Newsgroup sci.environment 104116

Directory

Ah, good old Helen Caldicott.  Those old hatemongers of the left never
quite fade away, do they?
-----------------------------------------------
"Scientists who work for nuclear power or nuclear energy have sold their
soul to the devil.  They are either dumb, stupid, or highly compromised....
Free enterprise really means rich people get richer.  And they have the
freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the
process.
Capitalism is destroying the earth.  Cuba is a wonderful country.  What
Castro's done is superb."
 - Helen Caldicott, Australian pediatrician, speaking for the Union
   of Concerned Scientists (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book
   Toxic Terror)
-------------------------------------
Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com

Murrilett Wonk wrote the quoted material below:
" [....] She addressed how the Jobs angle
" is abused, while the multinationals of media continue to conveniently ignore
" how L-P went from a family-run operation famous for sustainable practices to
" a river-silting, cut-and-run clearcutting operation [....]
Pacific Lumber may have been this way, but not Louisiana-Pacific.  LP was
a huge spinoff of Georgia Pacific when they were cited for anti-trust
violations (monopolistic practices by acquiring lumber companies to the
point where they controlled a majority of the lumber market).  The FTC
finally stepped in in the mid-1970s (1974?) and forced GP to sell off part
of their holdings.  This became LP. 
--
Copyright 1996                       
David Kaye                            

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:25:57 GMT, rgor@nando.net (Robert Gordon) wrote:
> Since land doesn't grow on trees, where do we keep getting the land to
> build the farms and homes and offices and factories? This is a
> question I wish anti-environmentalists would answer.
That is a question I would like Vandeman to answer.  (Given the poor
image he casts on environmentalists by claiming to be one of them, I
suppose you could call him an anti-environmentalist.  Not sure that's
what you had in mind, though.)
> Although the man you love to hate in this newsgroup has certainly
> irritated you quite a bit, the world does need more champions of
> environmental conservation and less people with a callous disregard
> for it, and certainly less people making greedy profits by chopping,
> slashing, digging and burning OUR land.
I am more amused than irritated by Vandeman's dim-witted brush off of
the impact of agriculture upon wild animals, prefering instead to rant
and rave about how mountain biking is actually the activity that will
cause mass extinctions.  Who can take that seriously enough to be
irritated?  Somehow, it's even funnier when he becomes indignant about
his need to repeat his foolishness, as in the following passage:
#Can you read? I said the U.S. doesn't NEED to sacrifice wildlife to
#feed ourselves.  Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Why don't you
#read it in the first place?
I'm still waiting for him to explain that crack.  If he does, I get the
sense he'll have me laughing again.
> stuff our 300 million mouths" (5 billion worldwide).
Make that almost 6 billion.  Apparently the world's humans are concerned
with more than simply stuffing mouths. 
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California
--
 I am working on preserving mtb-oriented cyberspace that is 
 off-limits to Vandeman ("pure mtb discussion"). Want to help?
 (I spent the previous 2+ years fighting Vandeman's unwelcome 
 disruptions.)
 http://www.cycling.org/mailing.lists/mtb/mailing.list.info

So Mike,
I figure you would be offended if I told you that I pay my taxes and
that is enough.  Capitalism thrives on selfishness.  I figure as long
as the planet works while I'm on it who cares.
Mike Vandeman  wrote:
>It has always been my intention & practice to use all the help I can get. But
>mountain bikers have apparently been too busy trashing the environment & asking
>for more places to trash, to spare time for that. I have gone to public hearings
>for a decade. I have NEVER seen a mountain biker at one of those hearings (where
>I have been trying to protect the environment for all of us), unless they were
>there to ask for more MTB access. To my knowledge, they NEVER do anything for
>anyone else. (They sometimes do trail maintenance, but only so they can continue
>riding those trails.)

Thomas H. Kunich wrote:
> I don't smoke and my father died of emphesema contracted, I'm sure, from
> smoking. But there isn't a smoker alive who doesn't know that smoking
> is (PROBABLY) bad for your health. If they want to kill themselves that
> is their own decision. Moreover, smokers more than pay their medical
> expenses in the horrendous taxes on their habits so there is little
> cost to society in real terms.
This may be true for smokers (still debatable though) but it fails to take 
account of their impacts on others (passive smoking).  I have heard recently 
that the health costs of passive smoking come close to matching those of 
active smoking - this is particularly a problem for young children who have 
little choice when their parents smoke.
> Freedom for one is freedom for all or freedom for none.
In the case of smoking, it usually means freedom for none - the non-smokers 
don't have the choice of clean air when there are smokers around!
Dale

In article ,
   mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman) wrote:
>In article <51hh8e$7js_001@pm7-110.hal-pc.org>, 
charliew@hal-pc.org
>(charliew) wrote:
>
><stabilization of CO2 emissions at 1990 levels unlikely>>
>
>> Conclusions:
>> 
>> It is very unlikely that we can achieve the 1990 cap on 
CO2 
>> emissions on a world wide scale if third world countries 
do 
>> actually modernize their economies.  Based on this, it is 
>> reasonable to conclude that CO2 emissions will rise 
>> substantially from their current levels.  I, for one, hope 
>> that we do develop good climate models which have 
predictive 
>> capability, for the simple reason that there will 
apparently 
>> be some very difficult choices to be made in the future.  
To 
>> minimize the impact of these choices, it would seem best 
to 
>> implement a plan that accounts for economic effectiveness, 
>> along with "climatological" effectiveness.  Unfortunately, 
>> when evaluating a lot of different "what if" cases, the 
model 
>> must necessarily have predictive capabilities to allow an 
>> economic choice to be made.  I realize that if we ignore 
>> economics, and implement draconian measures regarding 
energy 
>> consumption, we can surely achieve some pre-established 
goal. 
>> However, I don't find this sort of solution particularly 
>> palatable for the economies that are already using more 
per 
>> capita energy than they "should" be.
>
>This analysis is pretty obvious, and though the conclusion 
is not
>inevitable, it is compelling.  I have a few comments:
>
>(1) The commitments in the Climate Convention to cap 
emissions at 1990
>levels by the year 2000 applies only to developed countries, 
and is
>unlikely to be met except in Central and Eastern Europe, as 
a consequence
>of shutting down inefficient Communist-era industries.  
There is no cap on
>developing country emissions.  Thus the status quo situation 
is if
>anything worse than your analysis suggests.
>
>(2) It is harder to reduce emissions when the energy 
infrastructure is
>already in place.  The expected expansion of energy demand 
in developing
>countries therefore represents an opportunity to establish a 
more
>efficient and less carbon intensive energy infrastructure in 
the first
>place.  This is the basis of the technology transfer 
provisions of the
>Climate Convention.
>
>My conclusion, therefore, is that there is no time to waste 
in attempting
>to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions.  The economic 
analyses
>suggesting that we can afford to wait ignore point (2) 
above.
>
I'm glad you agree with the analysis.  Since the restrictions 
will not be on developing countries, if one assumes that 
their economies will be carbon-fuel based, it should be 
fairly obvious that there is far less to be gained from 
restricting the developed countries than expected, because of 
the relatively small populations of those countries.  Thus, 
while everyone seems to be worried about an exponential 
growth of carbon based fuels, the actions being taken will 
not prevent or solve this problem.  I am getting to the point 
of wondering what problem we are really trying to solve here.

allen  wrote:
>
> Lead paint on the outside of houses, above four (or six?) feet is not
>even subject to the lead removal/abatement laws.  And that's the
>lead paint that gets hit by the rain and washed into the soil.
Friendly point of information here : The law is 5 feet.  This includes 
cellars, outside windows, porches, garages, fences, etc.  It used to be 4 
feet, then 4 1/2 feet, now 5 . The kids are just growing higher every 
year .   
> ........................ (It is reasonable to ask the magnitude
>of the problem, and compare it with the cost; to ask the cost of
>alternatives; and to ask about unintended consequences of the
>proposed solution.)
The proposed solution is to just delead everything.  Starting with 
multifamilies and then singles .  It should be noted that 30 percent of 
the elevated levels are now from owner occupied single family residences. 
Another interesting fact in Massachusetts is :   1.7 children out of 1000 
have elevated levels.   Is it really needed to delead 998.3 housing units 
when this is not a problem ?   At an average cost of 7 k per apartment 
divided by the children per apt. this would certainly go a long way in 
education.   A healthy diet and parental supervision would probably be 
more beneficial to the little ones.  We also have to remember that after 
the deleading process the residents' levels go up.  ( I believe it's 
Michigan that has actually stopped deleading as they realized it wasn't 
worth while to kick all this leaded dust up into everyone's atmosphere. ) 
So is it really worth it to disturb several layers of intact non-leaded 
paint covering a layer of formerly goverment approved leaded paint and 
stir it up ?   The special interest groups think so and these costs will 
most certainly be passed down in rents and housing costs plus the added 
lead dust in our lungs .  It's very apparent that the paint companies, 
gas companies, lead industry, and banks  aren't going to step up to the 
plate here with any assistance .  They have all had their lobbiests get 
them off the hook and just dumped this " witch hunt " on property owners. 
It just might add up to more defaults on mortgages but not to worry 
because the feds ( our taxes ) will pay them off .
From an environmental point of view: I still ask : where on earth are we 
going to put all this projected deleaded trash?  If we bury the plastic, 
it will eventually rise to the surface & spew it's leaded dust about .  
What's the half life of 6 mil plastic ?   Maybe 400 years...  Where is 
all the replacement wood going to come from ?  It will quickly be proven 
that it's far cheaper and safer to remove and replace every stick of wood 
that has a layer of leaded paint behind many layers of intact latex.  
If anyone really cares, I would like to hear suggestions of the proper 
disposal of this & get replacement materials without descimating our 
fragile environment .  We have to remember that our children's children 
are going to inherit this planet and we have only to look at the present 
landfills from our ancestors . Sadly enough, we are looking at 75 percent 
of the housing in this country going through this process because we 
don't know or care how to keep a clean household  ;-(
So Title X from Washington 1992 is now in effect for the entire 50 
states. All departments of health & state departments of health should be 
informing their entire population about lead poisoning .  If they aren't, 
then they certainly aren't doing their jobs .  We should hope that they 
do it in their homes first as a good example .
T.
Everyone is a liberal until they are paying for it .

In article ,
   hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <51l5r1$6sc_003@pm6-90.hal-pc.org>,
>charliew  wrote:
>
>[was it really necessary to quote the whole damn thing?]
>
>>Give up, Dave.  You obviously don't know what you are 
talking 
>>about on this one.  Asking stupid questions after the fact 
is 
>>not making you look more intelligent.
>
>Unfortunately, you are betraying an abyssmal ignorance of 
how things
>actually get done in the real world.
>
>Please perform a rough calculation for the amount of coal 
that would
>consumed in southern California if gasification is to be 
employed at
>the point of consumption (the filling of vehicle tanks), 
assuming, say,
>2,000,000 automobiles to be so serviced.
>
>Then explain how all that coal is to be transported and 
temporarily
>stored.
>
>That's for starters.
You would want to build the coal gassification plant close to 
the coal mine to save on transportation costs.  If you wanted 
to transport the plant's product as a gas, you merely send it 
to California over pipelines similar to natural gas 
pipelines.  If you want a liquid product, other processing 
steps would be required to get the gas into liquid form.  I'm 
not sure of the details on this one.  My employer formerly 
gassified coal, and produced a gaseous product which was 
either flared or put into the refinery fuel system.  Whether 
this product could be turned into gasoline, I don't know.  
But I do know that it can be turned into a gaseous fuel that 
is handled in a normal fashion.  
Perhaps we "got off on the wrong foot" on this one, because 
of a confusion between "gas" and "gasoline".  The two are not 
necessarily equivalent.
Have a nice day.  

Andrew J. Paier wrote:
 if you don't provided an out let for the people who
> want to mountain bike (skateboard) you are just forcing them to do it
> illegally. 
If you don't let me drive my bulldozer in the national parks, you are just
forcing me to do it illegally! 
Thanks for proving, once again, that mountain bikers are just outlaws, nothing
more. No, you are WORSE, because you want your land rape LEGALIZED! And you are
completely incapable of THINKING. Such people are called "sociopaths", technically
speaking.
 However in trully understanding the problem and finding a
> solution for all parties, you will probably serve the environment much
> better.
we have FOUND a solution that is equitable for all parties: everyone can hike,
and no one can mountain bike off-road. Everyone is treated equally. Can't get 
any better than that. 
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

Todd O. wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 21:08:15 -0700, Mike Vandeman 
> wrote:
> > Can you read? I said the U.S. doesn't NEED to sacrifice wildlife to feed ourselves.
> > Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Why don't you read it in the first place?
> 
> I read it, Mike, but I still don't understand it. 
Finally, some honesty. That is the start of learning.
 How can the U.S. feed
> it's nearly 300 million people without sacrificing any wildlife?  Go
> ahead, explain that for all us ignorant types who can't guess what you
> have in mind.
Don't eat wildlife, and preserve all existing habitat. E.g. don't cut down 
rainforest to grow cattle. Leave wildlife alone. Remove human artifacts from
all habitat areas (roads, especially).
> Todd Ourston
> Marin County, California
> --
>  "How Greatly does cycling enoble one's spirit, heart and frame
>  of mind!  When the cyclist roams freely on his steely steed in
>  the godly world of Nature . . . his heart rises and he bewonders
>  the splendor of Creation."  (Wilhelm Wolf, 1890)
-- 
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

Gary wrote:
> 
> Yes they would be better for the smog problem in the city, but what right does a city
> have to move the smog to the country where the coal fired generators are making the
> electric.  Electric cars should only be allowed if the power is generated by hydro
> electric, wind, or solar, and this would make them a partial solution.  Unfortunatly
> city people have an out of site out of mind metaility.  Just because you move the smog
> out of the city doesn't mean that it went away.
> If the you increase the number of electric cars, you would have to build more 
power plants, increase pollution from generating stations.  Unless you build 
nuclear power plants.
Dodge Boy

bsharvy@efn.org (Ben Sharvy) writes:
> There is no logical connection between your ostensibly logically 
> connected sentences: "I don't agree we would be better off foregoing 
> these benefits" and "I rather suspect...Americans will want more 
> energy...." What we want is not necessarily related to what is best for 
> us. Look at consumer credit card debt (and the rise of bankruptcy 
> declarations) for a good analog. People aren't too bright.
Hmmm. Is this an attempt at cute self-referential deprecation
in the Parson style (sorry Robert ;-)
or, are we to infer you are not "people"?
Perhaps you know someone who isn't, who could tell
the dumb ones what they should do?

Sam McClintock  writes:
> is still being consumed.  Hence, the solution does not necessarily 
> encourage other, more benign, alternatives to reducing greenhouse gas
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> emissions.  (The scope of the engineering project is expensive, so some
This rather begs the question, don't you think?

In article <51i8mu$hc9@staff.cs.su.oz.au> andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) writes:
   > In article ,
   > John McCarthy  wrote:
   > >I am sorry to annoy Sam McClintock, but I will repeat the suggestion
   > >on my Web page http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/avoid.html
   > >to cut down forests in Canada and Siberia, not burn the wood and
   > >replant fast growing trees.  Also persuade the Brazilians to not burn
   > >the wood when they cut down forests for agriculture.
   > > ...
   > >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
   > 
   > Ok lets see your estimates of the positive/negative effects of this
   > policy on the carbon budget over time.
   > 
   > I'm sure you have numbers for the carbon releases from soil, vegetation
   > other than trees, branches & leaves etc, fuel use during felling,
   > transport and replanting operations and  escape from the sequestrated
   > wood.  Presumably sequestration will not be perfect and affordable
   > methods of sequestration may involve significant releases on century
   > time scales.
   > 
   > You are advocating an expensive policy which involves a large initial
   > release of carbon - you have done the arithmetic haven't you?
   > 
   > Andrew Taylor
Why no.  I have not done the arithmetic yet.  I would strongly
advocate doing the arithmetic before implementing the proposal.  But
McClintock said he knew the proposal was silly.  Maybe he has done the
arithmetic.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

Simon Gray (simon@star-one.org.uk) wrote:
: In article <19960913.193353.26@hotch.hotch.demon.co.uk>
:            iain@hotch.demon.co.uk "Iain L M Hotchkies" writes:
: ~ I have long wondered which is the more environmentally friendly:
: ~ 
: ~ 1) leaving dog faeces on grass/sidewalks etc to be distributed
: ~    by feet/paws and washed away by rain and biodegraded in a
: ~    natural way, or...
: ~ 
: ~ 2) scooped up into plastic bags, deposited in receptacles,
: ~    collected by vans and taken to landfill sites where many years
: ~    pass before the plastic bag degrades, allowing the faeces to
: ~    disintegrate.
: 3) putting it into a paper bag & into the bin, where all the advantages
: & none of the disadvantages of 1 & 2 come to pass ?
: -- 
:    []=-             Simon Gray, in Birmingham, EU       <*>
:    //    _-=__-=     Don't give in to censorship - boycott The Observer
:  _/|]    ) ___ \      & The Guardian.
: (_) \___/_(___)_|         http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
:  @          @
Hi,
Putting it in a paper bag will not help if it still goes to a landfill.  
Landfills are made so that no air or water get in (and therefore out).
Very little actually happens in a landfill.  The stuff just sits there 
waiting to be capped with a layer of clay.
Tricia Shaffer
pjpresla@mtu.edu

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >  How can the U.S. feed
> > it's nearly 300 million people without sacrificing any wildlife?  Go
> > ahead, explain that for all us ignorant types who can't guess what you
> > have in mind.
> 
> Don't eat wildlife, and preserve all existing habitat. E.g. don't cut down
> rainforest to grow cattle. Leave wildlife alone. Remove human artifacts from
> all habitat areas (roads, especially).
2 key issues here - what about all the wildlife which has been sacrificed already 
(say to create the farmland we already have)?  And what about any future growth 
in the population - it won't take all that long before there won't be enough 
farmland to cater for any increase in population, not to mention the current 
losses of farmland which are occurring at an increasing rate due to soil 
degradation and other causes.  All this suggests that significant levels of 
wildlife have been sacrificed already and will continue to be sacrificed into the 
future - you may get into a semantic debate about whether this actually needs to 
happen, but there is almost no doubt that it will happen.
Dale

Hallo,
we - an analytical laboratory in germany - found nonyphenol in mineral 
water (of german companies) (1 - 6 mikrogramm / liter). 
Has anyone toxicological data for this compound, which is discussed to 
be an endocrine contaminant. Furthermore are there any additional data 
comparing mineral water and normal drinking water or are there other 
contaminants found in mineral water?
Sincerely 
SOFIA

yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
> leading to some notions of reviving airships.  Are they really any more
> energy-efficient?  Sure, they don't have to expend effort just to stay
> up in the air, but they are enormous and thus have a lot of drag.  As a
> rough guess:
> 
> 1. they would need to be 200 times the size, thus having 200^(2/3) or
> 36 times the frontal area.
> 2. they would fly at a seventh the speed.
> 3. they would fly where the air is five times as dense.
> Drag force is proportional to the density of the air, times the square
> of the speed, times the frontal area.  Thus, using the above numbers,
> airships would need about four times as much energy to overcome drag as
> airplanes need, in order to transport the same cargo over the same
> distance.  This is not the whole picture for energy use, since
Propulsion power is F.v, so power requirement scales a v^3
Thus the naive estimate is 1/2 the power of 
comparable airplane (at cruising speed & altitude).
If you make heavy lifters you start gaining as
the cross-sectional area scales more slowly than
the lift.

EEVL, the new free UK based virtual library for Engineering, now 
live!
http://www.eevl.ac.uk/
The Edinburgh Engineering Virtual Library (EEVL) went live 
on Friday 13th September.  The EEVL gateway to Internet resources 
in Engineering will be extremely popular with the engineering 
community and will solve one of the main problems facing users of 
the Internet - locating useful resources from the millions 
available.
Earlier in the summer EEVL launched two useful services for 
engineers, the EEVL Engineering Newsgroup Archive, and the 
Offshore Engineering Information Service, both of which have 
proved successful.  Now EEVL's Main Service, its searchable 
database of high quality engineering networked resources, will be 
freely available to anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet 
connection and appropriate World Wide Web browsing software.
The database, containing descriptions and links to over 1300 
Internet resources in engineering, has an extremely user friendly 
interface, and allows practising engineers, academics, 
researchers, students, and information specialists to search or 
browse for engineering resources by title, keyword, or subject.  
The database is actively managed by a team of engineering 
information specialists, with headquarters at Heriot-Watt 
University Library, in Edinburgh, UK.  Resource 
descriptions and links are checked regularly, making EEVL the 
premier site on the Internet for locating UK engineering sites.  
Resources in the EEVL database include Web sites for engineering 
e-journals and electronic newsletter, engineering 
companies, professional societies and institutions, engineering 
departments within higher education, government sources, 
engineering email lists, resource guides and directories, 
research centres, recruitment services, software, and more.
EEVL fills a large gap for engineers and industrialists as far 
as Internet resources are concerned and it is likely that EEVL 
will become the first port of call for anyone looking for 
Engineering information on the Internet.
EEVL is funded through the Electronic Library Programme (eLib), 
managed by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) on 
behalf of the UK Higher Education funding councils.  The EEVL 
Project lead sites are Heriot-Watt University Library, and the 
Heriot-Watt Institute for Computer Based Learning 
(ICBL).  Partner sites are the University of Edinburgh, Napier 
University, Cambridge University, Imperial College of Science, 
Technology and Medicine, the Nottingham Trent University, and the 
Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE).
For more information, see the Web site at: http://www.eevl.ac.uk/
or
email eevl@icbl.hw.ac.uk

Magnus Redin  wrote in article
<51n1cv$ou3@newsy.ifm.liu.se>...
: "Patrick Reid"  writes:
: > The real reason that the US hasn't ever bought a CANDU is that the
: > USNRC has a problem with reactors which have positive void
: > reactivity coefficients. IMHO, they are wrong to do so.
: That is something that makes me uneasy. I am not a nuclear engineer
: but I have read a little more then most, you will have a hard time to
: explain why it isent dangerous. (It isent I hope? ;-) )
A positive void reactivity coefficient means that, in the event that an
accident (like a Loss Of Coolant Accident or LOCA) occurs, and the fuel
heats up, boiling off coolant and creating a _void_, the reactivity of the
system increases which further drives up the power. This is a consequence
of the CANDU's being somewhat over-moderated.
As a result of this, the CANDU design includes two independent, fast acting
shutdown systems, each independently capable of shutting the reactor down.
The two independent shutdown systems are each controlled by a
triply-redundant system with a two-out-of-three trip logic. One of the
(sort of backward) advantages of the positive void coefficient is that it
gives an unambiguous trip signal in the event of a Large Break LOCA. CANDU
reactors also include medium and high pressure Emergency Coolant Injection
systems which provide additional coolant in the event of a coolant
inventory depletion.
For an example of what this means, consider the small break LOCA which
occurred at Pickering NGS this past year. This loss of coolant tripped both
shutdown systems and caused the ECI to fire (the first time that ECI has
ever fired, outside of testing, in any CANDU). Result: plenty of cooling
and _no_ fuel damage. I believe that the fuel was approved for further
irradiation.
CANDU's fuel can be built such that it has a low or zero void reactivity
coefficient. It involves some combination of slight U enrichment and the
addition of "burnable poisons," which are elements (such as dysprosium)
which absorb neutrons but which, over irradiation, disappear. However, such
fuel would be more expensive and, since CANDU's are designed to accomodate
the positive void reactivity coefficient, it isn't worth the expense, IMHO.
A positive void reactivity coefficient is not an "unsafe" thing. It is just
a result of the design which must be considered in assessing the safety of
the plant. It has both positive and negative safety implications when
considered in the context of the entire plant design. I believe that the
USNRC has a blanket policy that "thou shalt not build a reactor which has a
positive void reactivity coefficient." This is the mistake I believe they
make. They should consider the overall safety of the design, not reject it
out of hand based on a single design element.
Perhaps someone else who is a reactor physicist (as I certainly am _not_)
could provide more details anout the impact of the CANDU void reactivity
coefficient.
Patrick Reid
pjreid@mi.net

Dale  wrote:
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> >  How can the U.S. feed
>> > it's nearly 300 million people without sacrificing any wildlife?  Go
>> > ahead, explain that for all us ignorant types who can't guess what you
>> > have in mind.
>> 
>> Don't eat wildlife, and preserve all existing habitat. E.g. don't cut down
>> rainforest to grow cattle. Leave wildlife alone. Remove human artifacts from
>> all habitat areas (roads, especially).
>2 key issues here - what about all the wildlife which has been sacrificed already 
>(say to create the farmland we already have)?  And what about any future growth 
>in the population - it won't take all that long before there won't be enough 
>farmland to cater for any increase in population, not to mention the current 
>losses of farmland which are occurring at an increasing rate due to soil 
>degradation and other causes.  All this suggests that significant levels of 
>wildlife have been sacrificed already and will continue to be sacrificed into the 
>future - you may get into a semantic debate about whether this actually needs to 
>happen, but there is almost no doubt that it will happen.
>Dale
Another thing related to this that is infuriating, is when some farmer
or rancher (either in Africa or S. America or even here in America)
complains about coyotes or bears or whatever encroaching on "his"
land. These guys are quick to grab their 30-06's to "protect" their
livestock against "marauding" wild animals, but slow to realize that
maybe not so long ago, "their" land was these animals' home.
When populations increase in a constant or shrinking environment,
predation and disease generally cull the wild herds back to
sustainable levels. We think (due to the insistence of either science
or religion) that we are above the laws of nature. Then why,
considering all the marvels of modern science and there being a church
on virtually every street corner, why are the number of deadly
diseases on the increase, as well as the only remaining predator of
man - our fellow man. Doesn't anyone else see increasing crime and
disease as a sign that we are headed toward the saturation point? Just
another statistical blip I suppose?
As to your main question about what happens when the remaining farms
cannot produce enough food for all the human mouths, the answer is
simple - SOYLENT GREEN.
Robert

In article <323F5F69.2E47@pacbell.net>, mjvande@pacbell.net says...
> Thanks for proving, once again, that mountain bikers are just outlaws, nothing
> more. No, you are WORSE, because you want your land rape LEGALIZED! And you are
> completely incapable of THINKING. Such people are called "sociopaths", technically
> speaking.
Er, Mike...next time PacBell offers free psychiatric evaluations to it's 
employees, take them up on it. You need professional help in a big way.
DP

Hello reader.  My name is maria and i study the I.B in sweden.  For my 
extended essay I have chosen a reaerch question in Biology.  I need some 
feedback, information, ideas, opinions, answers whatever.  PLEASE reply 
A.S.A.P.
*If we hypothetically removed only the source of light from the planet, 
what would survive?What woultd the futuristic planet look like?'
Answer to :uhvlap@hvitfeldt.educ.goteborg.se
Many thanks.
Maria.

I am trying to find any online information and/or web sites in regards to
the the Biodome project that was in the US Southwest. Any responses would
be greatly appreciated. 
Ken Miller 
krm@usa.pipeline.com

In article <32395477.250738561@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
 writes
>Nick Eyre  wrote for all to see:
>
>>In article <322ed14c.151475805@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
>> writes
>
>[edited]
>
>>>If you find evidence in a government report or a peer reviewed article
>>>of global warming, I would be interested in reading it.  The last
>>>fairly comprehensive report was in the Journal of Geophysical
>>>Research, "Historical Temperature Trands in the United States and the
>>>effect of Urban Population Growth", Vol 84, pages 3359-63.  
>>
>>What an astonishing statement just months after the IPCC 2nd Assessment
>>Report.  For the record, the full reference is:
>>Climate Change 1995 - The Science of Climate Change.  Intergovernmental
>>Panel on Climate Change.  Eds. J.T.Houghton et al.  Cambridge University
>>Press.
>>
>>Why is USA seemingly full of people who ignore major international, peer
>>reviewed studies?
>
>"Reviewed studies"?  I am sorry you consider that a reviewed study,
>since it makes me think you are unaware of how the peer review process
>works in science.  This can be the only explanation for why you would
>consider a government report as the equivalent.  
It is not a government report.  IPCC is a panel jointly established and
UNEP and WMO.  If it is not a "reviewed report" - why is there a 14 page
list of reviewers from over 40 countries?
>
>I consider it a political document, and having contributed to more
>than one such in the past, I know that I am correct.  According to
>several new reports, the sequence for writing was as follows:
>
>   1.  The report was written, and agreed to by all contributors.
>
>   2.  The summary was written.  The summary was more "immediate" than
>the report.
>
>   3.  Several writers suggested that the report be rewritten, in part
>that the tone agree more with the summary.
>
>   4.  The report was rewritten.
Both the chapters and the summaries were reviewed.  The summaries were
agreed in detail by the whole of wg1.
>But let's assume the report is right and state of the art as far as it
>goes.  Where does it go?  It goes to 0.5 to 3 C in one hundred years.
>Almost halving the last major estimate.  Which, in its turn, halved
>the prior best estimate.
Garbage.  Estimates of climate sensitivity have hardly changed since the
1990 IPCC review, or indeed the USDOE review of 1985.
>
>This history of dropping the estimates of global warming as a function
>of how recent the report is alone is sufficient for me to wonder if
>they are done yet.
>
>Your comment might lead any reader to the conclusion that the issue is
>settled.  I am sure it is, in your mind.  I find it unpersuasive.
It seems far from settled to me - or the authors of the IPCC report who
are very clear about the problems and uncertainties.  The only people
who seem to be unpersuadable are those who believe that civilisation as
we know it will collapse if we use less fossil fuels - generally
industrial lobbyists and the anti-science, anto-environment faction of
extreme right wing politics.
-- 
Nick Eyre