brionlogan, you're doing it just fine. Not to worry. In some municipalities, they are set up to incinerate medical waste like sharps. But in areas where they don't, the landfill is where those needles go. The only thing is to see that they can make it there with an intact safe container. Your 2 liter bottle is just fine. My own needles are from insulin pump infusion set inserter needles, and smaller, so I generally use a smaller plastic drink bottle. When full, I duct tape it closed, write "medical waste, used needles in permanent black marker on the tape, and toss it in the garbage bag along with the used cat litter. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to be digging it out...

Be sure to set up the propane fired deep fat turkey fryer up next to it, so you can tend to both at the same time. And remember, very well frozen turkeys fry up the best...

No, don't do this. Please.

Not only a typo, but a bit unusual in that here's a DL photo that's really cute. Doesn't hurt that she's 15, but those cameras seem usually able to make anyone, no matter how amazingly beautiful, look like something the cat dragged in. She lucked on on that score...

Joeld79, if you really believe all that crap, may I recommend you discuss this with your doctor. There are meds and other therapies that can help you deal with these types of vividly imagined, dreamed up, paranoid delusions. Also, you should learn how to properly evaluate the types of information and it's sources that you've likely based these thoughts on. Remember, just because it's on the Internet, doesn't make it true. In fact, the folks with real knowledge properly researched and attained, usually do not just dump it on the net. Meanwhile, all the kooks and nutcases put their crap on the net just as fast and visibly as they can. It's up to you to winnow the chaff from the wheat. It will also help if you are vigilant to be sure your looking at info impartially. If you only look for things that confirm your beliefs, you can start from almost any point, and manage to document your belief. And never forget Occam's razor: Given two possible explanations for a thing, each equally possible, the simpler one is very likely to be the right choice. Learn the meaning of "media literacy". It's wildly obvious you have not yet done so, nor mastered the skills it entails...

Interesting that Komo still on tonight's 11 o clock news, like this article, was saying police had not yet released her name. meanwhile, over on King 5, they were interviewing the young man who had recognized the victim as his mom, and contacted police to identify her. They had her name and photo on screen. That means that not only was the information now public, but we know the family already knew, since the son was the one who recognized her from the info shown on TV... Wonder why Komo wasn't monitoring the other stations in order to try and stay up to date...

Even if simply taking the pictures of young clothed girls in public isn't a crime (and I suspect it isn't unless his sex offender status makes it so), his then posting of those photos en mass on Russian web sites seems like it should at least be a violation of privacy rights, and publishing rights. Adults photographed in public may not have a right to expect the photos of others to not be published, but I suspect that photos of minors published without parental permission would fall into a separate category. And even if they have no illegal status attached, certainly with his history, they constitute evidence of his fixation on young girls, and possibly intent to do worse. One only hopes that the kids themselves, and hopefully the parents too, don't then get dragged into some public mess. With luck, the legal proceedings can do what's needed without it becoming a big spectacle that could only serve to trouble those kids.

Seems odd that in a city where, last weekend, something like a hundred thousand people lined the streets and cheered wildly for something like 700 or 800 people mostly or fully naked on bikes except for a bit of paint (and not always even that), that anyone in city administration would somehow worry that anyone might still be offended by this. Even full nudity in public, if with no intent to offend, is simply not illegal or regulated in Seattle. Going topless? Almost not an issue to notice on some beaches... It's just sad that this parks official would have even thought this could be a problem. And applause for this lady's courage in dealing with her situation.

On the other hand, while it may not have been bright and sunny, the weather cleared up enough, and was warm enough, that I not only got slightly sunburned on the unpainted areas of my Solstice parade cycling paint job, but it was nice enough to entice a whole lot of enthousiastic onlookers (I saw one count of 100,000 people) to show up, and rough estimates of between 650 and maybe as many as 900 fellow painted cyclists. That would be, I think, a record for the fun event. If the weather is good enough to allow that, I'll take it.

Odramamustgo, just what gives you the odd idea that we "liberals" would automatically object to a Christmas nativity scene on public property? That, by itself, is not likely to be an issue with most liberals, at least those thinking clearly. The issue, when there is one (and it's often blown way out of proportion, usually by civic leaders, no matter which side of the political fence, trying too hard to be politically correct), is when the displays of one religion are allowed, while similarly peaceful, celebratory displays from other religions, are not allowed. THAT becomes an issue with clear thinking liberals. The other times there are issues with religious displays, no matter the type, is when some crackpot, often an overly motivated proponent of one religion jumps to the contusion that his/her religion, being of course, the only correct one, is more entitled to put up a display than others, and defends his/her views with baseless but time and money consuming law suits... Liberals don't have a problem with religious displays. we DO have problems with governments favoring one religion and barring others, or trying to promote one religion over others. Both of these are a problem simply because governments should take particular care to separate themselves from religions. People have every right to express and celebrate and display their religious beliefs. However, neither they, nor governments, have the right to dictate what those beliefs and practices should be to other people. And dude, this isn't liberal or conservative. It's one of the bedrock principals of the U.S. constitution, put there by founding fathers who were much closer in time to their own varied history of religious persecutions which often were a reason why they'd come to the new world in the first place. Whether liberal, conservative, or a tea drinker or whatever, if you consider yourself an American, you should feel an obligation to defend these principals of the constitution.

I said neither that bison didn't contribute, nor that eating meat was the only, or even the major cause. Only the simple statistic that existing herds of beef, and poultry farms contribute sufficient Methane to be contributors on a par with fossil fuels to greenhouse effects. It might be pointed out, however, that when bison roamed in their millions, there were also vastly greater amounts of forest and rain forest areas on the planet, which help to reduce greenhouse gasses. The whole picture of global warming is very complex. Human agriculture is only one part of the puzzle. I do not claim that Human consumption of meat is the cause of global warming, only that the agricultural practices that support it, have a significant effect. Much more of an effect than would be the case if we did not eat meat. And this is far more than just the methane from the animals. Figure in as well, the energy costs of raising the animals and the food needed to feed them, as well as the carbon sinks that might exist on the land used to raise the animals, if they weren't there (I'm thinking greater amounts of carbon using plants/crops...). Global warming is not the only concern. Consider that 75 percent of the corn raised in the U.S. is used to feed cattle. How much of the worlds hunger problems might be eased by that corn if it were used to feed people instead. Raising cattle does make for tasty steaks. But it takes far more calories of corn to produce a meal of meat, than the corn could provide directly. For every 100 calories you feed a cow, you end up getting back roughly nine or ten calories worth of meat (closer to 20 calories, if figuring the energy from milk). Is this the only factor in climate calculations or world hunger calculations? No, of course not. But it simply is data that exists, and can be verified, and it's data that seems a good deal more than just trivial. Draw whatever conclusions you wish from it. I didn't make it up. Just passing it on.