For SUV haters, tree huggers and for c2105026

Toyota Sienna awd version V6 curb weight 4365 lb mpg 18/24

Toyota 4Runner V6 4290lb 17/20

www.edmunds.com

true, some huge sedans do weigh as much as some SUVs - a honda CRV weighs just as much as an accord. but, the accord is much more stable when emergency manouvering at highway speeds, and it has a lower bonnet line which makes for better protection for other road users, cyclists, pedestrians.

FYI despite what i may have posted i do NOT 'hate' SUVs. at times they can be quite useful. but people mostly buy them for all the wrong reasons.

nor am i tree hugger. if i were a tree hugger, i'd not drive a car at all. i merely have a concern for the environment.

Try driving in a foot of snow in your corolla. Here in CO it is 10 to 20 degrees during the day and -20 at night. Who's gonna burn more fuel? Me locked in 4wd not spinning my tires or you trying to keep up, because your trying to make your point. Watch over yourself and buy what you want, leave others alone. If most drivers were paying attention to the road and not what everyone else was doing or buying or talking on their cell phones, the highways and streets would be a safer place for us all.........

force=mass x acceleration, momentum = mass x velocity, energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared. (well, it was when i did first year university physics back in '01) in all cases for a given acceleration or speed, a vehicle that is 30% heavier will inflict 30% more damage either to itself or other things.

Yes - I sit corrected. I took my college physics back in '82. Graduated in '85 with an Engineering Degree (Chemical, not Mechanical). So I'm not an 18 year old anymore either. But, as you point out mass is a fixed quantity with each vehicle, while velocity (=speed) is variable. Limiting the weight will not limit the maximum forces as long as people travel at high speeds. A vehicle that is half the weight but traveling twice the speed has equal momentum with a vehicle twice the weight but half the speed. Also- these forces are added when two vehicle collide head on.

My point remains - that when accidents occur at high speed, injuries are usually excessive, and death is common. No vehicle (or the human body) can withstand very well the forces generated by decelerating instantly from 75 mph. (especially if you choose to head on an SUV while driving a Corolla, huh?).

what if that wall were a pedestrian? oncoming vehicle? a house with a family sleeping inside?

I understand your point a/b the mass of the SUV being deadly, and I agree. My point was that crashes involving other vehicles are also deadly. A pedestrian will lose in any case when struck by any automobile driven at highway speeds. Do you have data in OZ that more pedestrians are struck by SUV's than by other vehicles?

there is so much more to dangerous driving than just speed.

I agree - most accidents are caused by people driving with a rectal-cranial inversion. I did not intend to imply that I thought speed caused most accidents, I meant that speed causes most accidents to end badly.

 

I guess I don't understand why the ****umption is that the SUV drivers present more danger than other citizens just because of the curb weight of the vehicle they drive. There are18-wheelers out there carrying 40,000lb loads on US highways, anyone want to rant a/b truckers?

Peace out,

Costello

Try driving in a foot of snow in your corolla. Here in CO it is 10 to 20 degrees during the day and -20 at night. Who's gonna burn more fuel? Me locked in 4wd not spinning my tires or you trying to keep up, because your trying to make your point. Watch over yourself and buy what you want, leave others alone. If most drivers were paying attention to the road and not what everyone else was doing or buying or talking on their cell phones, the highways and streets would be a safer place for us all......... 

ok at no point have i said you shouldn't buy an SUV period. if you need it ( i guess snow driving counts if you are up north, alaska, minnesota, rocky mountains etc), please get it, an AWD vehicle in the snow is the only way to go. if i lived in the australian alps i'd probably buy a smaller SUV coz it snows all winter there. but if i forever lived on the coast i wouldn't for the reason of traction.

i know fatal crashes occur in normal cars, but if an SUV is involved in any accident, particularly involving another vehicle, damage to other things is worse. SUVs running about en mAsse brings an elevated risk, not an absolute 100% probability, of severe injury accidents. just like, say, doing 65 in a 60 zone, elevated risk that is all.

i appreciate the fact that if an SUV and a small car collide head-on a well-designed SUV will come off the better of the two. but much more damage is done to the smaller car. true, excessive speeding will kill, but for a given speed be it 30mph or 80mph if i'm driving a normal car at ANY speed i'm gunna want a passenger vehicle to hit me rather than an SUV (especially a larger one).

its not only the weight that is a problem, they way they are simply designed is another. a year ago i saw some crash test footage. it was from euroNCAP, studying the effects of SUVs in t-boner accidents. it was of a land rover freelander going into the side of a saab 900. the freelander, like all SUV's, has a high bonnet line.

what i mean by that is the bonnet on a normal car at the front end comes up to halfway up my thighs, in an SUV the bonnet may come up to my lower chest (where bonnet meets the grille).

anyway the saab dummy's head hit the crumpling freelander's bonnet and registered near-fatal injury loadings in the head. 2 saab 900s were then tboned into each other. the dummy that suffered the side impact registered little more than a headache (its head hit nothing).

in a head on between two, say, corollas, both cars would crumple up as they were designed. but the added height of an SUV means if a smaller car had a head-on with an SUV instead of the loading going through the whole of the SUV's shell the load would be transmitted thru the ladder frame. since that is rigid, the smaller vehicle is destroyed - energy has to be dissapated somehow.

SUV's don't cause accidents, nor do they garrantee deaths. SUVs merely create an elevated risk of injury occurring, for a given speed, conditions, circumstances etc. its an elevated risk that thru buying one for the wrong reasons is avoidable.

For SUV haters, tree huggers and for c2105026

Toyota Sienna awd version V6 curb weight 4365 lb mpg 18/24

Toyota 4Runner V6 4290lb 17/20

www.edmunds.com

Sienna = unit body construction (soft), low center of mass, lower bumpers, better handling, better brakes, and typically driven by conservative drivers.

 

4-Runner - rigid, Steel ladder construction that does not absorb vey much energy in an accident. The bumpers are high up and cause more damage ot passenger cars... especially in a laterial impact, and are more often driven by aggressive drivers... yet handles and stops less precisely.

In all accidents, the Sienna oppcupant will suffer less injury and so will the occupants of the opposing vehicle because it collapses on itself and absorbs more energy.

Open up the hood on your Corolla and look closely and how it is constructed. The engine mounts will break away and cause the engine ot fall downward towards the road. chAssis has a telescoping structure that will collapse, yet the structure at the A-pillar is very rigid.

The ONLY reason that SUV occupants do not suffer injury in many types of accidents is merely because they are so heavy and for no other reason. Yet if I had to drive into a concrete barrier at 30mph... such as during most freeway accidents (vector of a 45 degree impact at 70mph)... I'd hands down want to be in the Corolla. The Corolla would be completely destroyed but I'd walk most likely walk away. the SUV diver would be more likley ot suffer whip lash, internal injuries, and broken limbs all a result of the higher rate or de-acceleration.

Try driving in a foot of snow in your corolla. Here in CO it is 10 to 20 degrees during the day and -20 at night. Who's gonna burn more fuel? Me locked in 4wd not spinning my tires or you trying to keep up, because your trying to make your point.

Good for you, however the that situation represents less than 1% of SUV buyers that live in extreme climates without rapid snow removal.... probably more like 0.1%.

 

I've driven in the upper Midwest for over 8 years now and only remember 3 or 4 times that it snowed enough I couldn;t drive my car. However, within a few hours snow removal crews had the streets cleared. OS do I buy a SUVfor that 0.00001% of the time that I cannot use my car, or do I buy a car for the 99.9999 of the time that a car outperforms the SUV in all other conditions I regularly drive in.

I acually on dirt and in the snow roads find myself still driving faster than SUV's, yet I've only been in a ditch once in over 200k miles, but that was to avoid an accident when I car spun out in front of me.

I actaully enjoy driving in the snow when nobody is around.

it snows all winter over in europe, they don't need suvs. particularly countires like sweden, SUVs are unpopular due to their bulk etc.

even the most expensive and refined of 4wds (range rover, mercedes ML) still use outdated, rigid ladder chAssis. only the most expensive SUVs outperform a new corolla in crashtest. in affordable SUVs the cherokee for example got 70% where the new corolla got about 84% (euroncap). expensive SUVs (BMWs etc) equal their passenger car equivalent. and thats withou investigating the effects on other vehicles. so now there is data to validate cherry 128's claim. in lower price ranges there is a clear difference between normal cars and SUVs.

in pedestrian ratings, all SUVs struggle to make it past the first star. most passenger cars have 2 stars. (euroncap)

well put, cherry128.

SUV's don't cause accidents, nor do they garrantee deaths. SUVs merely create an elevated risk of injury occurring, for a given speed, conditions, circumstances etc. its an elevated risk that thru buying one for the wrong reasons is avoidable.

Right you are.

 

The elevated risk of driving recklessly or at excessive speed is avoidable also. In fact all highway accidental deaths are avoidable in theory. In the US, drunk driving is the second leading cause of accidental death. 17,000 killed per year in drunk driving accidents. And here people are more upset about freaking SUV's than drunk drivers. I'm not sure how lower that death number would be if SUV's did not exist - and quite frankly - its irrelevant.

I ****ure you, I don't want to be struck by anyone driving anything while I'm in my Corolla. Its too small, and too light. I drive it for the mileage, not because I have some warm fuzzy about it standing up well in a crash. All those head on shock absorbing designs are marvelous and may indeed save your life, if you are struck full head on at reasonable speed. The same crumple zones that may save your life also account for the huge repair costs incurred in low speed accidents.

I'd be curious how your T-bone test works when a Corolla is struck laterally by a Saab 900 at highway speed. I suspect it would be more than a headache for the occupant struck on that side (if you can extricate them from the wreckage).

Bottom line - SUV's are underutilized by most people, but they are a popular choice for many. The market demand so far has supported their manufacture. With the exception of a few very that are being discontinued (Ford Excursion I think).

Is anyone here saying that SUV manufacture should be banned, or their ownership restricted by some government agency with oversight which then determines who 'needs' an SUV and who does not, and then issues permits accordingly? That would be a great use for the taxpayer's money. Especially if they have the authority to decide who exactly needs to talk on a cell phone while driving.

For SUV haters, tree huggers and for c2105026

Toyota Sienna awd version V6 curb weight 4365 lb mpg 18/24

Toyota 4Runner V6 4290lb 17/20

www.edmunds.com

Sienna = unit body construction (soft), low center of mass, lower bumpers, better handling, better brakes, and typically driven by conservative drivers.

 

4-Runner - rigid, Steel ladder construction that does not absorb vey much energy in an accident. The bumpers are high up and cause more damage ot passenger cars... especially in a laterial impact, and are more often driven by aggressive drivers... yet handles and stops less precisely.

In all accidents, the Sienna oppcupant will suffer less injury and so will the occupants of the opposing vehicle because it collapses on itself and absorbs more energy.

Open up the hood on your Corolla and look closely and how it is constructed. The engine mounts will break away and cause the engine ot fall downward towards the road. chAssis has a telescoping structure that will collapse, yet the structure at the A-pillar is very rigid.

The ONLY reason that SUV occupants do not suffer injury in many types of accidents is merely because they are so heavy and for no other reason. Yet if I had to drive into a concrete barrier at 30mph... such as during most freeway accidents (vector of a 45 degree impact at 70mph)... I'd hands down want to be in the Corolla. The Corolla would be completely destroyed but I'd walk most likely walk away. the SUV diver would be more likley ot suffer whip lash, internal injuries, and broken limbs all a result of the higher rate or de-acceleration.

The point of this thread was that SUV waste fuel and kill more people in crashes cause of the weight.

 

If you want to ban SUV bsed on above, you should consider minivans, tracks, etc.

Hi All:

___I have never seen such badmouthing by Corolla owners and this thread so full of it in many cases it makes my skin crawl … No offense to the many Corolla owners calming the zealots in this thread …

___I am an 03 Corolla LE w/ Auto owner as well as a proud owner of an 03 Acura MDX, 03 Ford Ranger, and a 2000 Honda Insight.

___With the above, let’s consider the emissions (pollution) of our beloved Corolla’s. First off, many in this forum do not drive their Corolla’s to maximize mileage/lower pollution in the least? Take a look at the mileage thread from a few weeks ago? I am not blaming everyone given some Corolla’s may actually have HW defects effecting their mileage or the owners live on a mountain or extremely hilly areas where the EPA estimates may be nothing but a dream but most Corolla drivers are receiving less then even the EPA estimates and they most certainly don’t have to! All you need to do is read up on Greenhouse gases (CO2 emissions) and mileage becomes the centerpiece of that discussion … As a data point, I have received > 30 mpg over a few long distance sections in the Acura MDX while fully loaded with 5 passengers and enough gear for our 2 week summer vacation last year! Let us consider the SMOG emissions (HC, NOx, and CO) as another data point … Does anyone here realize that the 03/04 Corolla is only a ULEV rated automobile? How about the fact that the 03/04 Toyota Echo is only a LEV? The 03/04 Ford F-150 in some forms has equal or better emissions then our Corolla’s and I see people in here mentioning SUV pollution? Here is the real kicker. Does anyone here realize the 03 - 04 Acura MDX is anywhere from 25% to 75% cleaner then the 03/04 Corolla’s and many times more then the previous gen Corolla’s most are driving in this forum? Here are the EPA tested results for all to ponder:

03/04 Acura MDX: 2.8 – 4.1 #’s of SMOG forming emissions per 15,000 miles in clean fuel states

03/04 Acura MDX: 5.3 – 6.3 #’s of SMOG forming emissions per 15,000 miles most everywhere else

03/04 Toyota Corolla: 7.9 – 11.8 #’s of SMOG forming emissions per 15,000 miles

00/02 Toyota Corolla: 12.3 - 12.9 #’s of SMOG forming emissions per 15,000 miles

___Maybe some of us Corolla owners need to rethink our global priorities, don’t you think?

___Now let us look at the crash test data and rollover ratings of the 04 Acura MDX vs. the 04 Corolla as presented by the NHTSA with their own in house testing and measurements:

04 Acura MDX: Frontal Side Rating:

Frontal Impact Rating D&P – 5/4 stars

Side Impact Rating F&R: 5 stars

Rollover Resistance Rating: TBD - 4 Stars from the 03 MDX results

04 Toyota Corolla:

Frontal Impact Rating D&P - 5 stars

Side Impact Rating F&R: 4 stars

Rollover Resistance Rating: 4 Stars

___Not even considering the size of the Acura MDX vs. the Corolla for a moment, I would much rather have the protection afforded by the Side impact airbags and curtains of the latest MDX vs. my Corolla any hour of the day and any day of the week. Anyone that thinks otherwise has their head definitely planted where it doesn’t belong … In fact, I would rather be in my curtain-less 03 MDX then in the 03 Corolla in an accident because I know I would have a much higher percentage of surviving. This is why my wife drives the vehicle designated because I know it will do far better in an accident then Corolla if it were ever to happen …

___Do we even need to look at the performance of an Acura MDX vs. the Corolla LE w/ Auto or Stick? The Corolla is second best in even its best showing by comparison … It actually matched the MDX on the skid pad but was either completely outclassed or just outclassed in most other measurable performance attributes according to C&D’s Jan 03 and Nov 02 respectively - repeatable performance measures.

___Sure not all SUV’s on the road are as safe, pollution free, or as performance oriented as the latest Acura MDX’s but in my case, I purchased the Corolla as a multiple person commuter, the Insight as my single person commuter, and the MDX as the family hauler and my wife’s daily commuter. The Corolla unfortunately is not my number one choice in terms of automobiles but it does the job it was intended for with the reliability of a Toyota so far. If you really wanted to make a statement in regards to safety, pollution, gas usage, or any other factor you wish to consider, you have no where else to look but in the mirror first. Once you figure out the Corolla’s or your own misgiving’s (less then EPA estimates because you don’t want to follow the speed limits or have to accelerate into stop lights and such …) or that you could have purchased a PZEV rated Ford Focus (most in the US can now) that is not only far cleaner then the Corolla, but has far better handling and performance attributes, then you can whine all you want about SUV’s and other automobiles. Just make sure you have the facts is all before statements like “SUV’s are to big to see in front of” as that was one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard? What happens when you come up behind an 18-wheeler or a Greyhound bus? Most of those vehicles are carrying far greater #’s/mpg or #’s of pollution – total #’s/mpg and far exceed anything our Corolla’s could ever attempt to reach. I just don’t see much of this deeper thinking from the few “SUV’s suck” posters in this thread and it is a detriment to us all. To bad for the rest of us Corolla owners I guess …

___Good Luck to you all and I wish you many miles of safe and happy motoring.

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

now you are comparing a $ 50k Japanese suv to a 17k corolla, ofcourse

there may be more sophisticated engineering in the $50k SUV.

What if I can't afford the $50k SUV and I need to go to work ??

In canada, the toyotas with the vvti engines have a very low

emmisions rating, of course, you can always find an example,

like volvo that has lower. What is your point ??

also, I think most here on this board are criticzing the american ,

Full sized SUV for status ownership,,,, their emmissions as far

as I know are pretty poor because they classified with lower

Truck emmission requirements.... someone correct me if this has

changed.

Hi Bhp02:

___A few helpful clarifications please?

1. Did someone just compare a $17,000 SUV to the $17,000 Corolla? Where can you find a full sized SUV that costs just $17,000? My 03 LE w/ Auto was $15,200 by the way …

2. The MDX I purchased cost $38,000 and change …

3. Did someone mention only American SUV’s? Should the extremely dirty and worst polluters of what is available from Lexus and Toyota (SUV’s and Truck’s) not be discussed in this thread?

4. The high sulfur fuel in Canada makes today’s low emissions engines pollute more, not less.

5. Emissions are now rated on a vehicle to vehicle bases up to and including many full sized SUV’s and Trucks. You can now compare vehicle to vehicle regardless of year or make in terms of total SMOG related and CO2 emissions directly and I have given you some rather neat comparisons, did I not?

6. I can of course always find an example … I own an Acura MDX and before some here begin to criticize, they only needed to do a bit of research themselves. As is usually the case, they haven’t.

___What is the point? Why should the few in this thread complain about a full sized SUV when they themselves haven’t bothered looking at the car they drive or the driving habits they currently use. That is “What is the point”.

___Good Luck to you and yours.

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

where are your references to back up your claims ??

since you seem to be so confident of your sources.

If you have legitimate points backed up by

referenced scientific data,

I will congratulate you only on your

EPA data, I did not dispute you on this .

For you information, you left out one important factor,

which is fuel efficiency..... it pollutes to make the

gasoline by the oil companies. Also, what grade of gas does the MDX burn ??

Does it burn only the higher octane, easy to burn, cleaner,

fuel ?? Did epa test with only one grade of fuel in all the

test vehicles ??

Do you know your chemistry ??

CO2/CO is a by product of combustion, can't avoid it.

A fuel efficient vehicle will emit less.

It is recycled by photosynthesis back into O2 and other

chemicals used by plants.

Hi Bhp02:

___Have you never looked this information up for yourself? If you haven’t, maybe you shouldn’t post into this thread as it’s for those that know what they are speaking of …

• Green Vehicle Guide
   
   
  
• NHTSA Automobile Crash Tests
   
   
  
• Toyota Corolla Performance Data
   
   
  
• Acura MDX Performance Data
   
   
  
• New and Used Car Pricing
   
  

___As for my job, Landscaping is my side job and company. I run a nuclear plant for a living so keep your ignorant comments to yourself and you can start congratulating me now.

___As for CO2, it’s certainly is a byproduct of fuel combustion. To bad it used to be buried deep within the earth in a form otherwise known as oil. Now that it is released, you can’t bury it again … Read some more over at the EPA to figure out why gas mileage is good and why CO2 is bad. You might just start driving to save the earth instead of shooting from the hip with BS.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

CO2 is a form of oil ??

this is quite novel my friend. !!

CO2 is a by product of respiration.

CO/CO2 is an un avoidable by product of internal combustion.

CO2/CO is used by plants recylcle into O2.

you also conviniently left out "global warming ..." column on the EPA

for your MDX, shame on you, the MDX is really poor compared to

corolla in this rating by the EPA !!

I am not knocking MDX, I really like to have one myself...

but you have the cash to burn, I don't.

I don't think that it is as conspicuous as the eg. Suburban.

Hi Bhp02:

___As for the fuel type used in the MDX, maybe you need to read up on that as well … This should start you off.

Acura MDX.org Forums --> Octane. You may just learn something about adjustable timing advance, flame front, knock sensor, and pre-ignition.

___CO2 is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels. Its carbon stored in oil, CO2 is released as its combusted in an ICE and you can’t stick the CO2 back into the ground easily! What don’t you get?

___Now for congrats? Yeah right … Just as I thought.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

why would you want to stick CO2 back into the ground.

It is a gas needed by plants for photosynthesis.

Also the Ford Excursion has EPA emmisions rating of 2.

You were wrong my friend about the american SUVs that I was

refering to. They probably have a lower requirement.

You made a claim that co2 was in oil. CO2 is a gas, a compound,

it is not oil. There is a difference between Carbon and Carbon Monoxide...

I assume you are aware of that ??

excel's claims:""

3. Did someone mention only American SUV?s? Should the extremely dirty and worst polluters of what is available from Lexus and Toyota (SUV?s and Truck?s) not be discussed in this thread?

4. The high sulfur fuel in Canada makes today?s low emissions engines pollute more, not less.""

The EPA website has ratings of 2-3, very low for big American SUVs

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/suv-04.htm#lgst

I am not defening Toyota SUVs, but the most popular/numerous are the americans.

You are totally out to lunch when claiming that today's low emmsions

vehicles pollute more..... where is your reference ??

Hi Bhp02:

___Have you never looked this information up for yourself? If you haven?t, maybe you shouldn?t post into this thread as it?s for those that know what they are speaking of ?

• Green Vehicle Guide
   
   
  
• NHTSA Automobile Crash Tests
   
   
  
• Toyota Corolla Performance Data
   
   
  
• Acura MDX Performance Data
   
   
  
• New and Used Car Pricing
   
  

___As for my job, Landscaping is my side job and company. I run a nuclear plant for a living so keep your ignorant comments to yourself and you can start congratulating me now.

___As for CO2, it?s certainly is a byproduct of fuel combustion. To bad it used to be buried deep within the earth in a form otherwise known as oil. Now that it is released, you can?t bury it again ? Read some more over at the EPA to figure out why gas mileage is good and why CO2 is bad. You might just start driving to save the earth instead of shooting from the hip with BS.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

you run a nuclear plant ??

 

I have friends that are engineers that work in

neclear stations, yet they never claimed to run

a nuclear plant... just what exactly do you do to

run a nuclear plant ??

Hi Bhp02:

___No, you seem to forget about my primary commuter … the 2000 Honda Insight. You want to look up Global Warming? Maybe you should start with the Government’s Fuel Economy site … While you are there, look up my 2000 Honda Insight. Then maybe you want to calculate the g/mile of CO2 released given I currently have a lmpg of 75 mpg. You can use this link as a reference: Honda Insight – Emission Standards

___Why would you want to stick CO2 back into the ground? CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in our atmosphere beyond what the earth has seen in Humans short existence on it. The climatic effects of Global Warming may change the climate in such a short period of time as to be cataclysmic to many populations in many different areas. I have read of one city (maybe you have heard of it, New Orleans) that could be under a few feet of Sea Water if Global Warming is not reversed in short order.

___There are ways to reverse CO2 release by burying it but its not cheap and it has to be done is quantities so huge as to be almost ridiculous. You can use the words CO2 sequestration” to find all you need …

___As for your last post, why don’t you also look up Sulfur content in Canadian fuel so you can understand why a low emission vehicle is cleaner in a low sulfur fuel state then in a high sulfur fuel state or Province(s) such as Canada. You will also discover why Canadian refiners are scrambling to meet the newer low sulfur mandates. They have an even farther way to go then many of the US refineries given California and Europe are already under 50 ppm IIRC. Maybe you might discover why you are out to lunch …

___What is a “neclear stations”? Nuclear Plant Operators run Nuclear Plants, not friends that are engineers that work at Nuclear plants.

___Do you know how to look anything up or are you just generally lazy?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

you stated you run a nuclear plant.

I've stated that I know friends that work in nuclear stations.

Just what do you do to "run a nuclear plant"??

As I repeatedly posted many times, you don't seem to

be able to comprehend the fact that CO2 can be converted back into

O2 by plants. So why do you want to bury this gas ??