Newsgroup sci.chem 90254

Directory

DA MAN wrote:
> 
> Let's say the EGG came first for a minute...
> 
> 1. This wouldn't change or alter ANYTHING
> 
Does this mean you think the chicken came first?
-
-- 
---
Chaddio
http://www.webmart.net
mailto:chaddio@juno.com
---
--
-

Kathie Robbins wrote:
> 
> E.M. Ennis wrote:
> >
> > : yes but how much does one have to eat before they are poisoned? one ton?
> >
> > : : broccoli -  benzpyrene (carcinogen)
> >
> > Isn't broccoli actually alleged to ward off cancers?
> >
> 
> Broccoli contains several potent chemicals, some which may even cause
> cellular death to cancer cells (much like chemotherapy I would assume).
> I guess whether broccoli is good or bad depends on what chemicals you to
> retain from eating it. :)
> 
> Kathie, who hates broccoli
Along these lines, there was a fascinating piece in Science News this
week, suggesting that the very chemicals that are regarded to have
anti-cancer properties in some veggies, are also sensed as intensely
bitter and distasteful to about 25 % of the population.  Interesting
article.
	Eric Lucas, who senses some loneliness in his love of broccoli

In article <33CBC94B.F8@gw-tech.com>, cgregory@gw-tech.com wrote:
> WHY THE HECK DOES HE WANT TO KNOW?!  Did he eat human ashes?  Is he
> planning a buffet?  What?
Possibly a low-grade fiction author...
-- 
To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.  By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.  By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."

FLEMING 2.15 (FLEMING.2.15@Sunderland.Ac.UK) wrote:
: Surely the smallest chiral molecule would be something along the lines 
: of CHDTF ?
How 'bout CHDT-, tetrahedral and chiral or even smaller CHDT. !
-james

Dear World,
Can anyone give me any information about a product called Desmophen PU
1613??  It is a Bayer AG product as far as I know, and I think it's some
kind of amine???  Any info out there??   Any help is much appreciated.
Merci beaucoup

[ I previously wrote]
>I've told the story here previously about a former colleague who
>was known for his Shylock tendencies. As all solvent use was 
>charged to each researcher's project, and was dispensed by
>winchester (assessed as 2.5 l ) he would completely fill the
>containers to the brim, leaving no ullage, and thus getting
>around 2.75 l. 
Oops, it's been brought to my attention that some readers
haven't encountered the term Winchester. A Winchester was
originally the term for a glass bottle holding 0.5 UK gallon 
( 2.273 litres ), as Winchester was the location where the standard 
measures were originally deposited.
As metrics appeared, the term was retained for describing the
2.5 litre, narrow-necked, screw-capped, usually amber, glass
bottles of solvents that replaced the 0.5 UK gallon bottles.
They are usually similar in shape to the 0.5 and 1 US gallon 
( 3.8 litre ) glass bottles of solvents sold by companies like 
Baker, although BDH sells solvents in fatter/shorter bottles. 
Sorry for any confusion.
             Bruce Hamilton

Al Carnali wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking for a way to produce small quantities of C02. (Its used to
> help plants grow in an aquarium). Many people do this by fermentation
> methods, but I have had no luck with this. Is it possible to do this
> electrolytically? What would I need to do?
Stick grape juice in a bottle.  Add one whole real unwashed grape,  Close with 
stopper contining tube.  The gas which exists is CO2 from anaerobic respiraction 
of yeast (fermentation).
Secure piece of Dry Ice.  Place in 2 liter PET bottle with exit tube.  Gas which 
exits is CO2.  Do NOT seal, or it will explode.
Add fish to aquarium.  BTW, goldfish can live on fermentation as well as aerobic 
respriation.  They then excrete ethanol.  Ya gotta >really< like your booze...
Note that burning charcoal prodcues remarkable amounts of carbon monoxide.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article <19970714212600.RAA17003@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
  eyepopcorn@aol.com (Eyepopcorn) wrote:
>
> Does anyone know the avilability\cost\schedule of any PE review courses
> (Chem Engr) in the eastern massachusetts area?  I plan on taking the exam
> this fall.
Professional Publications maintains a referral directory of all of the
established commercial review courses for the PE exam, FE exam (EIT
exam), surveying, interior design, and architecture licensing exams.
Please call Alison Lyon and at (415) 593-9119 ext. 19 (area code soon to
change to 650) and tell her what you are looking for. It's a free
service.
Michael Lindeburg, PE
http://www.ppi2pass.com
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <33CDD6A4.114E@cwi.nl>
"Frank A. Roos"  writes:
> Look Becky, the Professor said that he wanted data and facts. Also it
> was promised that the investigation will be submitted to a peer reviewed
> journal. Then the professor is saying that the paper will be REJECTED,
> because of the "bull shit" results. I don't get it any more; the data
> and facts will be published, if at least the Professor is willing to let
> the paper pass. Then and only then scrutinize the data and facts.
No.  Scientifically invalid conclusions and faulty data are (ideally)
NOT ACCEPTED for publication in scientific journals.  Get that through
your head.
The Instructions to Authors for the most prestigious journal in
chemistry (see J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1997, 119, 14a) states:
"A scientist should not proclaim a discovery to the public unless the
experimental, statistical, or theoretical support for it is of strength
to warrant publication in the scientific literature.  An account of the
experimental work and results that support a public pronouncement
should be submitted as quickly as possible for publication in a
scientific journal."
So it is being more than fair to say that Dr. VC was a little rash in
proclaiming his "findings" without first submitting them to a
peer-reviewed journal.
That leaves the process of peer review to us.  Remember, I did not go
out and find this stuff.  It was posted right here in sci.chem.  If
someone makes a claim here they better be prepared to defend it.
Frank, what are your qualifications to judge this science?  Becky, I
and others are far more qualified and regularly review manuscripts and
funding proposals.  There is not doubt whatsoever that the findings
published on Dr. VC's web page would be rejected by any reputable
journal for lack of evidence, credibility, flawed interpretation, basic
misunderstanding of scientific principles etc.
To repeat what Frank said for emphasis:
> the data
> and facts will be published, if at least the Professor is willing to let
> the paper pass. Then and only then scrutinize the data and facts.
You have this completely backward.  When a paper is submitted to a
journal, the data is scrutinized and the conclusions are examined to
see if they are warranted by the evidence.  Only if the reasoning is
valid and the claims justified is the work published.
Rob
-----------------------
Professor Robert Toreki, Dept. of Chemistry,  University of Kentucky.
Inorganic, Organometallic and Materials Chemistry while you wait.
rtore00@pop.uky.edu   Way cool web server: http://www.chem.uky.edu/
Major research funding cheerfully accepted; inquire within.

Wm James wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:20:35 -0500, Leonard Evens
>  wrote:
> 
> :Eric Lucas wrote:
> :>
> :> Andrew Karpinski wrote:
> :
> :> This is a badly oversimplified view of capitalism.  Ever heard of
> :> advertising?  Ever noticed what has gotten about 70 % of all automobile
> :> advertising in the last several years?  Ever notice the tactics used to
> :> advertise SUVs (can you say "testosterone", boys and girls?)  You say
> :> you don't believe in the power of advertising to get you to do something
> :> that is very, very bad for you and society as a whole?  Ever heard of
> :> cigarettes?
> :>
> :> Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.  In that light, drivers have
> :> a responsibility to make choices that are consistent with the good of
> :> all, and I maintain that SUVs and minivans are contrary to the greater
> :> good.  The most obvious reason is that they waste precious resources and
> :> as a result, pollute more (including CO2) and produce more greenhouse
> :> gases.  However, there is also an issue of the safety of other drivers.
> :> When I choose to drive my socially-responsible efficient subcompact, I
> :> cannot see around, over, or now with nearly-black tinted windows,
> :> through those damn things.  I simply cannot see what is going on ahead
> :> of those vehicles.  This compromises my right and responsibility to
> :> drive as safely as possible and to know what is happening on the road
> :> ahead of my car.  Just because some insecure idiot needs the
> :> testosterone rush of driving a vehicle that the auto makers have
> :> convinced them that they cannot live without.  The one legitimate reason
> :> people might have for buying an SUV is hauling things that won't fit
> :> into a car.  However, I refuse to believe that people all the sudden in
> :> the 90s have so much to haul that they can't do what they need with a
> :> car.  Funny, in the 70s, I'm sure people had every bit of much to haul,
> :> and far, far fewer people had SUVs and trucks.
> :>
> :>         Eric Lucas
> :
> :I happen to agree that all these vans and trucks are a bit stupid.   I
> :also agree that people don't buy them simply because they need them for
> :functional reasons and that advertising and cultural trends play a role.
> :Also misinformation plays a role.  I remember that Mike Royko in an
> :artilce explained how he went out and bought one of those vehicles after
> :a particularly bad snow storm.  However, recently, when I was driving my
> :wife to the airport in her Ford Escort and having no trouble whatsovever
> :despite deplorable weather conditions, I was constantly slowed down by
> :large vans and small trucks which either were sliding all over the place
> :or had bad visibility.  In any event all the drivers of such vehicles I
> :encountered seemed to be going extremely slowly for the driving
> :conditions and were very uneasy in their large vehicles.   Meanwhile our
> :front wheel drive subcompact had no trouble at all.
> :
> :All that aside, let me add that the real point is that there is no
> :reason whatsoever that these trucks and vans need to be gas guzzlers.
> :They were originally left out of the regulations because there were so
> :few of them.   However, now that they are so popular, Detroit ought to
> :be required to live up to fuel efficiency standards for such vehicles
> :also.   And one can't even argue that it can't be done.  American auto
> :manufacturers have opposed extending the standards to these vehicles and
> :one of their arguments is that the Japanese would have an advantage
> :because they already know how to do it.
> :
> :Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
> :Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> :Evanston Illinois
> 
> Come on, Mr. Stalin,
> 
> Let the market decide.
> 
> If they can afford to pay for the fuel, it is their buisness and
> no one elses.
> 
> William R. James
I disagree.  It is socially irresponsible to use a vehicle that wastes
resources and pollutes more.  And as someone that has to both share
those resources, breathe the extra pollution, and put up with the
generation of larger quantities of CO2 (a greenhouse gas), I demand that
the government force people to at least consider acting in a socially
responsible manner.  Given the interconnectedness of modern society,
it's unreasonable fear-mongering to equate the government mandating
social responsibility with Stalinism.  I suppose you consider government
regulations on the chemical industry to be Stalinist too....  Well, look
where our air quality would be now without those standards!
	Eric Lucas

Guerilla wrote:
> 
> In article <33CB52C2.2E3C@mcd.alcatel.be>,
>    Lin Zhen  wrote:
> |Lon Levy wrote:
> |>
> |> All of these are great reductions of energy used per person (assuming
> |> that people actually do them), but with the number of people continuing
> |> to rise exponentially we are fighting a losing battle.  The United
> |> States can support between forty million and one hundred and fifty
> |> million people, with nearly double the high estimate currently.  The
> |> planet can support between half a billion and two billion people, with
> |> nearly three times the high estimate currently.  Until we take serious
> |> measures to reduce our national and global populations, reducing energy
> |> consumption is doing little more than rearranging the chairs on the deck
> |> of the titanic!
> |>
> |> Regards,
> |>
> |> Lon.
> |That's right. Human being cannot do everything they THINK is right.
> |Derivation from logic to logic is nonsense concerning the fact of live
> |or death.
> |Reduce the population, reduce the power consumption, those are all
> 
> Reduce the pop?  How?  Like they do in China?  And how are you going to reduce
> power consumption?
> 
> |measures that human kind can take to protect themselves from future
> |disaster. Do anyone think walking for a mile instead of using a car such
> |a threaten to his life?
> 
> In some cities, yes.
> 
> | Do one think taking bus or train or bicycle
> |instead of his private car a matter of death or life?
> 
> Its a matter of choice.  We have the Freedom to choose.
> 
> |It's a little inconvenient, but only extreme selfish men will take such
> |little inconvenient as an big threaten to their lifestyle: the one they
> 
> I not only have the Freedom to choose, but my choice is really none of your
> business.  Gawd.  You sound like some kind of fascist.  Live and let live.
> 
> Are you free?
> 
> Do you own your body?  Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
> medicate yourself?  Do you own your labor?  Can you work for any wage
> you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
> 
> Do you own your possessions?  Can the terms of your property ownership
> be changed at any time, or for any reason?  Can your property be taxed
> without limitation?
> 
> Can you travel freely?  Must you carry identification papers for you and your
> property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
> 
> There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints.  One point is slavery, and
> at the other end:  FREEDOM.
Yes, we have freedom to choose.  However, along with that freedom comes
the responsibility to consider the greater good of society in making
that choice.  Freedom to choose is not the same thing (nor should it be)
as "I can do whatever the hell I want to, and you have no right to
complain."  If you are irresponsibly wasting resources that I have to
share with you, then you damn well better believe I want some say in how
you waste those resources.  And if you don't believe that, then perhaps
I should go to your bank and demand that they give me all your money. 
After all, it is my freedom to choose to take your money, and "after
all, it's really none of your business".
No one is suggesting government control of all things.  What we are
suggesting is that people in a highly interconnected society should be
expected to consider the social implications of their actions, and
modify their actions accordingly.  The pendulum has swung *way* too far
to the "I'll do whatever the hell I please, and the hell with what you
think about it." end of things, and needs to return toward the middle,
where people consider the consequences of their actions on the rest of
society.  And if you won't do it on your own, I'm damn well going to ask
the government to make you, since I have to share the planet with you.
	Eric Lucas

hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) writes:
> And you are absolutely positively certain that USA, French, German,
> et al, reactors do compensate for all human stupidity?
Its enough if the accidents are small and far between enough to hurt
much less people and nature then fossil fuels. And it could be far
worse then TMI for that. You dont need perfect safety to advocate a
better alternative to a harmfull one.
> Having worked on, at, or for, six nuclear power plants, I'm not so
> certain. I am certain that there are still a lot of stupidities
> hidden in the original construction that may or may not become
> important at some point. I am not, admittedly, as familiar with
> Operations.
There ought to be a lot that can be improved. If we for instance would
replace large scale coal power with nuclear power the reactors built
would be of a more recent design so I hope the old stupidities are not
forgotten.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:51:53 -0400, epastore@erols.com (Toe)
wrote:
:In article <5qig4i$dhn@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Steve Spence"
: wrote:
:
:>  Most of us don't find it disturbing, nor do we feel the need to justify our
:> actions.
:
:Most people didn't find slavery disturbing. Nor feel the need to justify
:their actions.
:
:Through history, people seem to have gradually become more civilized.
:Slavery used to be totally acceptable. So was murder before that. Now we
:are finally starting to question war. I predict that within a century or
:two, people will look back on the meat eating (and other animal killing) of
:previous ages with horror.
:
:
:
:  Toe!  ("`-/")_.-'"``-._ 
:      \  . . `; -._    )-;-,_`)
:         (v_,)'  _  )`-.\  ``-'
:        _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
:      ((,.-'   ((,/
:epastore@erols.com
What did you do with your canine teeth?
William R. James

For your sake I hope your asshole doesn't fall off.

:So what do they vent up the high smokestacks of these nuclear plants? 
:If it's not CO2 it must be radioactive.
Where did you get that nonsense?  Greenpeace, or Earth First?
What you see coming out of those stacks is water vapor. 
There is a heat transfer system in the reactors that does the
following:
The fuel rods heat water that is radioactive and contained.
The radioactive, heated, contained, water is used to heat
non-radioactive water through the heat transfer system.
  Note thet no water is transfered!
The radioactive water (now cooler) is returned to the chamber
with the fuel rods to be re-heated.
The heated, non-radioactive water (now steam) is used to drive
turbines.
The steam is released into the air.
This is a bit simplistic. but is the basics.
William R. James

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 07:42:52 -0700, Uncle Al Schwartz
 wrote:
:justin wrote:
:> 
:> >
:> >
:> >
:> > Couldn't it be argued that petrol-based fuels are actually biomass fuels?
:> 
:> Indirectly, yes, but we seem to be burning fossil fuels faster than it can be naturally
:> produced. In theory if we can produce biomass, either through plantations of forest or
:> algae farms, as fast as we burn it then we'll never run out, and there'll be no net CO2
:> emmisions.
:
:Burn babies, not trees.
:
:Not only are babies an abundant and high-calorie resource, their removal will 
:staunch the Population Explosion and the World Famine.  Having lowerd the need 
:for inputs, the Greenhouse Effect and the Ozone Hole will also be blunted.  
:Massive Third World infantile diarrhea empidemics will be ended.  Water resources 
:will again be in balance with remaining population (end the World Drought!).  The 
:general absence of baby-chewed breasts will naturally lead to the restoration of 
:an abudance of Mammaries of Colour in "National Geographic."  Eden will finally 
:be ours.
:
:
:Burn babies, not trees.
:
:-- 
:Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
:UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
I am an atheist Unk, but I would almost beleive you to be god !
:)
That was very good !
William R. James

Wayne Richardson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:54:04 -0400, Eric Lucas
>  wrote:
> >
> >Along these lines, there was a fascinating piece in Science News this
> >week, suggesting that the very chemicals that are regarded to have
> >anti-cancer properties in some veggies, are also sensed as intensely
> >bitter and distasteful to about 25 % of the population.  Interesting
> >article.
> >
> >       Eric Lucas, who senses some loneliness in his love of broccoli
> 
> Thiourea is tasteless to the great majoirity of the population, myself
> included.  However, it is extremely bitter to a certain small
> percentage.  This trait is genetic.  Since thiourea is now on the
> suspect carcinogen list don't try this at home.  Fortunately, I tasted
> it before it was a carcinogen (1968).
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne
You are thinking of the PTC test - phenylthiocarbamate or phenylthiourea.  About 
30% of the population are tasters, and consider unconscionable vegetable trash 
like Brussels sprouts to be inedible.  The rest of the population is bereft of 
this biological warning system and eat the things.  The EPA won't let you 
incinerate them or use landfill, so they end up in markets to be eaten.  The 
solution in my mind is simply not to pay farmers to grow the horrid freaks of 
nature thus making their subsequent disposal a moot point.
The French are into eating snails.  The thought of some beret-topped madman 
crawling through my California garden in the damp morning with green snail drool 
dripping off his chin onto his shirt is not a pleasant one.  De gustibus non est 
disputandum.
(If you look at EPA stats that support their "carcinogen" designations you will 
discover that the controls have a tremendous rate of spontaneous carcinogenesis.  
NOT consuming carcinogens is apparently also carcinogenic.  The technical term 
for this is "bullshit.")
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>Michael Richmann  writes:
>
>> It is in that human screwups occur all over, not just in the
>> ex-Soviet sphere of influence. On the western side of the pond,
>> lucky for us, that "little" hydrogen bubble in the TMI core didn't
>> cause problems or the cleanup problem would be quite a bit more
>> significant than it is now.
>
>It would still have been a far smaller accident then Tjernobyl. There
>were nuthing that could burn like a pile of graphite inside TMI.
Nope.  Just melt and fall to the bottom of the containment vessel.
Sure, it wouldn't be the multibillion dollar decades long catastrophe
that now resides at Chernobly but it'd still be a hell of a train wreck.
>
>> As it is, we're still studying ways to properly dispose of the
>> melted material from that particular accident.
>
>Why? What is the problem with hacking it into small pieces and perhaps
>enclose it in a extra metal layer. If you as a thought example use
>zirkonium as a cladding you will get something about as good or bad as
>regular spent fuel elemets. If that is wrong since it need to be
>mostly pure uranium oxide to be safely stored dissolv the pieces in a
>reprocessing plant and turn it into somewhat dirty oxides and
>glassified waste. Why would the experiments needed to do this take
>more then a decade to do?
Encasing it in metal would simply make it harder to treat and would 
effectively turn it into a non-standard form of spent fuel, many cores
of which are already corroding in holding pools anyway.  That's not
handling the problem...
-- 
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...

Information regarding FBI Laboratory Division examiner positions can be
found at
http://www.fbi.gov/over/labpers.htm

In article <33CAAEE0.4261@awwwsome.com> "David B. Green"  writes:
>> |
>There are several cases a year of Lima Bean poisoning.  The toxic dose
>is about three pounds in a one day.
It's hard to imagine the self-destructiveness of a person who could force 
three pounds of Lima beans down themselves in a day.  Follow it up with a 
platter of parsnips and brussels sprouts, too?
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
   526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
   630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and gas sensor-based product 
development to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

Jonathan A. Morris wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Does anyone know what the concentration of the sulfuric acid that comes
> packaged with new lead acid batteries?  Is there some kind of industry
> standard?
> 
> I have searched and searched and I have no idea where to find this
> information,  I'm sure that one of you geniuses must know...
It's about 34% sulfuric acid in water.  You can get a tight number by looking at 
a battery hydrometer in an auto parts store, then converting acid density to 
concentration with a sulfuric acid dilution table.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Sam McClintock (*scmcclintock@ipass.net*) wrote:
: > If we're going to include improper operation, then by all means, 
: > let's include the possibilities from an improperly operated nuclear
: plant.
: 
: Let's first include the fact that you were wrong, 
How about let's include the fact that you are not objective?  Why not 
tell us (1) what your scientific training is and (2) who you work for?
: and that you are
: trying to sell your fear of nuclear power 
Not at all.  As I've said, it has advantages.  But you, not being 
objective, won't admit it also has disadvantages.
: by understating the impact of
: fossil fuel combustion.  Let's also include that with operation within
: standard guidelines, CO emissions, and VOC emissions, and particulate
: emissions, and SO2 emissions, and NOx emissions are measured in terms
: of tons/year from just medium sources, not even counting the HUGE power
: generators.  Let's also not forget that all of the fossil fuel sources,
: ALL OF THEM, including natural gas, release products of imcomplete
: combustion and raw toxics, which is why anyone with semi-decent skill
: can go into ANY urban area and measure benzene, formaldehyde, ammonia,
: methanol, toluene, xylenes, acetaldehyde, 
Most of which come from automobile emissions, at least in Atlanta, Los 
Angeles, etc.  Are you proposing little nuclear reactors in all cars to 
take the place of using fossil fuels?  Boy, wouldn't a highway collision 
be interesting then!
: and about ten other toxics. 
: And the extraction of the fossil fuels are just as painful, if not more
: so, than the extraction of nuclear fuels.  I've been to Valdez, AK and
: you NEED to spend a few hours in the middle of an oil spill to get a
: real good perspective.  
How does it compare to the area around Chernobyl?  As long as we're going 
to use accidents as examples of the industries.....
: You forgot gamma emitters.  
Gamma emission doesn't occur in a vacuum -- it accompanies decay 
reactions which produce alpha or beta particles, so listing it was, IMO, 
redundant.
: And you are comparing Chernobyl, a plant
: that could NEVER get a license to build, 
How many Chernobyl-type plants are operating in Russia and other 
countries, though, built by the old USSR?
: 
: > IF (and only if) you can solve the waste problem, then perhaps
: nuclear 
: > power can be considered as a alternative to fossil fuel.
: 
: But we already have a waste problem with fossil fuel.  
Does it kill people?  No.  Does it stay lethal for thousands of years?  
No.  Can it be used to make bombs?  No.

On 17 Jul 1997 11:49:58 GMT, "Jeff"  wrote:
>I am looking for information on any possible Natural surfactants.  By
>Natural, I mean any substance occuring in nature.  It can be a product of
>refining a natural substance.  Can anyone help me?
The question is vague enough to be hard to answer.    What do you want
to use the surfactant for?  What HLB is needed?  Must the material be
biodegradable?  Why do you want it to be "natural" and could you give
a less vague defintion of the term?  What processes could be used to
"refine" the material, before you start considering it "unnatural"?
Nit picking aside, there are many, many biologically occuring
surfactants.  Phospholipids, fatty acid salts, proteins and
polysaccharides can all be considered surface active in at least some
sense of the word, and I'm sure that any biochemist could list many
more candidates.
Would you consider cooking a mixture of palm and/or olive oil and wood
ash to be refinement of natural substances?  If so, I can suggest one
readily available "natural" surfactant.  Hint: does the tradename
"Palmolive" mean anything to you?
You might want to go to a good technical library, and look for a
compendium of ingredients for formulating personal care products.  
There's a trade magazine for  formulators of personal care and
household products.  Check their web site at http://www.happi.com/
According to the web site, there's a list of new surfactant products
starting on p116 of the June 1997 HAPPI issue. 
 I suspect (but don't know for a fact) that HAPPI publishes an
ingredient compendium.  Give them a call.
---
Dave Whitman   dwhitman@rohmhaas.erehwon.com       
(Email replies: please remove "erehwon." from address or mail will bounce.) 
"The opinions expressed are those of the author, not Rohm & Haas Co."

On 16 Jul 1997 16:15:26 GMT, conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
>Dennis Nelson (icconsult@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: 
>: 
>: Hydrogen is not explosive inless it
>: is mixed with oxygen in fairly specific proportions.
>
>Some recently posted the contentrations at which a hydrogen/oxygen
>mixture is explosive.  As I recall, it indicated a much broader
>range of potentially explosive contentrations than most other fuel/
>oxygen mixtures. 
Well if you want it in an oxygen atmosphere and would be satisfied
with limits of inflammability then I would think it is rather broad.
How about 4.65 to 93.9%.
Is that broad enough for you? Holly hell it doesn't take a whole bunch
of oxygen to make hydrogen gas combustible.
Deuterium is a little broader but also a tad more expensive as a fuel.
>Still, it would take a good reference to validate which
>posted fact is correct.  Sorry, I don't have one at hand.
I do. 
Is Handbook of Chem & Physics good enough?
>
  _               _   _                  Für d' Flöh gibts a Pulver 
 (_|   |   |_/o  | | | |  o              für d' Schuah gibts a Wix, 
   |   |   |     | | | |      _  _    ,   für'n Durst gibts a Wasser
   |   |   |  |  |/  |/_) |  / |/ |  / \_  bloss fuer d' Dummheit gibts nix.
    \_/ \_/   |_/|__/| \_/|_/  |  |_/ \/ 

: Greig Ebeling wrote:
: > In answer to CO2 atmospheric increase, perhaps we can enhance the
: > most  significant depletion mechanism of absorption in the ocean.
Will Stewart (wstewart@patriot.net) wrote:
: So you would add iron to the oceans and increase algae populations
: dramatically.  Amazing. So in order to avoid some impacts associated
: with climate change, you would sacrifice the oceans.
: Why would anyone give this a serious thought?
  Because conservatives will say anything in order to delay action against
global warming.  they will claim that the world is so large that man can
not alter the climate.  They will claim that the earth is so small that
man can easily controll the climate.
  Honest people don't act in this manner.

In article <5qh3qo$d01$2@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
Scott Nudds  wrote:
>  I was willing to give conservative hate monger "Uncle Al" the benefit of
>the doubt in interpreting his use of the term "potentially".
>
>  David Hatunen apparently wishes to expose Uncle Al's error.  No energy
>source is "potentially infinite".
>
>  David Hatunen must be upset that conservative hate monger "Uncle Al" has
>a very poor understanding of the physical sciences.
>
>  As I said.  I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
>Conservatives need all the help they can get.
Uh. Gee. That's a real fascinating contribution to the subject. Glad you
shared that with us.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

:
:If there is only a choice between death and "slavery" then we need to
:explore that "slavery".  However, I don't see restrictions on activity
:as being the same as slavery.  The latter implies some "masters" who are
:free of those restrictions.  My proposals include no "free masters",
:thus there are no slaves.  
:
:Lon.
I choose death.  If people beleive that freedom is less important
than life, then they will have no freedom.
It is worth dying for.
Why do you think the military even exists?
Whould you prefer that we had surrendered to Hitler?
William R. James

Wm James wrote, regarding a purportedly invalid connection between
CFCs and ozone depletion:
: So learn a little science or come up with a little evidence.
There's a nice, accessible review of the actual evidence regarding
Antarctic ozone depletion in Nature Vol 347 pp 347 - 354, Sep 27, 1990,
for a start. Let us know what you think of that, in as much detail
as you care to provide.
With regard to your quandary about hemospheric asymmetry, Dr Solomon
states "There is abundant evidence for perturbed chemistry in the
Arctic similar to that of Antarctica (ref Geophys Res Lett V 17 # 4, 1990)
but the requisite cold temperatures are generally neither as widespread nor
as long-lasting as in the spring season in Antarctica. This suggests that
the conditions needed for ozone loss (namely, cold temperatures and
sunlight) (ref McKenna et al., Geophys Res Let V 17 pp 553 ff 1990)
are likely to be generally less effective in the Arctic than in Antarctica."
I would welcome any substantive discussion of the review article in
general and the proposed explanation of the interhemispheric asymmetry in 
particular.
Thanks in advance.
mt
(geology and math groups removed, followups trimmed)
(Numerous trailing blank lines removed as well. Do fix that, please.)

Eric Lucas  wrote:

>I disagree.  It is socially irresponsible to use a vehicle that wastes
>resources and pollutes more.  And as someone that has to both share
>those resources, breathe the extra pollution, and put up with the
>generation of larger quantities of CO2 (a greenhouse gas), I demand that
>the government force people to at least consider acting in a socially
>responsible manner.
And just who besides you decides what is "socially responsible"?  
Regards,
Bill Ward

IF YOUR TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO
GEOLOGY (IN THE STRICT SENSE), PLEASE DO NOT CROSS-POST
TO SCI.GEO.GEOLOGY.
STILL THEY PERSIST.
THANK YOU.

eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>On 15 Jul 1997 14:27:44 GMT, hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) wrote:
>
>>In article <5qfrv0$1bma@sccat.pgh.wec.com>,
>>B. Alan Guthrie  wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>   Chernobyl is not relevant.  It was an aberrant design, produced
>>>   by an aberrant regime.
>>
>>Perhaps the design was abberant, but the accident was *caused* by human
>>stupidity, and I have not yet heard that stupidity was in short supply in
>>the USA.
>
>
>The Chernobyl accident was not so much caused by stupidity, but by
>bureaucracy.  There is a substantial difference between the level of
>bureacratic control in the old USSR and the USA.
The Chernobyl accident was caused in large part by the same kind of
failure to follow proper procedure as caused the TMI event.  The operators
attempted to goose up power output from a xenon poisoned reactor core
by removing control rods which were not to be removed.  The end result
was as you see it.  You can put all the administrative controls in place
that you want and someone will find a way around them...
-- 
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...

Dear netters:
    I am looking for isocratic or simple gradient HPLC systems for the
student lab. One of the best deals is offered by GBC Separations. If
anyone has experience with them, I would greatly appreciate answering a
few questions:
- how reliable are the systems?
- how their spindle-driven pumps compare with the traditional cam
design?
- what is the quality of their customer service?
- The systems are produced in Australia. How does that effect the
delivery time, availability of parts, etc.
Thanks in advance, regards
Alexey Eliseev

In article <5qir5m$789@topgun.es.dupont.com>
diebolmp@esvx23.es.dupont.com writes:
> Gallium melts at 29.78 C and boils at ca. 2400 C.  BTW, it is 35 C
> outside my office today, which means that, at least for today, mercury
> is not the only molten metal element (of course, bromine is another
> element which is a liquid "where life exists" [MP = -7.25 C; 
> BP = 59.47 C], but is not a metal).
> 
> Mercury remains in the liquid state between  -38.87 C and 356.72 C (at
> atmospheric pressure).
> 
> Glad I could help, in my fuzzy muddled (but not stickler) thinker way,
> 
> Mike Diebold
> 
> Opinions of author and do not reflect DuPont policy
  My point about Atom Totality theory was that the characteristics of
chemistry, math and all the sciences changes in different Atom
Totality. In Plutonium Atom Totality, life is carbon based with ties to
water, and pi is 3.14159.... and mercury is liquid in a characteristic
range of as you stated above. But, in say Element 150 Atom Totality,
all of this changes, all of the characteristics of all the chemicals
changes, even pi has a different numerical value in that universe. And
so, the emphasis I was making was that mercury is special in a
Plutonium Atom Universe.
   Your point, Mike was that the temperature of most of the universe is
colder than here on Earth where mercury is a liquid. That information
is irrelevant to the band-range-temperature at which mercury is a
liquid. So what if most of the universe is 4 degrees K where mercury is
no longer liquid. The fact that most of the universe is 4 degrees K
does not alter the band-range-temperature at which mercury is liquid.
And since that fact was irrelevant, I called you a muddled thinker, not
a stickler.
   Now, here is the question on my mind today. Does liquid mercury
dissolve in water? Partial dissolve? If so, has anyone researched water
sonoluminescence that has some mercury dissolved in it? Instead of the
argon doped water sonoluminescence, how about the pure water that is
doped with mercury? Does mercury dissolve partially in water? And how
about the gaseous methyl mercury doped water sonoluminescence?
   Fusion energy will come to humanity not from the physics community,
but rather from the chemistry community.

Eric Carruthers (carruthe@candu.aecl.ca) wrote:
: Back in 1987, the estimate was that about 10000 cancers/year were
: attributable to COAL POLLUTION in North America.  
Can you cite a source?  This seens really high.  Of the 400,000 cancer 
deaths in the US anually, 40,000-60,000 are attributed to environmental 
pollutatns.  It is awfully high to say 20% of these are due simply to coal.
: Haven't seen any recent
: studies which incorporate better scrubbers.  East European coal plants
: are/were much dirtier.  Now, how many Chernobyls per year could we have to
: meet this astounding safety level.  
Well, around 100,000 are projected to die as a result of Chernobyl.

spam@here.not (Wm James) wrote:
>
>:So what do they vent up the high smokestacks of these nuclear plants? 
>:If it's not CO2 it must be radioactive.
>
>
>Where did you get that nonsense?  Greenpeace, or Earth First?
>
>What you see coming out of those stacks is water vapor. 
>
>There is a heat transfer system in the reactors that does the
>following:
>
>The fuel rods heat water that is radioactive and contained.
>
>The radioactive, heated, contained, water is used to heat
>non-radioactive water through the heat transfer system.
>  Note thet no water is transfered!
>
>The radioactive water (now cooler) is returned to the chamber
>with the fuel rods to be re-heated.
>
>The heated, non-radioactive water (now steam) is used to drive
>turbines.
>
>The steam is released into the air.
>
>This is a bit simplistic. but is the basics.
>
>William R. James
So where are you gentlemen storing the xenon and krypton?
-- 
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...

In article <5qk0fr$4c8@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
	Kym Horsell  wrote:
>In article <5qiou7$ihj@valhalla.comshare.com>,
>	Michael Pelletier  wrote:
>>In article <5qimfp$mfb@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
>>	Michael Richmann   wrote:
>>>eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>As Mike P. says, it is to be reused in nuclear fuel.
>>>
>>>Not in this country.  Seems there's a political side to the equation
>>>as well as a scientific one...
>>
>>At least the political winds have the ability to change, whereas
>>the laws of physics do not.   ...
>
>Most amusing. Modern science education has a lot to answer for... ;-)
Don't be a pedant.  Just because we're ignorant of certain principles
of physics doesn't mean that the principles change once we discover
them.
	-Michael Pelletier.

In article <33CD5C75.5C0A@ix.netcom.com>,
   Eric Lucas  wrote:
|Yes, we have freedom to choose.  However, along with that freedom comes
|the responsibility to consider the greater good of society in making
|that choice.
No, this is not so.  While each Freedom may include responsibilities, 
pertaining to that Freedom, you cannot make a blanket statement like this.  I 
have the Right to do certain things, ie: Freedom of Speech.  I should not use 
this Right to directly cause harm to someone.  Eg:  Fire in a crowded building 
with one exit, just for fun.  But I do not have any responsibility to use my 
speech to ends that you or anyone else deems 'for the greater social good'.
|  Freedom to choose is not the same thing (nor should it be)
|as "I can do whatever the hell I want to, and you have no right to
|complain."  If you are irresponsibly wasting resources that I have to
|share with you,
Wo, now.  There are no resources that we share.  I purchase my resources, and 
what I do with them, is at my pleasure.  If we lived in a communist type 
structure, this wouldnt be so.  But I purchase my water.
| then you damn well better believe I want some say in how
|you waste those resources.  And if you don't believe that, then perhaps
|I should go to your bank and demand that they give me all your money. 
|After all, it is my freedom to choose to take your money, and "after
|all, it's really none of your business".
|
|No one is suggesting government control of all things. 
It sounds like YOU are.  You claim some control, out of your own moral system, 
for what I purchase, and therefor own.
| What we are
|suggesting is that people in a highly interconnected society should be
Where does the hermit fit in your little utopia?
|expected to consider the social implications of their actions, and
|modify their actions accordingly.  The pendulum has swung *way* too far
|to the "I'll do whatever the hell I please, and the hell with what you
|think about it." end of things, and needs to return toward the middle,
|where people consider the consequences of their actions on the rest of
|society.  And if you won't do it on your own, I'm damn well going to ask
|the government to make you, since I have to share the planet with you.
Please provide some examples of the above theory.
Are you free?
Do you own your body?  Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
medicate yourself?  Do you own your labor?  Can you work for any wage
you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
Do you own your possessions?  Can the terms of your property ownership
be changed at any time, or for any reason?  Can your property be taxed
without limitation?
Can you travel freely?  Must you carry identification papers for you and your
property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints.  One point is slavery, and
at the other end:  FREEDOM.

"Nineball"  writes:
>
>Interesting series about dams entitled Cadillac Desert recently aired 
>on PBS. Made me think of dams
>from an entirely different perspective. 
 There was also an interesting article (in Science News, I think) about 
 seismic instability that might be caused (or, more precisely, exacerbated) 
 by the Aswan High Dam in Egypt and might lead to a quake that would 
 make the dam fail catastrophically.  The effect would be familiar to 
 any player of "Civilization", only worse.  That might change one's 
 perspective as well. 
 And this is relevant to you geologists. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time. 

 race car drivers use a safer fuel tank, it is called a fuel cell ( not to
be confused with fuel cells that generate electricity) usually foam filled
and very sturdy. any hot rod catalog carries them. jegs comes to mind.
--
Steve Spence
sspence@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
SteveSpence@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
____________________________________
David Hatunen wrote in article <5qla94$o3s$2@news.wco.com>...
>In article <33CBD207.1F17@geol.niu.edu>,
>Neil Dickey   wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>It is my understanding that pressure vessels containing hydrogen under
>>pressure as a metal hydride are considerably more resistant to
>>explosion than conventional tanks containing gasoline.  It wasn't a
>>hard scientific work, I admit, but a "Sci-TV" program some years
>>back examined this question and showed experiments comparing the
>>behavior of various types of fuels and containment schemes.
>>
>>The tanks were set up at a safe distance, with a source of ignition
>>handy, and then shot with a high-powered rifle.  LPG and gasoline
>>behaved spectacularly under these circumstances, while the hydrogen
>>in its metal-hydride tank burned in rather subdued fashion.  The
>>point was, I believe, that metal-hydrides release hydrogen rather
>>slowly.
>
>Now I am confuse: which was it? metal-hydride tanks (which are not under
>pressure) or pressure tanks?
>
>If a gasoline tank were built as sturdily as a pressure tank, I doubt
>whether a shot from a high-powered rifle would do much of anything. I'm a
>little surprised that the high-powered rifle didn't just make two small
>holes throught the gasoline tank which simply leaked a small stream.
>
>The point here is as I noted elsewhere: you need to know that the
comaprison
>was fair. The hydrogen tanks are quite expensive, and how would a similarly
>expensive gasoline tank compare?
>
>Furthermore, there are ways to render gasoline safe in such circumstances,
>such as jellying, but the extra expense for the jellying and modification
of
>the engine is not deemed worth it.
>
>The explosive potential of a vehicular hydrogen tank is definitely being
>overplayed, though. Certainly the problems are not dissimilar from methane
>and propane power. The disadvantages of hydrogen are considerable without
>such concerns.
>
>[...]
>
>--
>    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
>    *                Daly City California:                *
>    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
>    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
>
>

 as has been said before, wood is not the only source for biomass, india is
doing well with biogas from manure, and some communities are having varying
results from garbage. more R&D; can perfect these technologies.
some sources are better composted aerobically and others turned into methane
anaerobically. burning the raw material is usually not the best solution, as
their are beneficial byproducts in the conversion processes. And no, you
don't have to use hydrocarbons as the fuel to support these conversions. We
have a huge alchoholic beverage and tobacco industry that would be better
focused on generating energy. That way we would not be using "food for
fuel".
--
Steve Spence
sspence@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
SteveSpence@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
____________________________________
Magnus Redin wrote in article <5qjf19$ifo$1@newsy.ifm.liu.se>...
>geoffh@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson) writes:
>
>> Greig Ebeling recently made some absurd claims about biomass
>> technology.
>
>> The most absurd was that biomass technologies for power generation
>> do not exist, whereas nuclear power does.
>
>Yes, that is an absurd claim.
>
>> He also claimed a price for wood of $1000/tonne, although I had made
>> the point that I can (and do) get firewood commercially delivered to
>> my home in Christchurch for about $100/tonne. So $50/tonne at
>> industrial/power generation scale seems feasible.
>
>One thing that worries me about large scale use of biomass burning in
>Sweden, large enough to replace a noticable ammount of our nuclear
>power is that it would require a much more intensive forestry. It
>would be a large enough change to marginalize a lot of species and
>change vast areas of forest, probably to a poorer state in a
>biological sense. (It would however make my fathers small forest worth
>more, oh well. ) And Sweden have lots of forests compared with our
>population, few countries are gifted wich such vast biomass recources.
>Biomass its no alternative at all in denser regions.
>
>Regards,
>--
>--
>Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
>Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
>Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600
>
>