Newsgroup sci.chem 90079

Directory

B. Alan Guthrie (zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
: >>  OK, TMI-2 melted down.  The public health effects were?????
: >
: >Unknown at this time...
: >
: 
:    I think that they are rather well-known.  There have been many
:    studies on the matter.
:                               |                  
No, they are NOT well known, not when some health-related effects of 
radiation don't show up for decades.  Heck, we're STILL assessing all 
the effects from Hiroshima!  
Your pro-industry propaganda is growing tiresome; perhaps people who don't
work for the nuclear industry might be a little more objective? 

Allen R. Sampson wrote:
> 
> You confuse what you perhaps are unfamiliar with and what mankind has
> accomplished.  Isotopic enhancement is a known technology on earth.  But
> we are on a precipice at this time in material science - just beginning
> to understand the kind of manipulations possible to produce materials
> with hitherto unexpected properties.  Had the isotopic enhancement been
> accompanied by some unexpected and useful properties, I would be
> intrigued.  Should the sample exhibit effects, unsuspected by us, of
> strength or of electrical or thermal characteristics, I would be
> intrigued.  But the supposed fact that the elemental or isotopic
> constitution alone is not expected here on earth does not an
> extraterrestrial make.
[...snip]
I agree with you that with today's technology, we can produce isotope
distributions in materials that are not normal.  Most of the more
critical and objective people looking into this recent announcement
recognize this, too.
The data on this sample that was released was claimed to be just
preliminary data.  The presenters claimed that the object was most
probably extraterrestrial in origin based on this early work.  We have
been promised by them that the results of all of the planned tests to
resolve the issue will be submitted to peer-review and published in an
appropriate journal.  If and when this occurs, definitive statements
about the material will be able to be made.
In the meantime, we must recognize that not all of the properties of the
object in question have been made public.  For example, claims made by
the non-scientists directly involved with the affair are very intriguing
(but are not backed by evidence as of yet.) One such individual, Paul
Davids, in an interview on the "Art Bell Show" on 7/4/97, claimed that
an analysis of the microstructure of the object revealed that it was
highly unusual.  He also said that after consideration was made on what
it would take to make this substance, the conclusion by the scientists
were that extremely high temperatures, on the order of those produced in
an atomic bomb blast, would be needed.  Davids claimed the scientist
told him that the object couldn't be manufactured by any process known
on earth.  Also, the object has very unusual properties that have not
been divulged yet, according to Davids.
Many people have said this announcement is similar to the "cold fusion"
fiasco that occured some time back.  The presenters of that "data" also
skipped the peer-review process and went public with their "results." 
Is this the same sort of thing?  Well, no one really knows for sure as
of yet.  It could go either way.  
I agree that going public now was not the best thing for those involved,
most of all for the chemist, Dr. Russel VernonClark.  His reputation
could become damaged if this thing doesn't pan out or the sponsors
abandon him because they run out of money and don't complete the
testing, etc..
We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.  
Regards...
--
Mike Broussard, CNE           |    http://www.usimicro.com
USI / MicroAge Computers      |    Business: (318) 235-1234 
http://www.1stnet.com/~mikeb  |    Fax:      (318) 234-1447

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.

 your idea of intelligence is to spamm numerous newsgroups with your
personal philosiphies that have no relevence or interest to us?
--
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
____________________________________
Toe wrote in article ...
>
>In article <33dbf1ea.22960187@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, spam@here.not
wrote:
>> :I don't think you or your cat should be killed. I'll cross-post what I
>> :wrote to someone else who managed to keep his responses more civil.
>> :
>> :I don't eat meat because I have the *option* not to. Were I in a
situation
>> :where I determined that I had no option but to eat animal flesh, I would
do
>> :so. But saying that one should kill because it is natural to do so is no
>> :justification.
>>
>> Is it justification for your cat?
>
>The cat has no option. It's body is inherently carnivorous. Human bodies
>are generally omniverous, but can survive (thrive, actually) without meat.
>
>>
>> :I have avoided eating meat for ten years and am extremely healthy. I am
not
>> :some scrawny, frail-lookin' person, and am in fact slightly overweight
due
>> :to a crushing love of pizza and rich Indian foods.
>> :
>> :If I can live a healthy, relatively normal life without animals having
to
>> :die for that life to continue, then I consider it a worthwhile
sacrafice.
>> :For myself, it would be immoral to be responsible for an animal's death
>> :simply to bring me pleasure (from the taste of meat) or for
convenience's
>> :sake.
>>
>> That is, of course your right.
>>
>> :The extent of my "evangelism" on the subject is that I like to present
the
>> :above simple idea to others for them to consider. I do not take any
>> :offensive action against those who eat meat (such as my entire family
and
>> :most of my friends), but I let them know that it is something worth
>> :thinking about.
>>
>> You are asking natural meat eaters this question.
>
>See above. I am quite healthy despite excersising my option not to eat
flesh.
>
>>
>> :When I imagine millions and millions of cattle (not to mention much
larger
>> :numbers of other animals) being slaughtered simply for peoples'
convenience
>> :and pleasure (certainly not to keep down their artificially-inflated
>> :populations), I feel it is worth it to confront those responsible for
these
>> :killings with the knowledge that it happens.
>>
>> We all know where meat comes from.  We are after, natural
>> predators, just like your cat.
>
>I don't think that's so. Most people are very good at forgetting the truth
>about meat. They don't look at the slabs of bloody flesh in the grocery
>store and think about the horrors of the slaughter house. They think,
>"Dinner!"
>
>>
>> :These animals are killed in staggering quantities because so many people
>> :eat meat. Personally, I find that disturbing.
>>
>> Why is it any more disturbing that we eat meat than any other
>> meat eating animal?  This makes no sense, logically.
>
>Again, because we have the option not to. What differentiates us from
>animals? I would say very little. But the option to act by moral judgement
>is certainly one difference.
>
>> :
>> :  Toe!  ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
>> :      \  . . `; -._    )-;-,_`)
>> :         (v_,)'  _  )`-.\  ``-'
>> :        _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
>> :      ((,.-'   ((,/
>> :epastore@erols.com
>> :
>> :p.s. My kitty there has no choice but to be a carnivore.
>>
>> Nor do some people.  Most of the people in the world have no
>> access to immitation soy protien products and such even if they
>> were willing to eat it.
>
>Most people can't afford meat. They eat beans, grains, and yes, soy
>protien. Ever heard of tofu? It wasn't invented by the rich.
>
>It is wealthy nations where the great majority of meat is consumed. Look it
>up. In other nations, it is mostly the rich who eat the majority of the
>meat.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> William R. James
>>
>> ps....   You didn't answer any of the questions.
>
>You ignored my answer. Just because I am capable of eating meat doesn't
>mean that I have to... or that I should. I choose to act by what I believe
>is ethical, instead of just doing whatever pleases me.
>
>I'll say it one more time, since you repeatedly ignored my answer. I don't
>eat meat because, unlike carnivores, I have the option not to and the
>intelligence to understand that I should not.
>
>
>
>  Toe!  ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
>      \  . . `; -._    )-;-,_`)
>         (v_,)'  _  )`-.\  ``-'
>        _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
>      ((,.-'   ((,/
>epastore@erols.com
>.
>

eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>On 15 Jul 1997 19:34:39 GMT, Michael Richmann 
>wrote:
>
>>zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie) wrote:
>>>In article <5qe6q1$ota@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
>
>>>   I think that they are rather well-known.  There have been many
>>>   studies on the matter.
>>
>>I don't.  Give it another 20-30 years and we'll know for sure.
>
>If we don't know now, we never will.
>
>
>...Greig
A truly non-scientific statement if I've ever seen one.  Many cancers,
as we've found out from Hiroshima/Nagasaki, are not prompt events.
-- 
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...

David Hatunen wrote:
> In article <33CBD320.F07@geol.niu.edu>,
> Neil Dickey   wrote:
>>David Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> But tell us: how hot does the metallic hydride have to be to allow
>>> the
>>> hydrogen to be released?
>>
>>In another post of this date further up in the thread I note a "Sci-
>>TV" program I saw some years back which was looking at the practical
>>aspects of using hydrogen fuel in cars.  Some tests were done to
>>determine how dangerous metal-hydride fuel tanks would be, and they
>>were found to be safer than virtually all other feasible fuels,
>>including gasoline.
> 
> I might suggest that even recently shown SCi-TV shows be taken with a
> large grain of salt, and that memories of shows some years back would
> require the consumption of halite rocks.
You're welcome to suggest anything you bloody-well please.  I clearly
indicated the source of my information (TV and memory) so that any
reader could evaluate its usefulness.
I clearly remember the part having to do with shooting tanks of
combustible materials, in part because the explosions were both
fascinating and spectacular, and in part because the results of the
tests on the hydrogen tanks (metal-hydride) were not what I would
have expected.
>>My memory is that no special heating was necessary for the tank to
>>work.  Ambient temperature was sufficient.
> 
> Then perhaps they showed the near-cryogenic charging system?
It was indicated that re-fueling was a major problem with
hydrogen-fueled equipment.
I gather that you think I'm advocating we convert to hydrogen fueled
vehicles?  Not so.  Neither did the program I watched, which was
simply an examination of the problem.
-- 
Best regards,
Neil Dickey
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/dickey/dnd.html
*Note: Remove the spam trap in my address -- the capital 'X' --
before attempting to reply to me by e-mail.  Finger the sanitized
address for my public key.

John McCarthy (jmc@steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Perhaps the fact that Lilco was prevented from operating a completed
: nuclear power plant contributed to its bankruptcy.
Perhaps you should remember, the REASON the Shoreham plant didn't go on
line was because LILCO couldn't come up with a satisfactory safety plan,
including evacuation of residents in case of an accident.  Hmm... 
wouldn't you think you'd get a safety plan approved BEFORE spending all
that money?  Is this the kind of management you really want operating
reactors?  (To add to that, look at all the operating and safety problems
with other plants, such as Yankee, that have come to light in the last
year.)
Of course, if the plant had cost what LILCO and other utilities rosily 
predicted it would cost, the inactivity wouldn't have necessarily 
bankrupted the company.  Hmmm... the nuclear industry can't predict 
within an order of magnitude what a plant will cost a decade in advance; 
can we believe them about wastes being safe for a few centuries?

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
: 
: Niether.  Nuclear power plants don't produce materials which can be
: used to make bombs.
This is either ignorance or deliberate disinformation, as others point 
out too.

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au) wrote:
: 
: A friend of my fathers once told me that it when he was at Harwell, it
: was not unusual for workers to handle Pu in their bare hands.  The Pu
: was in an air-tight plastic bag of course, so that breathable Pu
: particles could not escape.
If it were elemental Pu, it's combustible in an oxygen atmosphere, which 
makes this story sound like more industry fairy tales.
: 
: Keith is in his 70s, alive and well, and enjoying his retirement.
: This of course does not proof that Pu is always safe, but that in
: certain circumstances it is hardly "the most toxic substance known to
: man".
So what other substance kills at the microgram level?

"Frank A. Roos"  wrote:
"Excuse me Professor, but this is not much of a scientific attitude;
calling an investigation pseudoscience, while knowing that the
investigation will be published in a peer reviewed journal."
- - - - - -
The ethics of science includes a responsibility to lay out all of the
facts when a claim is made.  The methods used must be described well
enough so that others can duplicate the experiment.  That wasn't done in
this instance.  Also, we don't know that there will be a publication in a
peer reviewed journal.  It may or may not have been submitted, and if it
is submitted it may or may not be published.
Scientists posting to this newsgroup have interpreted the reported
composition in terms of the known properties of certain isotopes.   They
have shown that the reported composition is impossible.
Scientists should have open minds, but not empty minds.  
Marvin Margoshes

On 16 Jul 1997, Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
> :   The concern is directed really at the ancilliary facilities which
> :   Iran is attempting to acquire.  The power reactors themselves are
> :   not the real issue.
> 
> Gee, that's not what our government says.  Of course, you know more than 
> our government, right?
> 
kCome along now Lloyd, you said that you ought to keep your nose out of
subjects that you weren't qualified to discuss, yet after your work=torque
fiasco, here we have you dabbling with physics again.
Shame on you.
Anyway, here's the way it works. Reactors used for power can also be very
simply be used to create weapons grade materials as a side product. Just
because your government perhaps hasn't explained it to you, this doesn't
mean that it isn't so.
Tell me, do you really believe everything that your government tells you?
If so, you are very naive.

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.

B. Alan Guthrie (zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) writes:
> Jeremy Whitlock  wrote:
[...]
>>This is a myth.  The plutonium for the Indian device came from a
>>Canadian-supplied research reactor, not a CANDU power reactor, which would
>>have been next to impossible.
> 
>    Could you explain the difficulties attendant to diversion from a
>    CANDU?
I'll leave the gory details to my FAQ page (address below), but there are
both safeguard issues and technologic issues.  The current IAEA safeguard
regime was not in place when India pursued its bomb objectives, but the
technologic restrictions were the same then as they are now.  CANDU spent
fuel does not contain plutonium of a high enough purity to be of any
military use, particularly in the strategic sense.  Also, the CANDU system
is also incapable of producing weapons-grade purity plutonium, due to both
the limitations of its on-line refuelling system and its low excess core
reactivity. 
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/

In article <33CBF51F.E2E@facstaff.wisc.edu>,
   Don Libby  wrote:
|the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Electric Plant
|Information System.
Cripes!  Its no wonder the country is broke when my money is being spent on 
this kind of nonsense.
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.

Professor Robert Toreki wrote:
> 
> In article <33CC80CB.EB0@cwi.nl>
> "Frank A. Roos"  writes:
> 
[snip]
> >
> > Excuse me Professor, but this is not much of a scientific attitude;
> > calling an investigation pseudoscience, while knowing that the
> > investigation will be published in a peer reviewed journal.
> 
> Bullshit.  Homeopathic "medicine" is pseudoscience.  Magnetic knee
> straps are pseudoscience.  Healing crystals are pseudoscience.  ESP is
> pseudoscience.  This is pseudoscience.  Being published in a peer
> review journal does not magically ordain something with scientific
> legitimacy, cold fusion and polywater being excellent examples.
> Moreover, Dr. VernonClark's analysis and interpretation would be
> REJECTED by any reputable scientific journal because it is seriously
> flawed science if not pseudoscience.  His "analysis" (in its current
> incarnation) will NEVER be published in a peer reviewed journal unless
> it is J. Irreproducible Results or a supermarket tabloid.
> 
> Furthermore, the viewpoint that I and others have espoused here is
> based entirely on the Scientific Method which demands data and facts.
But ....uuhhhh, why then is/was one of the missions of Mars probes to
find out the isotope distribution of some gases in the Mars atmosphere
through quadrupole mass spectrometry?
Besides, how do you think scientists assessed that EETA79001 and
ALH84001, both meteorites and the former found in Antarctica, came from
Mars (i.e they are extraterrestrial)?
And finally. I get the impression you want data and facts. Well, the
results should then be published by a peer reviewed journal and not a
priori rejected on the basis of the results. But don't worry, the
article will be peer reviewed first before publishing or rejection. 
> The American Heritage Dictionary says that includes "validation of
> hypotheses by observations or experiments."  The hypotheses here are
> false, the experiments have been proven to be flawed.  Tell me, Frank,
> how the giant leap from "this sample has anomalous isotope ratios" to
> "this sample is extraterrestrial in origin" meets ANY definition of
> science.  No facts.  No data.  Just claims and unfounded conclusions.
> In a word, pseudoscience.
> 
> My dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a theory, methodology, or
> activity that appears to be or is presented as being scientific". This
> whole "investigation" meets that definition perfectly.  It also meets
> the definitions of "claptrap", "bullshit", "nonsense", "discredited"
> and "malarkey", among others.
> 
> > >
> > > Oh, and just because it hasn't been pointed out yet...Ge-75 decays by
> > > beta decay, which means that a neutron in the nucleus is converted to a
> > > proton + an electron.  That *increases* the atomic number by one mass
> > > unit,
> >
> > Do you really mean "mass unit"?
> 
> No, good catch.  I meant one atomic number.  I noticed that right after
> I posted but it wasn't worth following up to my own post.
> 
> > > making our isotope now As-75, which is the only stable isotope of
> >
> > .... causing the "peak' of "Ge-75".
> >
> 
> Meaning that the sample does not have any Ge-75 and (most likely),
> never did. As  the researcher involved made such a grevious error, then
> the rest of his analysis is equally untrustworthy.
> 
This is peer review at its best.
> And again...I AM STILL WAITING for someone to show me the scientific
> basis for making the giant leap from "this sample has anomalous isotope
> ratios" to "this sample is extraterrestrial in origin".  If you reply
> to this posting, Frank, make sure you explain that for us, OK?
> 
> Gee, aresenic...that's not something you might expect to find in a
> "terrestrial" sample of semi-refined Si is it?  That was a rhetorical
> question, folks.
> 
In principle Professor, all stable elements are expected to be present
in the universe, only the isotope ratios may vary (is the hypothesis).
> 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.
-- 
Frank A. Roos (faroos@cwi.nl)
http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/departments/BIBL.html 
CWI - Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica / Bibliotheek
    - Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science / Library

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

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz) wrote:
: >
: >Wrong.  A microgram of an alpha emitter like Pu, when inhaled, can cause 
: >cancer.
: 
: That doesn't mean that a gram of Pu is sufficient to kill millions of
: people.  The reasoning and proof of this has been repeatedly presented
: by other posters.  Please pay attention Lloyd.
Yes, it does.  If 1 ug can kill one person, 1 g can kill a million.  
Simple science and math.

rlogin@franck.Princeton.EDU.composers wrote:
> In article <33C277E6.5DBC@mail.idt.net>, altavoz
>  writes:
> > The Nobel prize does not rate ppl . It only places
> > them above an 8 on a scale of 1-10 .
> >  Curie was an 8 , not a 9 nor a 10 .
> >  Einstein was a 10 .
> >  Neither is the number of N' prizes won , intensively significant .
>
> On the other hand, this post definately proves you are a zero.
besies, why doesn't he go and win one, if even an idiot like Curie could
win this worthless prize _twice_?
--
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
   -Lazarus Long
=====================================

 honest people don't claim there is global warming without undisputable
proof. call a theory a theory, don't call it a fact until it is proven to be
one.
--
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
____________________________________
Scott Nudds wrote in article <5qh5i4$d01$8@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
>
>: 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 <33CCF118.4A09@geol.niu.edu>,
Neil Dickey   wrote:
>David Hatunen wrote:
>
>> In article <33CBD320.F07@geol.niu.edu>,
>> Neil Dickey   wrote:
>>>David Hatunen wrote:
>>>
>>>> But tell us: how hot does the metallic hydride have to be to allow
>>>> the
>>>> hydrogen to be released?
>>>
>>>In another post of this date further up in the thread I note a "Sci-
>>>TV" program I saw some years back which was looking at the practical
>>>aspects of using hydrogen fuel in cars.  Some tests were done to
>>>determine how dangerous metal-hydride fuel tanks would be, and they
>>>were found to be safer than virtually all other feasible fuels,
>>>including gasoline.
>> 
>> I might suggest that even recently shown SCi-TV shows be taken with a
>> large grain of salt, and that memories of shows some years back would
>> require the consumption of halite rocks.
>
>You're welcome to suggest anything you bloody-well please.  I clearly
>indicated the source of my information (TV and memory) so that any
>reader could evaluate its usefulness.
And I have done so and posted that evaluation. You may do with that
evaluation as you bloody well please.
[...]
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

Reverend Chuck wrote:
>
>Geoff Henderson wrote:
>> This overlooks the simple technology of wood-fired power, using (for
>> example) circulating fluidised bed combustion.  This is the same as 
the
>> latest technology for coal-firing and was in fact developed in the
>> 1980's for wood-firing in the Finnish forest-product industry.  
There
>> are of course other biomass technologies available.
>
>Couldn't it be argued that petrol-based fuels are actually biomass 
fuels?
Yes it could.  Fossil fuels are fossilised biomass.  However the 
distinction must be made as to whether the fuels are being produced at 
the same rate they are being consumed (as is normally implied by the 
term "biomass") or only a millionth or billionth of that rate (as is 
the case with fossil fuels).  The former are sustainable, the latter 
unsustainable (like the sugar supply in the fruit fly experiment).
Geoff Henderson

Wm James wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:53:13 GMT, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> :True.  But that's not the same as privilege.  Privilege is something
> :that's mine to grant or to withold at whim (assuming I'm the one in
> :power).  Activities where licensing is demanded are what I would call
> :a restricted right.  There are specific demands that must be fulfilled
> :but the right cannot be denied to anybody who fulfills them.
> 
> Linguisticly you are correct, but in a legal sense, operating a
> motor vehicle on public streets is a privilege granted by the
> state.
No, linguistically he is not correct.  I would like him to show me one
dictionary definition of "privilege" that includes the word "whim." 
"Privilege" carries with it the implication that you must meet certain
conditions in order to continue to take advantage of the privilege.  In
the case of driving, for example, if you kill people with your car, the
privilege is revoked.  In fact, in every state that I've registered a
car (Ohio, Massachusetts, Delaware, Indiana and New Jersey), the form
for applying for registration contains the phrase "Has your privilege to
operate a motor vehicle been revoked in any state?"  Seems pretty
clear-cut that the government considers it a privilege.  
And that's as it should be.  It is an activity which, when done
improperly, can and does kill people, quite frequently.  And you damn
well better hope the government continues to revoke the driving
privilege of those who demonstrate a lack of ability to do so safely!
	Eric Lucas

> 
>
> 
> 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.

In article <5qirfh$i3n$7@glisan.hevanet.com>,
Guerilla  wrote:
>
>In article <5qgi6j$dph$1@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>   Ivan  wrote:
>
>|So, even though I proudly declare myself a liberal, 
>|environmentalism is neither a conservative nor liberal issue.
>
>Certainly it is.  Ive met few environmetal supremacists who are conservative. 
> Enviros base their theology in marx, and collectivism.  They certainly are at 
>odds with any non-socialist.  Further, the socialism must be coerced onto the 
>population, making them statists as well.
The reference was to "environmentalism", not "environmental supremacists".
Your equating of these terms indicates a certain lack, of, well, balance.
Would you like to have conservatives equated to Timothy McVeigh?
>
>
>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.
But it is a spectrum so it is not black-and-white, nor is it a grey scale.
It would appear, though, that you prefer extremes.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> You said.  Keep saying.  Nonsense oft repeated remains nonsense
> nevertheless.
Same tooya.
-- 
Best regards,
Neil Dickey
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/dickey/dnd.html
*Note: Remove the spam trap in my address -- the capital 'X' --
before attempting to reply to me by e-mail.  Finger the sanitized
address for my public key.

Mike wrote:
>   Bullshit: noun, normally produced in cows.
Cows?  Not likely.  That would be "cowshit".
Bulls, maybe.
-- 
Larry Krakauer   (larryk@kronos.com)

In article <33CAA44E.401A@geneseo.net>,
   Troy Coziahr  wrote:
|Toe wrote:
|> I don't eat meat because I have the *option* not to. Were I in a situation
|> where I determined that I had no option but to eat animal flesh, I would do
|> so. But saying that one should kill because it is natural to do so is 
|>no justification.
|> I have avoided eating meat for ten years and am extremely healthy. I am not
|> some scrawny, frail-lookin' person, and am in fact slightly overweight due
|> to a crushing love of pizza and rich Indian foods.
|> If I can live a healthy, relatively normal life without animals having to
|> die for that life to continue, then I consider it a worthwhile sacrafice.
|> For myself, it would be immoral to be responsible for an animal's death
|> simply to bring me pleasure (from the taste of meat) or for convenience's
|> sake.
|> The extent of my "evangelism" on the subject is that I like to present the
|> above simple idea to others for them to consider. I do not take any
|> offensive action against those who eat meat (such as my entire family and
|> most of my friends), but I let them know that it is something worth
|> thinking about.
|> When I imagine millions and millions of cattle (not to mention much larger
|> numbers of other animals) being slaughtered simply for peoples' convenience
|> and pleasure (certainly not to keep down their artificially-inflated
|> populations), I feel it is worth it to confront those responsible for these 
killings with the knowledge that it happens.
|> These animals are killed in staggering quantities because so many people 
eat meat. Personally, I find that disturbing.
|>Toe! 
|
|Toe,
|
|I have no problem whatsoever with people who choose to be vegetarians.  I 
|don't agree with their reasoning - but that is their choice.  One thing I 
|would like to point out is an omission from almost every discussion that 
|I have read here, and that is the vast amount of other products that we 
|get from livestock. 
Dont forget the work we get outta them either.  
| To turn this into a discussion about only red meat is to ignore this 
|important fact.  The vast numbers of other products we get from livestock 
|range from foods other than meat (additives), construction products, 
|medicines, medical supplies, inks, cosmetics, clothing, plastics, etc., 
|etc.  It is virtually impossible to escape the use of animal products in 
|everyday life.  The home you live in contains contruction glues that are 
|derived from livestock byproducts - the list goes on and on. 
|
| This is not simply a question of red meat consumption, it involves a 
|MAJOR change in our lifestyles - a change that many people would not be 
|willing to make if they understood the impacts of it.
|Just something to think about.
Besides, the matter of the essential enzymes that we need for our survival, 
has yet to be resolved.
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.

hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) writes:
> 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.
And? There is a difference between having an accident with a modern
seat belt, air bag and deformation zone equiped car and a Trabant with
faulty brakes even if both accidents were caused by stress early in
the morning.
But that was a bad comparision, the difference between the Tjernobyl
RBMK and a PWR like the one at TMI is bigger.
I find most of the stupidity in the risk assesments.
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

In article <19970716002100.UAA15791@ladder01.news.aol.com>, 
marvin3809@aol.com says...
>
>milo@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>"Is it true that for unimolecular elementary reactions
>the rate order is one and that for bimolecular elementary reactions 
>the rate order is two.
>
>"I would be grateful for any confirmation that this is so,
>an explanation would be a large bonus."
>- - - - - -
>No, it isn't true.  Many bimolecular reactions are first order, depending
>on the reaction conditions.  An explanation would be long.  Consult a book
>on physical chemistry.
>
>B.t.w.:  What do you mean by "elementary reactions"?
>
>Marvin Margoshes
Now hold on there a second.  The term you missed, "elementary reactions" is 
key to the poster's question.
Elementary reactions can be considered as the reactions at the molecular (as 
opposed to molar quantities) level.  When you write out a proposed reaction 
mechanism for a reaction, each step is an elementary reaction.
For such elementary reactions, the poster is quite correct - that is a 
unimolecular reaction has rate order 1, bimolecular = 2, etc.
Don

In article <5qdjdt$gpe@larry.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
>B. Alan Guthrie (zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
>:   which is measure of the energy extracted from the fuel).  When burned
>:   for such a long time (four to six years), a relatively large amount
>:   of the plutonium is Pu-240, which is very bad for making nuclear 
>:   weapons. 
>
>Precisely why you take the fuel out earlier if you want the maximum 
>amount of Pu.
>
   When fuel is discharged from a power reactor after being burned
   for two months, suspicions tend to get raised.  The essential
   element of secrecy is thereby lost, and the putative weapons
   programme will be stopped.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III          |   Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
                              |     
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |   My opinions only 
                              |                  

In article <5qg6nq$kju$1@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
Magnus Redin  wrote:
>hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>And? There is a difference between having an accident with a modern
>seat belt, air bag and deformation zone equiped car and a Trabant with
>faulty brakes even if both accidents were caused by stress early in
>the morning.
My analogy is apt: at Chernobyl they disconnected the seat belts and
airbags.
>But that was a bad comparision, the difference between the Tjernobyl
>RBMK and a PWR like the one at TMI is bigger.
>
>I find most of the stupidity in the risk assesments.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

In article <5qg2ee$6a2@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
Michael Richmann   wrote:
>eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
[...]
>>No it isn't.  Atmospheric testing threw tonnes of Pu into the
>>atmosphere, and we haven't seen billions of people dying.
>
>Maybe you ought to tell the folks out Utah way who were downwind
>of the aboveground nuclear tests in the 50's.  I don't think they'd
>necessarily agree with you.
All billions of them?
And were all the putative health problems due to Pu?
[...]
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *

af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) wrote:
>: I find most of the stupidity in the risk assesments.
>  An interesting admission during a period where there is pressure to
> justify all decisions based on cost benefit analysis.
That is very good news! I hope some of it filters down to the general
population. Perhaps that will help people to not multiplie any risk
involving the word "nuclear" with 10 or 1000.
>  I don't support using "stupidity in the risk assessments" to make
> policy.
Sorry, I dont understand your point.
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

In article <33CC872D.3BF9@cwi.nl>, "Frank A. Roos" 
writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
...
>> 
>> I somehow don't believe we are dealing with a large sample here.
...
>Well, if you look at the photograph of the scrap at Mike Broussard's
>site, you get the impression that you can take it in your hand. So the
>order of magnitude is grammes (ounces, if you like).
Yes, apparently quite a lot larger than the sample tested by
VernonClark, but not industrial-sized quantities.  Silicon is routinely
purified into whacking great big crystals and sliced up into wafers as
big as the palm of your hand for the production of computer chips (I
visited the Science Museum the other day where they had one of these
babies on display, semi-sliced).
Be patient; the preliminary results and testing methodology have not
been peer-reviewed, yet.
There are more "Art Bell"-style claims on this piece at:
        http://www.iscni.com/index.html
-- 
Sherilyn
"X-Files is a documentary.  I had proof but they took it."
(thanks to Russ Silbiger)

In the war against the Medfly the State of Florida is spraying Hillsborough
county with malathion over a period of six to eight weeks.  Tests released
Monday showed 0.7 parts per billion of malathion in raw water coming into
the water treatment plant which is 7 times more than state and federal
limits for fishable/drinkable water.
Tests of a sample of treated water, ready for consumption, showed no
malathion.  But it did indicate the presence of malaoxon -- a breakdown
product 68 times more toxic than the malathion itself.  What that means no
one has been able to say.  Does anyone in this newsgroup have information
on the short/long term effects of the consumption of malaoxon?
Needless to say I do not drink the water.

In article <5qgtoe$vrf$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   Tell me, would Dupont even have any scientists who can check-out
> sonoluminescence on mercury?
  Perhaps the liquid state is not necessary for Luminescence
Thermonuclear Fusion. But I am thinking that it is, and will precede
under that assumption.
  Now we will need a new Chart of the Chemical Isotopes that gives the
following data.
   (1) temperature range for which the isotope is a liquid
   (2) type of wave --- sound, EM, mechanical, other for which the
liquid (sono)Luminescence to the maximum.
   (3) frequency or wavelength of maximum Luminescence
   (4) doping; whether it increases Luminescence
This is something that the CRC publishers will be doing in the future.
And it will not stop with just the elements and isotopes but with
liquid compounds such as water or some of the many carbon liquid
compounds. Once we get going on fusion energy, a whole entire subject
field is born. And the amassing of huge amounts of data. Because all of
this data is important.
  Now, I do not have the equipment or mercury to experiment on. Mercury
is a poison so it should be experimented with by those who are poison
trained.
  But I am going to offer my best guesses in my mind how the
experiments will go and be conducted. Experimental mind guesses.
Mercury sound luminescence will not be like water sonoluminescence.
Mercury has the characteristic of globules when dropped and not the
polar molecule behavior of water. So, it may come to pass that the
mercury luminescence is not a sound wave luminescence but instead a
shorter wavelength of some EM waves. Perhaps some radio waves?
   And , I am guessing that when the mercury is in a state of maximum
Luminescence the mercury that is in this state trys to form a shape of
being a ball. That is, in maximum Luminescence, a test tube of mercury
or a beaker of mercury, the mercury will try to form the shape of a
ball, one big bubble.
   Liquid iron, at what temperature ranges is iron liquid? Liquid tin,
what temperature ranges? Liquid argon, what temperature ranges? All
elements in the liquid state and all liquid compounds must be
researched for their Wave-Luminescence

In article <5qdjfg$grh@larry.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker  wrote:
>B. Alan Guthrie (zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
>: 
>:     I do not know whether the North Korean reactor was foreign-suppled
>:     or a domestic design.  I do know that it was not a power reactor.
>
>
>How can you know that yet not know where it came from?
   Because North Korea has no power reactors.  I do know that the
   reactor in question was rated at 35 MW.  I do not know the origin
   of the design.  Sorry, but I am not omniscient.
>
>And perhaps you'd like to explain the US's concern about Iran buying a 
>power reactor?
  The concern is directed really at the ancilliary facilities which
  Iran is attempting to acquire.  The power reactors themselves are
  not the real issue.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III          |   Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
                              |     
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |   My opinions only 
                              |                  

In article <33CCE5D8.322C@cwi.nl>
"Frank A. Roos"  writes:
> > > Excuse me Professor, but this is not much of a scientific attitude;
> > > calling an investigation pseudoscience, while knowing that the
> > > investigation will be published in a peer reviewed journal.
> > 
> > Bullshit.  Homeopathic "medicine" is pseudoscience.  Magnetic knee
> > straps are pseudoscience.  Healing crystals are pseudoscience.  ESP is
> > pseudoscience.  This is pseudoscience.  Being published in a peer
> > review journal does not magically ordain something with scientific
> > legitimacy, cold fusion and polywater being excellent examples.
> > Moreover, Dr. VernonClark's analysis and interpretation would be
> > REJECTED by any reputable scientific journal because it is seriously
> > flawed science if not pseudoscience.  His "analysis" (in its current
> > incarnation) will NEVER be published in a peer reviewed journal unless
> > it is J. Irreproducible Results or a supermarket tabloid.
> > 
> > Furthermore, the viewpoint that I and others have espoused here is
> > based entirely on the Scientific Method which demands data and facts.
> 
> But ....uuhhhh, why then is/was one of the missions of Mars probes to
> find out the isotope distribution of some gases in the Mars atmosphere
> through quadrupole mass spectrometry?
> 
> Besides, how do you think scientists assessed that EETA79001 and
> ALH84001, both meteorites and the former found in Antarctica, came from
> Mars (i.e they are extraterrestrial)?
A very good question that I've been waiting for someone to ask.  Here's
the answer...and the most important aspect of it is this:  there is
OTHER evidence that supports the hypothesis that these meterorites came
from Mars.  First, they are clearly meteorites.  They have all the
characteristics of other samples which are known meteorites --
melted/solidified surfaces, found in the middle of an ice sheet etc.
etc.  I hope we all accept that most meteorites don't come from Earth. 
Second, the elemental composition is apparently consistent with what
was known about Martian geology at the time (Viking spacecraft data). 
There are probably other reasons, but I won't speculate here without
seeing the original papers.  Third, the explanations for how a Mars
rock would end up here utilize scientifically accepted principles
without invoking supernatural explanations or leaps of logic.
Finding the composition of gases in the Mars atmosphere is an important
task, but is rather unrelated to the issue we've been discussing.  But
it is important for pointing out again the need for corroborating
evidence.  A simple quadrapole MS can NOT differentiate between CO and
N2 because both have a nominal mass of 28 (a high resolution instrument
could but I doubt you could fit one in a spacecraft).  That's why one
needs to perform other tests such as IR spectroscopy (N2 is IR
inactive, but CO has a strong band at 2143 cm-1) to confirm ones
hypothesis.
The best scientific papers get every piece of data they can.  If any
one of these does not fit the hypothesis, then it is time to discount
or modify the hypothesis.  One of the most aggravating yet enjoyable
things about science is that you can NEVER prove a hypothesis, only
disprove it. 
> And finally. I get the impression you want data and facts. Well, the
> results should then be published by a peer reviewed journal and not a
> priori rejected on the basis of the results. But don't worry, the
> article will be peer reviewed first before publishing or rejection. 
And it will be rejected.  I have reviewed the data and its
intepretation and demonstrated that they are invalid.  Do you disagree
with my logic that the sample can not contain Ge-75 as claimed?  I'm
not the one who proclaimed that I had a piece of a Roswell saucer or
Ge-75.   Here's one for the people pushing this "artifact" as real:
Don't make a claim, especially one so fantastic as this, unless you can
support it.  That means corroborating evidence and, in this case, quite
a bit of it.
BTW, peer review is not infallible.  Remember the big "aluminum causes
Alzheimer's" scare?  All the data the reviewers saw agreed with the
author's conclusions.  Only years later did the authors admit/discover
that their samples were contaminated with aluminosilicate laboratory
dust and that their conclusions were therefore invalid.  You can add
silicone breast implants, dioxin/Agent Orange, Vitamin A, high voltage
lines and more to the list of "it's been peer reviewed so it must be
right (WRONG)" experiments.  Uncle Al would probably be happy to
enlighten you on some of those topics...
> > And again...I AM STILL WAITING for someone to show me the scientific
> > basis for making the giant leap from "this sample has anomalous isotope
> > ratios" to "this sample is extraterrestrial in origin".  If you reply
> > to this posting, Frank, make sure you explain that for us, OK?
> 
> In principle Professor, all stable elements are expected to be present
> in the universe, only the isotope ratios may vary (is the hypothesis).
> 
Yes, once formed, a stable isotope (by definition) will remain.  Have
we found all the stable isotopes yet?  Are there more?  That's a
question that hasn't been answered and never will be.
Regardless, I'm not sure I understand your statement because I still
don't see the connection.  Let's try it again.  Please fill in the
blank between these two sentences:
      We have a sample with unusual isotope ratios...
      .....insert logical reasoning here....
      Therefore, the sample is extraterrestrial in origin.
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.

Eric Lucas wrote:
> Stephen Miller wrote:
> >  Without looking at any rankings, I think it's pretty obvious that the
> > Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) takes the cake... 
> And I would strongly disagree about JACS (and, yes, I'm American).  The
> editors have allowed it to become the "Journal of Biological and
> Computational Chemistry."  I very seldom find things of value to me
> (perhaps three or four issues per year), in any sense of the phrase.  I
> think the Chem. Soc. journals, Angewandte and Berichte (thank god they
> now publish exclusively in English!) are *much* more useful, in terms of
> publishing science that is of broad and fundamental interest, as well as
> being germaine to my particular interests--i.e., catalysis and inorganic
> chemistry.  I even get more value from Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan better
> than JACS!
I second Eric's comments about JACS.  I dropped my 6-year-old
subscription this year because I realized I was browsing <1 article per
issue.  However, I still think JACS is one of the highest quality
journals in terms of reliability, and I do check the table of contents
regularly at the library.
Top "cutting edge" journal for inorganic chemistry:  Angewandte Chemie. 
(But low marks for reliability ever since they put CpCo=CoCp on their
cover!)  Runner-up:  JCS Chem Comm.
Best journal for reading on a Saturday:  Accounts of Chemical Research
Becky

GSD  writes: > Wm James wrote:
>
> p.s.  We don't eat vegeterians as they smell when cooked.  We simply
> feed them to the wild animals that would otherwise deplete our stocks of
> healthy human meat (carnivores).
> 
> I have some wonderful recipes if anyone is interested.
Personally, people should have the right to make jokes publicly
about anything: animals, Oklahoma City bombing, drugs...
But, I don't want some idiotic moron telling ME that somehow
MY posting is "off-topic" in these newsgroups when these uncreative
posters post their unoriginal "jokes" to these science newsgroups.