sure WM would have the horsepower to clean up the paperwork violations.

'For example, she said, dioxin, a highly toxic carcinogen, is a well-known product of heating plastic waste material.

“I think toxic substances could be in the fuels that these folks are looking to sell, and dioxins could be unknowingly released in the burning of those fuels,” she said. '

That allegation is misleading and fear mongering. The material that will do what she fears uses #3 (PVC) plastics. They have nothing to do with #2 and #4 HDPE and LDPE.

I'm concerned that the CLF's fearmongering is steering the discussion.

0

UnfairAd7220 t1_jcbujz7 wrote

'Parental rights' isn't as meaningful as merely 'being the (actual) parents.'

Students go to school under in loco parentis, while they are in school, simply to be able to run organizations of that size.

At no point ARE the Districts the parents.

These problems arise when Districts want to co opt the definition of 'parent' for themselves.

Whether its books that could be construed as (pick one) salacious, age inappropriate, content inappropriate, etc, or things like 'oh. What we say here you don't have to tell your folks' or even having a child choose to identify differently at school than at home, those are all red lines that Districts shouldn't be NEAR, forget crossing.

Child welfare is the care of the parents. Society gets to weigh in when parents have crossed certain red lines.

I'm just saying there should be distinct areas of separation.

−9

UnfairAd7220 t1_jbi24tu wrote

'Students,' because they aren't the District's 'children,' have limited 1st amendment rights, no 2A rights and restricted 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights.
That's because the parents surrender the students to the District's care under 'in loco parentis.'

The Districts job never subsumes the parents' parental role. It's madness to assume that the District might.

Hence the legislation.

−1