Patterico's Pontifications

4/24/2014

The High Cost of Energy

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:34 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Untitled-1

Last month, in a bit of horrific news, it was revealed that aborted and miscarried babies were being incinerated as clinical waste to heat hospitals in the United Kingdom. The public outcry prompted officials to review their code of ethics and make sure hospital personnel were properly trained in presenting disposal options to parents.

This week, Oregon found itself in a similar position.

The British Columbia Health Ministry confirmed that biomedical waste is shipped to the U.S. for destruction. Such waste includes “human tissue, such as surgically removed cancerous tissue, amputated limbs, and fetal tissue.”

The biomedical waste is believed to be incinerated at Oregon’s Covanta Marion waste-to-energy facility where 800 tons of medical waste is burned yearly to produce energy. This is the only facility that uses waste to power the grid.

Today, county commissioners approved a move to halt the waste company from receiving fetal tissue to burn. County commissioners claim they were unaware of the practice.

According to commissioner Sam Brentano, the county ordinance that sets the parameters for what can be accepted at the waste-to-energy plant allows for all human tissue.

“No rule or law has been broken, but there’s an ethical standard that’s been broken.

Brentano added,

The county plans to rewrite its ordinance to spell out that no tissue from fetuses can enter the incinerator, and the providers will have to develop a workable system.

Of course, if this medical waste was once just a lentil-sized, brainless embryo or a mindless pre-person, presumably without a soul, what difference does incinerating them make? After all, they would have only grown up to be time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness anyway.

The idea that miscarried and aborted babies could be incinerated to produce energy is mind-boggling. But for those who believe that these were nothing but soulless blobs of tissue and blood, this is not a problem. And some of those people not only have no qualms about this, they might even see it as a unique way to produce energy. Do the math: with the number of abortions performed in the United States alone and approximately 800 tons of “medical waste” burned in a year at just one plant, it might be a lucrative enterprise.

At the end of the day, the hard-edged coldness of this life is wearying. And unfortunately, in this multi-layered sadness we see the most defenseless among us not only prevented from taking their very first breaths, but to our collective shame, they are met with just as much callous disregard in the aftermath. They are no different than an amputated toe. It represents who we are and what we have become. Who we will be remains to be seen.

*Preemptive strike: A baby resulting from rape is not discussed in the post or in the articles.

**Preemptive strike: I believe parents who lose through miscarriage should be given options for disposal of remains and their wishes followed. I think that aborted remains should be treated with the respect they were not accorded in life and be turned over to churches and groups who will bury them in the ground, loving them on the last part of their very limited journey on this earth.

–Dana

55 Responses to “The High Cost of Energy”

  1. I believe parents who lose wee small babies through abortion should be given options for disposal of remains and their wishes followed*

    *an extra fee may apply in some cases

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  2. Hey, we can’t let aborted babies go to waste.

    Here’s a thought; we can turn them into nutritional rations for the poor.

    We’ll call it Soylent Green.

    Steve57 (013200)

  3. obamanomics is much less kind to children than rape and abortion and public school teachers put together times a thousand

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  4. just Damn….

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  5. Hey, will this facility accept dead adults too? People donate their bodies for science; maybe they should be allowed to donate them for conservation too! Save the cost of a cremation, get paid instead!

    Milhouse (b95258)

  6. so are all you guys coming over?

    I made toast

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  7. Protoplasm is protoplasm.

    If the safest way to dispose of unwanted protoplasm is to incinerate it, what is the issue?

    If protoplasm has some special standing, what gives it said standing? What is that standing?

    I become infuriated when we (society generally, not this forum) refuse to look at the obvious implications when we decide to, in this case literally, split the baby when deciding the morality we will honor.

    Given how deeply evil has rooted itself in our republic, this particular case veritably demands that HRC be heard. “WHAT DOES IT MATTER?”

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  8. Of course, if this medical waste was once just a lentil-sized, brainless embryo or a mindless pre-person, presumably without a soul, what difference does incinerating them make? After all, they would have only grown up to be time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness anyway.

    Exactly. The hardcore abortion supporters will be honest enough to take the position that hey, this is just a lifeless mass of tissue and who cares where it ends up. The interesting people to talk to are those who give you the old, “Well, I myself would never have an abortion, but I think it needs to remain legal” argument. Since the pro-life crowd is always forced to reconcile opposition to abortion with cases of rape and incest, the pro-choice crowd should be forced to reconcile support of legal abortion with this method of disposal. If abortion is “just another occasionally necessary medical procedure” then what’s the harm in disposing of the remnants this way, eh pro-choicers?

    JVW (9946b6)

  9. OK, Ed from SFV said it better than I did.

    JVW (9946b6)

  10. But for those who believe that these were nothing but soulless blobs of tissue and blood, this is not a problem. And some of those people not only have no qualms about this, they might even see it as a unique way to produce energy.

    It is a misconception that because people like me do not accept that we have a soul, that we cannot assign value to human life. Of course we have value. We imbue our own lives with value. Just because nobody will remember me in 10000 years doesn’t mean anything I do now is pointless. Of course it isn’t. It matters to me, it matters to my children, it matters to those around me and to future generations. I want to do good for the sake of doing good. Isn’t this enough motivation?

    Oh and yes, the thought of burning fetuses for energy is revolting. But is regular cremation that much worse? I presume that most people here are ok with cadavers going to medical research as that helps humans in the long run. I think generating energy also helps humans. Options should definitely be given to parents for this kind of disposal. I don’t think it matters whether miscarried or aborted.

    Ok my helmet is strapped on fire away.

    Gil (27c98f)

  11. Pale Blue Dot

    A nice video above (4 minutes). I should think that the ideas expressed inside can be every bit as awe inspiring (or more) as anything in religion.

    Gil (27c98f)

  12. Gil, that aborted child didn’t choose to power up somebody’s home theater system any more than they chose, well, to be aborted. I think that’s what a lot of us have trouble with.

    JVW (9946b6)

  13. Comment by Steve57 (013200) — 4/24/2014 @ 9:59 pm

    My first thought in reading this was: Soylent Btu’s.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  14. 13.Gil, that aborted child didn’t choose to power up somebody’s home theater system any more than they chose, well, to be aborted. I think that’s what a lot of us have trouble with.

    Yes, I understand. Same could be said about the miscarried baby. So I think the distinction in the OP is not a good one.

    Gil (27c98f)

  15. In the interest of Full Disclosure:

    I was managing a nabe walk-in (1st run) when Soylent Green was released.
    To say the reception to the movie was “interesting” would be kind.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  16. Yes, I understand. Same could be said about the miscarried baby. So I think the distinction in the OP is not a good one.

    I know couples who have had miscarriages and dispose of the child in a respectful and thoughtful manner, consistent with how one treats a deceased loved one. I don’t think the same can often be said of abortion.

    JVW (9946b6)

  17. The idea that miscarried and aborted babies could be incinerated to produce energy is mind-boggling.

    But logically follows if that is to be considered medical waste, and medical waste is most safely disposed of by burning, and organic garbage that is burned should be used to produce energy, and not wasted.

    I’m not sure what is logically wrong with this, and why it should bother them.

    It’s not like organ transplants, where there might be some kind of a strong incentive for medical practitioners to reach a certain outcome in order to achieve another purpose.

    Surely no one is aborting any fetus in order to have just a little bit more energy!!

    So it’s probably like cannabalism – I don’t think they can articulate a reason to oppose it. AND THEY’RE NOT DOING THAT NOW.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  18. Well, it IS “green” in a rather macabre way. So is this their ultimate contribution to mankind? A few watts for someone elses can opener?

    I mean, technically, yes, this is medical waste, and the best way of dealing with it is by incineration. But isn’t there a better way of handling the disposal of a fetus rather than using it for a “trash-to-energy” project?

    I don’t, can’t claim to have an answer. I just find myself a little squeamish at the idea. Must have something to do with some of the history I’ve read.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  19. 18. …So it’s probably like cannabalism – I don’t think they can articulate a reason to oppose it. AND THEY’RE NOT DOING THAT NOW.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be) — 4/25/2014 @ 1:09 am

    Give ‘em time, Sammy. Give ‘em time.

    Steve57 (013200)

  20. 19. …I mean, technically, yes, this is medical waste, and the best way of dealing with it is by incineration. But isn’t there a better way of handling the disposal of a fetus rather than using it for a “trash-to-energy” project?

    Comment by Bill H (f9e4cd) — 4/25/2014 @ 1:40 am

    No. You see, once you decide that an unborn child is not a human being then you’re committed to carrying that principle out to it’s logical conclusions. No matter where the various tentacles of that principle (I know I’m abusing the term) leads.

    This is why the media outside of Philly (and maybe the even inside Philly; I’m sure the good doctor can fill us in) didn’t cover the Gosnell case. Because if it’s not a human being, then what does it really matter if you cut it’s spinal cord or scramble its brains while the head is still inside the woman or if you slip (Gosnell despite his decades of practice apparently wasn’t very skilled) and do it once its fully delivered? Apparently Gosnell isn’t much an outlier.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14987-planned-parenthood-rep-gives-chilling-testimony-on-post-birth-abortion

    Some legislators were shocked at what appeared to be an admission that Planned Parenthood is okay with allowing babies born alive during an abortion to be deprived of life-saving medical care. Fox News reported that one of the lawmakers tried to pin Snow down on the abortion giant’s position regarding a baby born alive while an abortionist was attempting to end his or her life. “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” Snow reiterated from her talking points — making it appear that Planned Parenthood’s position is that an abortionist hasn’t completed his mission until a baby dies, inside or outside the womb.

    You really need to watch the video. The very first question from a FL legislator is to ask what does Planned Parenthood think should be done if a baby is born alive as a result of a botched abortion. Also known in abortion circles as a “complication.”

    And the spokeswoman says any decision should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician. The law should butt out, I gather, since she’s there to protest a law that would require these people to treat a living breathing baby outside the womb as a human being. Which is what that child is.

    So Gosnell wasn’t really an outlier. That’s their dirty little secret.

    And yes, a dead “fetus” is the goal of an abortion. But note that the press when it does deign to discuss what it is when we’re discussing this sort of complication insists on calling it a fetus. No matter if it is inside or outside the woman’s body.

    http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/17/when-is-a-baby-not-a-baby/

    We can see this when we discuss late term abortions. According to Wendy Davis, the Dem’s disintegrating candidate for governor here in Texas, it’s a woman’s right to have an abortion right up to moments before birth. Any protests from us right wingers and we’re accused of “War on Women!”

    I’ve always wondered what kind of medical or psychological condition requires not only terminating the pregnancy but killing the baby? That’s the thing. Once the “fetus” reaches viability you can terminate the pregnancy. And place the “fetus” in an incubator. Which is exactly what happens in Catholic hospitals. Except this time, when a nun excommunicated herself in Arizona.

    http://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=36604

    I’ve always wondered about that “life and health” thingy that makes late term abortions necessary. If the woman’s life and health is hanging by a thread, what’s she doing at an abortion clinic that has no real medical facilities instead of a hospital. But more importantly, what “life and health” condition requires that baby be killed deader than dead? You’ve got the baby almost all the way out, why scramble its brains? Just pull it out the rest of the way. Does the woman have some sort of psychological condition that requires her to believe it’s dead. Well then pass the kid to a nurse really quick and tell her it’s dead. Then call the cops so she can be locked up, because she’s a psycho and she’s dangerous.

    But no, to people who do these sorts of things for a living it’s just perfectly natural to comply with her wishes and kill the kid. Which is as far as I’m concerned just distilled evil.

    So, you see, if that’s your position then yes it’s just trash and might as well be converted to energy. But even when that option isn’t available, it still must be treated as trash. Which is why Barack Obama opposed Illinois’ Born Alive Act. Despite all his discredited lies, he’s a soulless ghoul who’d rather the “fetus” be put in a utility closet with the trash to die than to acknowledge it’s humanity and threaten his precious unholy sacrament of abortion. What Nancy calls, “Sacred ground.”

    So, no, there isn’t a better way to handle it as far as they’re concerned.

    Steve57 (013200)

  21. Let’s combine terms and call it Soylent Green Energy.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  22. 19. Comment by Bill H (f9e4cd) — 4/25/2014 @ 1:40 am

    technically, yes, this is medical waste, and the best way of dealing with it is by incineration.

    And the best thing to do with something you incinerate is to use the heat to generate electricity.

    So, this was inevitable unless somebody thought ahead and prevented it. It happened, separately, in Great Britain and it happened in British Columbia.

    The problem is, of course, considering aborted or miscaried foetuses mere medical waste. That probably doesn’t happen in the United States, because of the strng anti-abortion movement.

    But isn’t there a better way of handling the disposal of a fetus rather than using it for a “trash-to-energy” project?

    I don’t, can’t claim to have an answer. I just find myself a little squeamish at the idea.

    It’s called moral dumbfounding,

    Must have something to do with some of the history I’ve read.

    The Nazis actually never thought of this idea, although they did think of the idea of making soap. (it didn’t work. Separately in one place the initials RIF were explained that way.)

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  23. “Soylent Green Energy is People.”

    That’s our motto in Oregon.

    Steve57 (013200)

  24. 21. Comment by Steve57 (013200) — 4/25/2014 @ 2:21 am

    Which is why Barack Obama opposed Illinois’ Born Alive Act. Despite all his discredited lies, he’s a soulless ghoul who’d rather the “fetus” be put in a utility closet with the trash to die than to acknowledge its humanity and threaten his precious unholy sacrament of abortion.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that he is (almost) a soulless ghoul who would let politics determine his moral principles, and his religion * and whom he would marry. He never cared either with whom he associated with.

    * When the choice he makes is considered morally respectable in his circles.

    And he doesn’t seem to care very much whether the arguments he makes are true or not.

    That is not to say he doesn’t have some kind of moral principles that, at least if convenient, or if its politics is a close question, he would prefer to act upon, or that there are not some situations so grave that he would never do it, or that in fact he tries to limit his bad deeds to only what will bring him political advantage.

    He did and does have some limits when it comes to false political attacks, and in Chicago, although he was friends with the worst people, he tried to make people into non-enemies. That, of course, also helped him politically.

    Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be)

  25. Is this story getting more coverage than Gosnell?

    Basically, the battle of ideas was won by the pro-lifers, so now we see the legal battles continue as much as ever but quietly, in the background. Pro-lifers must be silenced and their religious rights stripped away. Because the babies must die no matter what.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  26. Hey, will this facility accept dead adults too? People donate their bodies for science; maybe they should be allowed to donate them for conservation too! Save the cost of a cremation, get paid instead!

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 4/24/2014 @ 10:31 pm

    I’ve looked into it. Remember Patterico’s recent monopoly posts, Tesla etc? Well, undertakers have the same lock on dead bodies. If you want your body transported from the place where you were pronounced dead to the medical school you have donated it to, it’s got to be done by an undertaker and right now the fee is $1,500.00 in Chicago. It’s been going on for a long time, too. That’s a business everybody would want to go into, but they can’t because the licenses are so limited that it’s basically father to son.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. I don’t have a big issue with this. It’s distasteful but compared to the enormity of abortion it’s a pinprick on the conscience? Should there be a separate incinerator for human remains? If it’ll make some people feel better about the whole thing, why not? We have pet cemetaries so ….

    nk (dbc370)

  28. ==The British Columbia Health Ministry confirmed that biomedical waste is shipped to the U.S. for destruction. Such waste includes “human tissue, such as surgically removed cancerous tissue, amputated limbs, and fetal tissue.”==

    Um, my question is even more basic. Why are we importing discarded medical waste from British Columbia?

    elissa (9e7de1)

  29. The husband of an acquaintance had an illness that is both rare and non-treatable. When, mercifully, he passed away over the winter she and the adult children donated his body to science, as were his wishes, for the specific study of that disease. service. The medical research facility did what they needed to do for their research and within the last few weeks she received the cremated remains back for family burial/dispersal.

    elissa (9e7de1)

  30. 28. Plainly, the crucial locus of concern here, is the soul of this ‘society’.

    Infanticide has been supported by Ogabe in the IL Legislature on at least two occasions.

    PETA is a ruthless euthanizer of pets coming into its guardianship.

    The NYPD, and LAPD are routinely taking down the innocent in pursuit of perps, and the blowback is inconsequential.

    The VA Hospital network is a Death Panel template non pariel.

    We put our military personnel in the midst warring tribal factions and take their bullets away.

    The ‘Law’ and its enforcement in our Amerikkka is immoral and insufferable.

    Get accustomed to that actuality.

    The boon in all this ‘Will to Power’ is that naught opposes the wholesale slaughter in our future. Malthus will not be mocked.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  31. On the topic of financial cost:

    Goldman Sachs has just revised lower, for the 3rd or 4th time, 2014 US GDP to 1%, i.e., lower than core inflation.

    Note again this AM the USD is falling against a basket of currencies.

    This is called Recession by any but the Ministry of Truth.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  32. I came here to make a Soylent Green reference. Gratified to see that was unnecessary.

    Pious Agnostic (7eb3b0)

  33. With the publicity, and given that this is in the Northwest, the Mormons will probably volunteer to take all of these fetuses, baptize them post-mortem and then bury them. Problem solved.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  34. Soylent Green Energy is classic.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  35. I guess from a purely technical standpoint, the idea of incinerating human tissue and converting it into energy is, well, an efficient way of “killing two birds with one stone.”

    That notwithstanding, a very telling sign of just how corrupt public sentiment is becoming is to notice all the humans out there who approach the issue of the way animals are treated — how Fido or Kitty are cared for — with a lot more goopy, teary-eyed sentiment than the way fetuses are dealt with. And, at the same time, many, if not most, of such people perceiving themselves to be very humane, compassionate souls.

    BTW, the ultimate paradigm of that phenomenon is best represented by Adolph Hitler and his gang, who were big animal-rights aficionados.

    Mark (59e5be)

  36. Government is on a cost cutting pogrom.

    Kill the babies. This reduces the growth of entitlement outlays.

    Let the codgers die. This reduces the growth of entitlement outlays.

    Close the schools. You know the reason.

    Empty the prisons. Ditto.

    Open the borders. Hispanic on Latino crime has not exterminated the Puerto Ricans yet.

    Nuclear winter brings utopia from undisclosed bunkers.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  37. Basically, the battle of ideas was won by the pro-lifers, so now we see the legal battles continue as much as ever but quietly, in the background. Pro-lifers must be silenced and their religious rights stripped away. Because the babies must die no matter what.

    That’s a great point. I’ll bet 20 years ago a huge chunk of my pro-choice friends would have said that abortion isn’t a big deal, that it’s a lifeless lump of cells in the mother’s womb, and that there are no moral qualms with ending that pregnancy. Today I still have friends who think this way, but I notice that more and more they are starting to treat abortion as a necessary evil rather than just another medical procedure like tonsil removal. How often do we hear, “Well, I would never have an abortion myself, but I think it should be legal for women who really need it”? Even the young woman who chimed in on one of the threads a week or so back to ask why us right-wing white males wouldn’t allow rape victims to have abortions was really quick to assure us that she didn’t believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. It’s clear, as you say, that the pro-life side has in fact won the battle of ideas, and that’s why pro-choice radicals are so angry and shrill these days.

    JVW (9946b6)

  38. I’ve been reading here for years, never commenting. But, Steve57′s words at #21 above may be the best comment I’ve ever read here. And that is saying a lot.

    RP (4e10c9)

  39. On the connect with ‘cost’, Friday meltup in the markets is delayed.

    Russia selling its Treasuries should make them more attractive and hurt equities all the more.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  40. No. You see, once you decide that an unborn child is not a human being then you’re committed to carrying that principle out to it’s logical conclusions. No matter where the various tentacles of that principle (I know I’m abusing the term) leads.

    I hadn’t made that decision or that argument. We live in a society that, personally I feel far too readily looks at abortion as a method of birth control. I was looking at Dana’s original post a bit more narrowly, perhaps too narrowly, at the immediate question.

    And the best thing to do with something you incinerate is to use the heat to generate electricity.

    You seem to be rather comfortable with the idea, Sammy. You’ve made that point a couple of times, now. Am I wrong? Do I have you misread?

    The Nazis actually never thought of this idea, although they did think of the idea of making soap. (it didn’t work. Separately in one place the initials RIF were explained that way.)

    I was trying not to go Godwin, looks like I failed. Being past-masters at incinerating humans after execution for the crime of being ‘other’ and forcibly aborting the “unwanted”, I don’t think the idea was too far from their minds.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  41. Oh Carlitos, here’s why “You’re a great American” makes me violently ill.

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/04/hannitys-old-house-is-for-sale.html

    Hearing that Rupert Murdoch “Could live with” Hilarity as POTUS undercuts his position in the Free Press, it’s not free.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  42. Are dead babies a fossil fuel?

    Asking for an ecotard friend.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  43. Only after several million years.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  44. http://spectator.org/blog/58872/update-yesterdays-baby-incineration-story

    The story also links to:

    http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1060_e.pdf

    where it says (page 17) that human anatomical wastye cannot be piut into a landfill or into a swer, but can or must be incinerated – but new technology requires regulatory approval, which is maybe why they sent it to the United States, Canadian environmental laws evidently being tougher..

    It also quotes it as saying – but I can’t search for it:

    Human anatomical waste, consisting of human tissues, organs, and body parts, but excluding teeth, hair, and nails, must be incinerated in a biomedical waste incinerator or destroyed in a crematorium incinerator.

    Note: For religious or ethical reasons, human anatomical waste consisting of organs or body parts may in some cases be buried with human remains in a cemetery.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  45. Comment by Bill H (f9e4cd) — 4/25/2014 @ 11:11 am

    Being past-masters at incinerating humans after execution for the crime of being ‘other’ and forcibly aborting the “unwanted”, I don’t think the idea was too far from their minds.

    It’s using waste to generate electricity that they didn’t think of. That came well after their time, and it would have required someone to design it. This idea only became popular many years later.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  46. Do the math: with the number of abortions performed in the United States

    Sir. You do the math. In fact, you do the thermodynamic math. Do you seriously believe that the burning of a body (any mammal, say a fetus or a dog or cat or a dead senior citizen) is a net positive in energy? Who would believe a fable like that?

    In fact, the burning of a body is a net energy negative. It requires that more energy be put in than is released.

    Burning fetuses does not produce usable heat. Burning fetuses requires a net energy input from outside.

    Paul A'Barge (6851c2)

  47. It’s using waste to generate electricity that they didn’t think of. That came well after their time, and it would have required someone to design it. This idea only became popular many years later.

    I guess I didn’t misread you.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  48. Are dead babies a fossil fuel?

    You are burning carbon, and not a very pure form of carbon. There are ALL KINDS of chemicals that result from burning babies.

    Kevin M (b11279)

  49. “Burning fetuses does not produce usable heat. Burning fetuses requires a net energy input from outside.”

    Paul A’Barge – Being a renewable fuel, there are probably some nifty tax credits available for doing it.

    Maybe Planned Parenthood has a stake in the utility. You never know.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  50. This is the sickest, most disgusting news ever. At what point does living a decent and spiritual life start making sense to people ? Is everything acceptable now ? What’s next for Godless self centered and undisciplined America ? Lampshades from aborted fetuses ? Is that what it finally takes for people to grow up, wake up ?

    The crooked politicians are just a symptom of the real disease in this country. Hopeless.

    dc (685527)

  51. Part 1 in reference to Gosnell- yes, I think he is better known in Philly than elsewhere. it could not not be covered here, but other people nationally can dismiss it as a “local story” and ignore it (like it was a local story in NJ for Coptic Christians to be beheaded by a Muslim friend”).
    There are some people trying to crowd-fund a movie on Gosnell, perhaps the website is something like “gosnellthemovie” if one wants to contribute.
    We also know here in Philly that it was Repub pro-choice Gov. Ridge that first made the policy of ignoring any inspection of abortion facilities.
    Part 2- I think the issue has to do with the attempt to legitimize a wrong by “finding a good use for it”. It is not surprising to me that aborted babies would be deemed “medical waste” and be treated as such.
    Part 3- I too am wondering how there would be net positive energy from burning a body that first needs to have the water driven out, as just a technical issue.
    Maybe a facility uses some carbon based fuel to make a fire (natural gas?) to incinerate “medical waste”, and then some of the energy of the heat is recaptured in making electricity, to diminish the overall cost of operating the facility.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  52. 50. Are dead babies a fossil fuel?

    You are burning carbon, and not a very pure form of carbon. There are ALL KINDS of chemicals that result from burning babies.

    Comment by Kevin M (b11279) — 4/25/2014 @ 4:20 pm

    But the burning question is, was Kali aware of the chemicals that would be emitted as a result of the incineration?

    You could buy a Dodge Avenger. Or you could buy a California version Dodge Avenger.

    What’s the difference?

    The Kali version comes with Prop 65 stickers everywhere.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZfO4EcgunhA/TAz1_yN9BcI/AAAAAAAAFfM/mbZn_K0v7MU/s1600/prop_65.jpg

    How cool is that?

    Again, where all the different kinds of chemicals that were going to be released into the atmosphere known to the state of Kali? If not, you may have had the wrong sticker or something.

    Steve57 (525198)

  53. Steve57 – I think it was Oregon, not Kali, but who cares.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2370 secs.