Here's a test that will help satisfy your curiosity.....
Drain off a cup ful of the antifreeze.... take it home and heat it to
about 180 degrees F on the stove top (use a candy thermometer) then if
its propyleneglycol use the test strips ( get them in an atuo supply
shop) to find out the freezing point of the mix; if ethylene glycol
take the same cupful, heat to 180degrees and get an inexpensive
'antifreeze' indidcator form an auto suipply store (with the teeny
little balls inside of a plast tube) and check it.
IKf either of these checks indicate near 100% cencentration of the
antifreeze, then drain some of it and add the proper mixture based on
the expected low temperature. :-)



In article , Dave
wrote:

On 13 Jan 2006 07:01:01 -0800, "markvictor" said:

"The straight RV stuff"...are you talking about the red -non toxic
fluid for winterizing the potabke water system?... That isn't designed
for your engine, it's for your plumbing...

Actually, two types of it are sold. One has a corrosion inhibitor and is for
engines. The other doesn't.

Now thats like saying that one should stop swallowing because salive
'may' cause cancer. g

In article , Roger Long
wrote:

No, but the rational for limiting greenhouse gasses in what history
now shows us to be a very chaotic and unstable atmosphere subject to
sudden dramatic changes is similar to not smoking in a room full of
open gas cans. Your cigarette may not set them off and they may go
off by themselves but, why risk it?

I labelled this post "somewhat OT" because as the oceans
become toxic gunk our sailing becomes less & less enjoyable.
And increased hurricanes make our insurance premiums go up.

No, but the rational for limiting greenhouse gasses in what history
now shows us to be a very chaotic and unstable atmosphere subject to
sudden dramatic changes is similar to not smoking in a room full of
open gas cans. Your cigarette may not set them off and they may go
off by themselves but, why risk it?


Rich Hampel wrote:
Now thats like saying that one should stop swallowing because salive
'may' cause cancer. g

Umm, no.

It's like saying you shouldn't make bad situation worse.

Dave's statement about "costs" is just plain stupid... can
you breathe & drink money?

I will never understand how the attitude that we should go
ahead and screw up the environment just because there's
still some left became "conservative."

Regards
Doug King

I will never understand how the attitude that we should go ahead and
screw up the environment just because there's still some left became
"conservative."

Yes, wouldn't it be nice (and an utter surprise in today's political
climate) if the "conservatives" actually wanted to conserve something?

--

Roger Long

Dave, calm down... it wasn't more than a mild rebuke.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jan 2006 13:15:30 -0800, "markvictor"
said:

If you want to discuss boats, Dave, then you're in the right place, if
you're trolling for arguments,try your local tavern, and if it's
enlightenment you're seeking, try Krishnamurti.

Hey Schmuck, I'm a peaceable guy. You threw out the first insult. See
.

Ya wanna get in a ****ing contest, ya gotta be damned sure you can ****
longer and further than the other guy.

ummmmmm Dave, if you look back in history you will find that most of
the conservation was accomplished by 'conservatives'. You can start
with Gifford Pinchot, Teddy Rooseveldt, etc. and work your way up to
the present day. On the other hand the 'liberal' method is to simply
cry about everything (perceived) ... and then ultimately do nothing.
big g

In article , Roger Long
wrote:


I will never understand how the attitude that we should go ahead and
screw up the environment just because there's still some left became
"conservative."

Yes, wouldn't it be nice (and an utter surprise in today's political
climate) if the "conservatives" actually wanted to conserve something?

Whatever you say Harry

Dave IS Harry...

Ok, so how much is a planet that will support life worth?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:59:22 -0500, DSK said:

Dave's statement about "costs" is just plain stupid... can
you breathe & drink money?

On the contrary, thinking in black and white terms like "pollution is
evil"
and ignoring the costs of combating the evil is simplistic. If the costs
of
reducing greenhouse gases by 50% would consume 10% of your income, would
you
think that a worthwhile expenditure? What if it were 25%? 50%? 75%? Same
answer in each case?

We can have different views as to what the costs would be and where the
balance should be struck. But only a religious zealot of the green variety
would claim the balancing of costs and benefits is irrelevant.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:37:09 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ummmmmm Dave, if you look back in history you will find that most of
the conservation was accomplished by 'conservatives'. You can start
with Gifford Pinchot, Teddy Rooseveldt, etc. and work your way up to
the present day. On the other hand the 'liberal' method is to simply
cry about everything (perceived) ... and then ultimately do nothing.
big g

That's fine, but I haven't seen an American conservative since
Eisenhower, or a Canadian one since...well, I've never seen a Canadian
one.

A true conservative doesn't give a damn about religion or issues
stemming from that morass, rightly deeming it the private concern of
the individual.

Lest this go all political, I will say that the sailing temperament is
conservative in parts and anarchic in others. Which sounds
libertarian, but they never want to help bail, so screw 'em.

R.