Davin News Server

On 7/29/25 23:13, Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 7/29/25 17:20, pothead wrote:
>>> On 2025-07-29, chine.bleu <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> Same for solar panels which can be incorporated into the 
>>>>>>>> architecture so
>>>>>>>> less of an eyesore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because oil wells aren't just as unsightly?  While also being
>>>>>>> significantly worse environmentally too (how many abandoned wells 
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> uncapped & still polluting?)
>>>>>>>> Again, let the market decide.
>>>>>>> The Market already is; Texas is a good example in particular:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This year through June, solar and wind have generated 40.2% of the
>>>>>>> electricity demand in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 
>>>>>>> (ERCOT)
>>>>>>> grid region"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> California banned solar panels in coastal waters after electricity 
>>>>>> spill
>>>>>> off Santa Barbara fouled all the beaches.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-D    :-D    :-D
>>>>>       :-D   :-D
>>>>>           :-D :-D :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> Still better to be electrocuted than eaten by a shark!  :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> Another batshit-crazy Republican:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No boats were harmed making this post.
>>>
>>> Solar panels are highly toxic.
>>
>> So is chugging a quart of 10W-40.
> 
> Nobody does that. 

I knew a guy who chugged some home heating oil.

In any case, the point is that oil spills are so commonplace that we 
virtually ignore them and their environmental costs:  its not just the 
supertanker, but leaking oil wells, spills from car wrecks, oil leaks, 
lawnmowers, etc: they're all petro VOC's which we know are nasty.

> Some people, however, DO dump the waste products from
> manufacturing solar panels directly into the environment.

"Some".  So what's the biological difference between those compounds? 
I'd venture to say that petro is more ecologically mobile & more toxic.


-hh