Newsgroup sci.environment 104337

Directory

I wish I could remember the source but I read a study once that compared
several popular methods of preventing bird-window collisions.  The most
effective method found was to apply 1/4" (I think) wide tape in a grid
fashion over the entire window.  I can't remember the grid spacing but it
seems like it was somewhere around an inch.  The idea was to provide
something across the entire window that would break up any reflected image
and alert the birds that there was a barrier between them and the reflected
image.
I wish I could remember more detail but I read it several years ago.
Richard L. Hamilton  wrote in article
<32420724.65D6@mindwarp.smart.net>...
> Looking for info (esp. online) about how to discourage birds from
> killing themselves by flying into buildings.  I've already found
>  http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy/reports/avian_bibliography.html
> (Avian Collision and Electrocution: An Annotated Bibliography)
> which references lots of info, but little or none of that info
> appears to be available online.
> 
> Suggested methods should include documented examples of success,
> and should be far less costly than replacing all the glass with
> low-reflective glass, etc.  Low-cost approaches might be:
>  
>    * placing scarecrow-like objects in trees near the building,
>      so they will also be reflected by the building (fake owls,
>      snakes, etc)
>    * placing feeders at a suitable distance from the building to
>      divert the birds away from it.
> 
> The above do not satisfy my requirement of documented success,
> unless of course someone knows of such documentation.
> 
> Hummingbirds seem to be at particular risk this time of year.
> (location is northeast US; Baltimore/DC area)  In particular,
> they seem to be too delicate to survive a collision that would
> often just stun larger birds.
> 
> Please CC me via e-mail; I'm already following as many groups as
> I can handle.
> 
> Followups to sci.environment.
> 
> --
> ftp> get |fortune
> 377 I/O error: smart remark generator failed
> 
> mailto:rlhamil@mindwarp.smart.net  http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
> 

bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns) wrote:
>  By far, the bonehead NRC and those comic-book reactor managements
>are the biggest nuclear safety problems in the USA.
If you read comic books as information sources, it's quite likely
that you might believe something like this.  But let's look at the
facts.
>  TMI was enough to permanently disqualify the entire industry in the
>USA.
Nobody was harmed.  Every few months there's a chemical plant
explosion, it seems, and many of them kill people on-site and some
of them kill people off-site.  I don't see you yelling that the
entire chemical industry is permanently disqualified.
Could you perhaps be misinformed, prejudiced, or have a hidden agenda?
>  It took the most incredible sequence of careless, incompetent
>bungling to produce the disaster at TMI.
Great.  The more bungling it takes to get that far, the better.
And when the worst consequence is a big headache to the utility
when their expensive asset requires major repairs, that really
reassures me that it's safe.  Even safer now, since that failure
mode and many others are far less likely due to improved systems.
>Whatever doesn't leak ... is used as airliner ballast, military
>armor, or military armor-piercing artillery.
So you are confusing DEPLETED uranium, which is less radioactive
than natural uranium, with nuclear waste?  (Depleted uranium is
what is left over after the more-radioactive U-235 isotope is
concentrated in the fraction which us actually used for fuel.)
I do believe this shows a comic-book level understanding of the
issue, perhaps from Greenpeace's comics.  Needless to say, such
trivialization of important issues, confusion about consequences
and basic concepts has no place in making important policy decisions.

I'm currently researching the possibilities on satisfying my required paper
in law school by examining ISO 14000.  if you have any information or know
of where to obtain such information, please email me.  thank you

Hey guys, what are faeces, a weird face or 
something?
I thought it was feces..:)
Terri

In article <323EA824.2FEC@nando.net> Sam McClintock  writes:
>From: Sam McClintock 
>Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:31:16 -0400
snip
>The impact and amounts we are talking about in terms of 
>pollution/emission control of CO2 are orders of magnitude 
>above what oil ops have been using, and it will be going into
>the the ocean, not land.
>I am not saying I am an expert on this, nor am I dismissing it
>as a short-term solution.  Still would like to see some 
>research and other technical briefs on this technology.  Any
>help would be appreciated.
>Sam McClintock
>sammcc@nando.net
Sam, I hate to seem like a "bible-thumper" by referring you to IPCC _Climate 
Change 1995_, but it IS the standard scientific reference - not a bad place 
to start.  In the Working Group II Volume _Impacts Adaptations and 
Mitigations_, chapter 19 "Energy Supply Mitigation Options", Section 19.2.3.
3 "Storage of CO2" (p.598) "several possibilities for underground storage or 
ocean disposal are being investigated".   Sources include Hendrix, CA 1994 
_Carbon Dioxide Removal from Coal Fired Power Plants_ ; Riemer, PWF (ed) 
1993 _Procedings of the IEA Carbon Dioxide Disposal Symposium_ ; US DOE 1993 
_The Capture Utilization and Disposal of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel 
Fired Power Plants_.
Happy reading.
-dl

In article <51n7e5$6r0_002@pm7-119.hal-pc.org> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
>Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 96 22:07:01 GMT
snip
>So, which is it?  Inject CO2 and prevent emissions, or tax 
>CO2 and allow emissions?  If you are really worried about 
>global warming, it would seem that you want to inject CO2.  
>However, if you are looking for more government taxes and 
>programs (you already implied that you do), then you tax 
>carbon and emit CO2.
>Michael, Michael, Michael.  I really wish you would keep your 
>"story" consistent regarding CO2.  It is getting very 
>difficult to determine what the hell you are wanting industry 
>and its employees to do concerning environmental issues.
Using a carbon tax sends a market signal to industry, which then responds as 
a rational economic actor to substitute low carbon fuels and energy 
sources.  The tax method avoids "micro-management" solutions which are 
clearly the kind of intervention most hated by industry.  Mandating CO2 
sequestration technologies is an example of micro-management, whereas with 
the tax, industry is free to respond with its most cost-effective 
options.  The tax could be revenue neutral, or even positive, depending on 
how it is reinvested.  
Since sequestering CO2 by injection is a short-term fix with limited 
capacity, it might make a good emergency measure - but there isn't really 
that much of an emergency.  Over the next 50 to 100 years we can probably 
emit less CO2 by substituting methane for coal, by increasing use of 
renewables, by end-use efficiency improvements, by solving problems of 
nuclear waste handling and storage, etc.  These kind of slow-paced 
structural changes are expected to follow from a policy that signals markets 
to avoid coal.  Without such a signal, Charlie, why would industry act in 
any way to avoid CO2 emissions (or to sequester CO2)?  
Incidentally, current policy advocates making efficiency 
improvements for their own sake (cost savings) rather than for the purpose 
of avoiding CO2 emissions.  The electric power industry has begun to use gas 
turbines in new installations to handle peak-load problems, and recent de-
regulation of power transmission and distribution may offer more flexibility 
to install smaller scale, less capital intensive gas powered generating 
facilities.
-dl

I've seen many buildings in Canada with black cutouts of predatory birds,
most likely hawks, glued to the inside of large windows. Any birds flying
near the building avoid the predator and thus miss the window. I can't
give you any documentation on it, except to say it's used on several
buildings in Toronto.
Jeff
In article <32420724.65D6@mindwarp.smart.net>, "Richard L. Hamilton"
 wrote:
> Looking for info (esp. online) about how to discourage birds from
> killing themselves by flying into buildings.  I've already found
>  http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy/reports/avian_bibliography.html
> (Avian Collision and Electrocution: An Annotated Bibliography)
> which references lots of info, but little or none of that info
> appears to be available online.
> 
> Suggested methods should include documented examples of success,
> and should be far less costly than replacing all the glass with
> low-reflective glass, etc.  Low-cost approaches might be:
>  
>    * placing scarecrow-like objects in trees near the building,
>      so they will also be reflected by the building (fake owls,
>      snakes, etc)
>    * placing feeders at a suitable distance from the building to
>      divert the birds away from it.
> 
> The above do not satisfy my requirement of documented success,
> unless of course someone knows of such documentation.
-- 
Jeff Johnston
President, Canadian Organic Growers

On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Extremely Right wrote:
> In article <843088857snz@daflight.demon.co.uk>, hugh@daflight.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > For years, climatologists have been telling us that human-induced
> > "global warming" will mainly affect high latitudes. So far, there has
> > been no clear evidence of a large-scale temperature increase in either
> > the Arctic or Antarctica (or here in the U.K. for that matter!), a fact
> > which has led many sceptics to claim that global warming is a myth.
>
> > Tropical ocean  temperatures within the last 20 years are
> > higher than they have been for approx. 4000 years, if not more.
>
> Really? what thermometer were they using 4000 years ago? I'm sure you
> checked their accuracy... ###8up
Hmm. Open mouth, insert icky anaerobic sediment core. The original poster
will explain, Mr. Wrong.
		Dave Braun
>
> > This gives odds of 1 in 200 (or
> > more) against it being due to chance. This would be accepted as an
> > overwhelmingly positive result in any laboratory experiment.
>  Hugh Easton                       
>
>

On 19-Sep-96 23:15:30, I noticed Eric Arons's opinion on "Re: electric
vehicles", I'd just like to add:
>>Dodge boy said:
>>A much better solution, than the electric car is converting the existing
>>cars to alcohol. This solution makes everybody happy the enviro's because
>>it breaks down into water and co2, the hot rodders are happy
>I don't think the environment is so happy with CO2.  Remember global
>warming?  What I'm basically saying is that everything is a tradeoff. 
If the alcohol is produced from crops which absorbed CO2 during growth
there is no net release, no tradeoff.
Paul
http://www.telecall.co.uk/pharris/

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>Dodge Boy (DodgeBoy@howellautomotive.com) wrote:
>: Burn Alcohol for fuel in cars it breaks down into Water and CO2, no 
>: pollutants.  It is safe, and easier to make than Hydrogen.
>Is this true even for rich mixtures?  Burning hydrocarbons gets you CO2
>and H20 as well, but only for arbitrarily lean mixtures.
No it's not true for alcohol in a conventional internal
combustion engine. Alcohols *will* produce fewer
chemical emissions, but only because the feed  is a
single chemical. They unfortunately produce a lot
of carbonyl emissions, especially toxic aldehydes
like formaldehyde. Exhaust catalysts can reduce 
those down to low levels, but there are also
environmental concerns about increasing the
global atmospheric carbonyl burden.
It is probably true if the alcohol is used in a fuel
cell, that's why so much research is going into
fuel cells with alcohol fuels.
       Bruce Hamilton

farrar@datasync.com (Paul Farrar) wrote:
>In article <...>, Harold Brashears  wrote:
>>All locked up and nowhere to go  wrote for all to
>>see:
>>Could you provide some sort of information, outside Earth First! and
>>Greenpeace, which tells us that your assertions comprise are a
>>"consensus"?
>I, for one, don't care much for the "consensus" line, but, if you
>look at who the active researchers are and what they are saying, there
>is a rather large disparity in numbers, especially when you consider
>the top ones. Schloerer has been plugging Morgan & Keith, 1995,
>_Environ. Sci. & Tech., 29_, #10, 468A, which should give you a good 
>idea. Everyone in that survey is truly a topnotch scientist. (As 
>opposed to the Nordhaus survey in _Am. Scient._, which included 
>economists, planners, etc.) The IPCC lead authors are also top of the 
>line.
Note that of the 16 experts that the Morgan & Keith article used,  one was
a noted climate change skeptic ( Richard Lindzen). When reviewing the
responses, one set of responses is totally different to the others, with
respect to most questions answered. 
The term "general consensus" has become the catchphrase when
discussing the IPCC reports. There is little doubt that the IPCC Working
Group 1 assessment reports ( 1990, 1992, 1995/6 ) are the most 
representative of the current perception of the science of climate change.   
The reports of Working Groups 2 and 3 are much more open to debate
as they deal with future economic and other consequences, and
what actions, if any, should be taken. Both those areas are of intense
political interest....
A good, brief discussion of some of the possible options available 
when considing the optimal timing of possible mitigation measures 
is:-
" Economic and Environmental choices  in the stabilization of 
atmospheric CO2 concentrations" 
T.M.L.Wigley, R.Richels, and J.A.Edmonds.
Nature v379 p.240-243 ( 18 January 1996 )
               Bruce Hamilton

tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>I'm not a lawyer, but if I understand it correctly the treaty
>obligations of currently developed countries would be to limit
>their NET emissions of CO2 to 1990 levels. I think the Swedes are
>looking to reforetation to accomplish a substantial fraction
>of their obligation, thereby allowing for an increase in gross
>emissions without impacting net emissions. 
Unfortunately for the Swedes, I believe the most recent conference
on CO2 emissions refused to accept that reforestation credits
could be used against fossil carbon emissions. New Zealand 
has strongly been pushing that line - the last natural gas fuelled
power station was permitted only by requiring that the owner also
plant 4000 hectares of forest to mop up the 1.5 million tonnes of
CO2 emitted annually from the station during its 25 year design life.  
The reality is that the company may make more money from the 
forest at harvest than from the electricity they sell from the station. 
Only Switzerland was on target to meet the 1992 Rio commitment
to reduce fossil emissions to their 1990 levels by 2000. A 1995 survey
from the UN's IEA indicated that Australia was likely to be 16% above
their 1990 level by 2000. Other countries over 10% above included, 
New Zealand 15.5%, Norway 11%, Canada 10.5%. Of the large
emitters, USA was forecast to be +2.7%, EEC +2.5%, and Japan +2.3%.
            Bruce Hamilton

I am looking for some good technical reading on how to treat
lecheates in a sanitary land fill. I would appreciate some
references, books, anything to start ...
Am I in the best news group for the answers or there is any
other more dedicated to this subject ?
regards
Pedro :-)

Local science museum used to sell simple black plastic silhouettes of
raptors (hawks) which would stick up on the inside of glass windows
with a bit of water and stay there.  Most birds turn away fast.

Dodge Boy (DodgeBoy@howellautomiotive.com) wrote:
: 
: And the Volcanic eruptions do release ozone damaging chlorine radicals 
: in large quanities.
Nope.  They release HCl molecules.  The HCl molecules are washed out of 
the atmosphere long before the molecules can make it to the stratosphere 
and get dissociated by uv light.  Cl in molecules is not a free radical.  
Cl- ions are not free radicals.  Only Cl atoms are, and they are quite 
reactive.  You've got to transport Cl to the stratosphere in a 
non-reactive state, and one which is not water soluble, so that Cl 
radicals can form in the stratosphere.  Volcanoes do not do this.

Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) wrote:
:   By far, the bonehead NRC and those comic-book reactor managements
: are the biggest nuclear safety problems in the USA.  Certain military
: installations are right up there, too.  All technology issues are
: secondary.
And those comic-book reactor managers have a safety record which is
the envy of the rest of the power generation industry.
Those secondary technology issues are what kept TMI safe after a series
of bonehead moves.
:   TMI was enough to permanently disqualify the entire industry in the
: USA.  Negligence on negligenge on disregard on utter unconcern.
: They couldn't have sabotaged it more effectively.  And the storage of
: nuclear waste in the USA is horrible.  Whatever doesn't leak out of
: rusty, neglected containers, is used as airliner ballast, military
: armor, or military armor-piercing artillery.  Sure, that's safe.
Those rusty, leaking containers are holding the waste from weapons
programs, not commercial reactor.  The solid ceramic spent fuel from
commercial reactors would have a hard time leaking from its container,
rusty or not.
The stuff used as airliner ballast, military armor, and armor-piercing
artillery is depleated uranium, as "waste product" (I would call it
potential fuel) of the uranium enrichment process.  It is LESS radioactive
than natural uranium.  Its greatest hazard is chemical, as it is a heavy
metal, as is lead, for example.
:   It took the most incredible sequence of careless, incompetent
: bungling to produce the disaster at TMI.  And even afterward, control
: operators of a nearby facility fell asleep at their posts - right in
: front of NRC inspectors!
And dispite the bungling, TMI remained safer than an operating coal
plant.
All human endevors have risks.  Think about pilots falling asleep in
the cockpits of aircraft on long flights.  It also happens.  Perfection
will never happen.  But we can make some things safer than others, like
a nuke plant vs a coal plant.
:   My point is that no matter how safe the engineers make the process,
: idiot overseers can blow it up.  It's the bungling nuclear industry
: and NRC I don't trust.  So far, I have not yet seen enough evidence
: to change my opinion.  And if the bungling extends to the protective
: poisoning features in advanced fuel elements, or whatever other
: technology may be used to mitigate the dangers of a LOCA, the result
: will be the same.  The same goes for waste storage.  Because of this,
: even as much as I like technology and electric power, I can not accept
: nuclear power as safe.
If you cannot accept nuclear power as safe, you will have to reject the
alternatives as well, since they are less safe.  Of course, freezing in
the dark can cause moderate to severe death.
Donald Borowski    WA6OMI    Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
                                       -G.K. Chesterton

In article <3240e39a.760326@nntp.ix.netcom.com> ulysses1@ix.netcom.com (ulysses1@ix.netcom.com) writes:

> How would it cost the taxpayers any more?  They already carry the
> equipment on the truck.   It's called WATER!  What do you think fire
> trucks use at a crash scene?  They also sometimes carry foam and other
> agents just for occasions like this.  If they really wanted to go low
> tech, they could use baking soda (huge expenditure I'm sure).  Firemen
> are probably more concerned about cleaning up the fuel spill than
> anything else.  My point was (if you read it) that it would take a
> very hard hit to damage and open up the batteries.  Assuming they are
> lead-acid batteries, worst case scenario, every single one of them
> cracked open and leaked acid out.  
How about sodium-sulfur batteries? You wouldn't want to spray water on
molten sodium after it spills on the pavement.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
swestin@ford.com
The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's.

fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>Sorry, not unless you ignore by products produced/consumed during
>production of the photovoltaic cells. A number of fairly ugly chemicals
>are involved, and a good deal of electric power...most of which is made
>from burning fossil fuels.
I once heard that it takes more energy to produce a solar cell than the
cell will produce over the course of it's life. Is there any truth to
this?
Chris

B.Philip.Jonsson (bpj@netg.se) wrote:
> > ...
> Ain't there no .greed group where you can post this s***?
the are two kinds of tweebs out there:
 - those who write a spam   and
 - those who quote _all_ of the spam, just to complain about it
bpj seems to be of the second type ...
just a message to discourage people from doing the same, next time ...

In article <99-1909961906130001@ibpd-628.phys.uh.edu>,
Extremely Right  <99@spies.com> wrote:
>Really? what thermometer were they using 4000 years ago? I'm sure you
>checked their accuracy... ###8up
I hope you were making a joke and not displaying ignorance,
but there is a very large field of paleothermometry including all
kinds of paleothemometers.  For example the ratio of various oxygen
isotopes in sediments is temperature dependent.  There are other
isotopes that are temperature dependent.  Various chemical reactions
proceed in a temperature dependent way.  Different kinds of life
live at different temperatures, and grow differently.
There are papers showing new paleotemperature histories from
ice and sediment cores every month.  Gradually a consistent global
picture is appearing.

Dan Evens wrote:
> 
> Depending on the isotope mixture (23 kg of natural uranium is not that
> interesting, but 23 kg of weapons isotopes is very nasty indeed) it
> might well mean a boatload of very long jail terms. 
I am intrigued by this statement.  By "interesting" and "nasty" do you 
mean from a health or a national security standpoint?  I would be 
intrigued to know if there are substantial differences in health effects 
of U-238 vs U-235.  They have similar half-lives and decay modes...
Rebecca Chamberlin

In article <3242a613.55235701@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears  wrote:
>stevec@geog.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming) wrote for all to see:
>
[much snippage]
>I do not believe you will find anyone really familar with the
>peer-review process who will agree with you.  Since you claim
>familarity, when was your last peer reviewed paper?
@article{cumming96,
  author = 	 "S. G. Cumming and P. J. Burton and B. Klinkenberg",
  title = 	 "Canadian boreal mixedwood forests may have no
		  ``Representative'' areas: some implications for
		  reserve design",
  year = 1996,
  journal = "Ecography",
  volume = "19",
  pages =  "162-180"
}
>
>Regards, Harold
>----
>"I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, 
>make my enemies ridiculous.  And God granted it."
>	--Voltaire, French philosopher, author. Letter, 16 May 1767.
-- 
Steve Cumming			"I could save the world
stevec@geog.ubc.ca		 if I could only get the parts."
			Honni soit qui mal y pense.

In article <843088857snz@daflight.demon.co.uk>,
Hugh Easton  wrote:
>
>For years, climatologists have been telling us that human-induced 
>"global warming" will mainly affect high latitudes. So far, there has 
>been no clear evidence of a large-scale temperature increase in either
>the Arctic or Antarctica (or here in the U.K. for that matter!), a fact 
>which has led many sceptics to claim that global warming is a myth. 
>
I'm not qualified to comment on the rest of Hugh's article, but I
thought I would mention that although the warming is predicted by
models to be greatest in the polar regions, they also predict greater
natural interannual variability at those latitudes than is the case
for the tropics.  In other words, the signal (i.e., expected warming
trend) to noise (i.e., natural variability) ratio is decidedly poorer
at high latitudes.  That means that the high latitudes may be the
wrong place to try to actually prove that global warming is occurring,
even if the absolute temperature change were indeed larger there.
-- 
Grant W. Petty                           gpetty@rain.atms.purdue.edu
Assoc. Prof. of Atmospheric Science
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences                 (317) 494-2544
Purdue University, West Lafayette IN  47907-1397  FAX:(317) 496-1210

The Port Authority of NY & NJ is seeking alternatives to rock/road salt
for bridge, runway and roadway de-icing.   Of particular concern are:  
environmental acceptability, applications systems, effects on steel
structures and cost.  If anyone has any knowledge of chemical
alternatives, or other suggestions, please contact me through direct
e-mail or telephone.  Thanks in advance.
Ms. Dorian A. Bailey (dorianalex@aol.com)
Supervising Inspector of Materials/Sr. Env. Scientist
(201) 216-2963 (Phone)
(201) 216-2949 (Facs.)

Tooie (tooie@sover.net) wrote:
: ...Do you prefer the millions of tons of toxic polluntants that are
: emptied into the environment yearly?  Do you store all the wastes you
: produce or do you just let the gov't handle it - problem solved!
  Glad you asked.  No, of course I can't store all my wastes.  Do I
let government "handle" it?  Well, unfortunately they DON'T really
handle it, they either landfill it or incinerate it and then slip the
lead and dioxin-rich ash somewhere when nobody is looking.  So I fight
against rich and powerful interests to get that laggard government to
stop incinerating and start full recycling, composting, etc.  Problem
not solved yet!!!  Too many phonies like you around, full of obtuse
questions, asked not to clarify, but to obscure - and devoid of any
real interest or curiosity.
: Your hypocrisy is showing :-)    
  Tooie, you are the last one who should speak of hypocrisy.
: : poisoning features in advanced fuel elements, or whatever other
: : technology may be used to mitigate the dangers of a LOCA, the result
: : will be the same.  
: You mean thousands of reactor-years of safe operation?
  Well, Tooie, some reactors have never embarrassed the nuclear
industry.  Perhaps you will never have the misfortune to live near one
that does.  Then again, perhaps you should go live 20 miles downwind
of one with a long history of safety problems, just to keep you
honest.  Or at least make you think.
: : The same goes for waste storage.  Because of this,
: : even as much as I like technology and electric power, I can not accept
: : nuclear power as safe.
: Since you provide no facts, or even a definition of "safe", I'm not 
: suprised by your last sentence.  If you are so fond of technology,
: try studying the subject you're attempting to discuss.
  Tooie, you don't need a definition of the word "safe".  You are
simply being disingenuous, taking a serious and complex problem and
arrogantly shedding darkness on it.  But I'll give you a hint.
  "Safe" operation does not cause a TMI mass-negligence LOCA incident,
a debacle beyond any conceivable excuse.  "Safe" operation does not
involve control operators falling asleep on the job in front of NRC
regulators (as they did in Peach Bottom, I believe it was, shortly
after the TMI incident).  "Safe" operation does not result in
undetected 5,000 gallon leaks of radiation contaminated water, as they
had at that military storage depot in Washington (state).  "Safe"
operation does not cause uranium poisoning, as we saw in the Gulf war
"friendly fire" accident.  
  For more information, any public library will probably have many
references for you to read.  Since you appear to be claiming ignorance
of the facts I mentioned, I suspect that you may never have examined
the nuclear situation; I recommend that you do so now.  One does not
need to be a doctor of nuclear technology to see that there is, shall
we say, a small safety problem.
  Now, feel free to attack me and demand that I, alone, suddenly
document any and all alleged incidents that ever saw the light of
day.  But I leave that task to you; I'm sure nothing I could ever say
or do would ever convince you of the obvious.  
  By the way, I notice that this debate is cross-posting on two
groups.  From now on I will only be posting to sci.environment.
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

In article <3242a613.55235701@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
 writes
>stevec@geog.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming) wrote for all to see:
>
>>In article <3240019f.92647063@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>>Harold Brashears  wrote:
>>>Nick Eyre  wrote for all to see:
>>>
>>>
>>>[edited]
>>>
>>>>>"Reviewed studies"?  I am sorry you consider that a reviewed study,
>
>>[description of peer-review process deleted]
>>
>>>[deleted]
>>>
>>Harold concludes that, because the IPCC report contains a list
>>of reviewers, the contents were not peer-reviewed in the
>>usual sense.
>>
>>Is he being deliberately obtuse, or what?
>>
>>As a matter of fact, it is customary, in large anthologies, to publish
>>a list of the reviewers. Many journals also do this at the end of
>>every volume.  They do not say which articles they reviewed.
>>
>>This practice does not compromise the peer review process. Harold, as
>>usual, and at best, does not have a clue what he is talking about.
>
>I consider it very poor manners to delete someone's conclusion, then
>to rephrase it so inaccurately.  I realize that allows you to attack
>the conclusion more freely, but I must doubt the veracity.
>
>I reproduce it, so that readers may reflect on your honesty
>
>"The key to the process is that the reviewer is (theoretically)
>anonymous!  The author does not know the name of the reviewers or
>where they work.  This allows the reviewers freedom from pressure that
>would not have if their names were public.
>
>As you can see, this is not a "peer reviewed" document, in the usual
>scholarly sense.  There is no group of anonymous reviewers, free to
>make any politically incorrect statements they wish."
>
>I do not believe you will find anyone really familar with the
>peer-review process who will agree with you.  Since you claim
>familarity, when was your last peer reviewed paper?
Well I agree with Steve.  And as I started this argument, I will answer
your question.  I received an acceptance for a paper on the
environmental impacts of energy use yesterday.  Thanks for asking.
-- 
Nick Eyre

In article <3242a7b9.55657567@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
 writes
>>>
>>>You do not consider UNEP to be government supported organization?
>>>This surprises me.  Do they get their support from donations or large
>>>corporations?
>>
>>Well that about sums up our differences.  Are you really saying that a
>>UN Agency supported by many governments of various political hues is
>>less likely to be independent than a body funded by large corporate
>>interests?  
>
>Let me check...  still checking... no, I do not see where I said that.
>Do you need a strawman?
>
>I believe I implied that they were as likely to be influenced.  Their
>paycheck and future funding depend on the political implications of
>what they say.
>
>I am continually astounded when people seem to assume that this will
>not have an effect on what they report.
Of course people are influenced by where their money comes from - that
is what makes big business so powerful.  But, in the context of IPCC
reviewers, very few of them are paid by the IPCC.  Many are employed in
universities and therefore are (relatively) free of direct influences.
even those who are employed by governments come from countries with
widely different views on the effects of climate change for their
countries.  In these circumstances the remarkable thing is that there is
such wide agreement on the broad conclusions, with only the anti-
environmentalist ideologues and the fuel industry lobbyists dissenting.
>>If so it's no wonder you have some other strange ideas.  
>
>Why, thank you very much!  I must asume that this sentence means I
>'have idea you do not approve of', and I must consider that a
>compliment, as I do not have a high opinion of your ideas either, and
>would not wish to share them.
Well I certainly don't approve of your ideas on climate change, but that
was not what I meant.  There are lots of people with who I do not agree
but who can still conduct a rational argument with reference to the
evidence.
>"I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, 
>make my enemies ridiculous.  And God granted it."
I thought God would get involved somewhere.
-- 
Nick Eyre

charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <...>, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>>Michael Tobis tells us that the undeveloped countries won't 
>>restrain their CO2 emissions if we don't.  This is quite plausible.  
>>My opinion is that the undeveloped countries won't restrain 
>>themselves even if we do restrain our emissions to 1990 levels.
There have been discussions about whether undeveloped
countries that  increase fossil fuel emissions should face
trade barriers or duties. It is likely that many undeveloped
countries would wish to not become dependent on foreign
oil, and so the most probable scenario is that undeveloped
countries with their own fossil fuels are those most likely
to increase emissions, whereas others may look to 
alternatives.
>Based on recent usenet feedback, and other sources, I am 
>starting to agree with you.  Environmentalists take note: 
>"Chemical Engineering Progress", September 1996, p. 23, 
>contains an article titled 'Global Climate Agreement Has 
>Industry Hot Under the Collar'.  
....
>It is becoming obvious to me at this point that some of these 
>environmental groups are more interested in dismantling U.S. 
>industry than in limiting emissions. 
Well, you're entitled to your perception, but the harsh reality
is that both the science of climate change and the Rio 
convention are also under attack from a industry group that
comprises of coal, oil, utility, automobile and chemical 
companies ( the Global Climate Coalition ). You could try
and read the other side of the coin on page 33 of the 
19 August 1996 Chemical and Engineering News. 
" Global Warming is target of disinformation campaign " 
The science of the IPCC WG1 is robust ( have you read 
any of the IPCC ssessments yet?. If so, which data do
you dispute? ), and the consensus statements reflect
the judgement of the best experts that all nations could
provide for the IPCC. The strategy of the GCC and allies
is to try and first discredit the science, and to spread
fear of adverse economic consequences throughout
the public. 
The reality is that industry is *always* dynamic - some 
industries grow, others diminish. The fossil fuel, utility, 
and automotive industries will rightly try to do 
everything to mitigate potential adverse economic
impacts to them, but they are currently consistently 
attacking the science. The NZ government has had
a range of "experts" banging on the door. Industry 
has brought over Micheals and Lindzen, and 
Greenpeace brought over Leggett. The government
has stated that anyone can bring any "expert", but 
that the government action/inaction would be derived
from the conclusions of the IPCC.  
There is no doubt that we could start to reduce CO2
emissions with little economic or social impact, should
we so wish.  I haven't seen any recent claims here
that all fossil emissions have to cease, just that we
should start down the road. Issues like carbon taxes
( which I oppose - money grabbing by governments )
are only one possible mechanism for encouraging
efficient use of fossil fuels. IMO, it's far better to
discourage individuals from wasting energy - ie
punitive, scaled  annual registration fees on cars 
based on CO2/emissions per km would soon make people 
consider the size of car that is appropriate for them.
Few industries can afford to waste energy in the
new global markets of today, and the harsh reality 
for some US industries is that they haven't been
paying as much attention to energy conservation
as their Japanese and European  counterparts - who
have to pay higher prices for energy. There is
huge scope for improvement - you've already
expressed surprise at the US CO2/person emissions.
US industry has been conservative, but when faced
with a challenge, they have a huge skill base to confront
and overwhelm any disadvantage. Just look at the
US auto industry - recently they beat the Japanese
to get Indonesian automobile manufacturing rights.
There is no doubt that the low price of fossil energy
in the USA has meant that efficiency and conservation
haven't been considered as carefully as elsewhere, 
thus there are going to be areas where the 80/20 rule
will provide advantages to US industry.
Times are changing, and I'm sure that US global 
competitiveness won't be compromised when they
do start to face increased energy costs. The problem
is not technical, it's more political - politicians don't
like to be seen as following the advice of international
bodies that obviously don't have a specific national
interest at heart. 
>For my part, I am about ready to 
>contribute funds to groups that exist to constrain 
>environmentalist efforts, if for no other reason than for 
>spite.  It is apparent that you can't talk sense to some of 
>these fools, and I am tired of trying.
Your choice, but the reality is that most of the people
here aren't strong advocates of environmental extremism.
We consider the science, and the fact that we are perturbing 
systems that we don't fully understand. Maybe the
consequences will be benign, maybe not- but why not try
and minimise the perturbation until we know?. The experts 
are not demanding drastic actions, but they are saying that
minimising the emissions until further knowledge is 
obtained is a good idea. 
You might like to read " Economic and Environmental 
choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2 
Concentrations " T.M.L.Wigley, R.Richels, and J.A.Edmonds. 
Nature v.379 p.240-243 ( 18 January 1996 ). 
Wigley is one of the leading climate change experts, and
Richels is from EPRI. The article caused some controversy
because it suggested that we don't have to drastically
cut emissions immediately to achieve objective CO2
levels in acceptable timeframes. 
You appear to want to have a them and us attitude, and the
behaviour of the GCC reinforces that, but the reality is that
we are emitting relatively high levels of fossil CO2, without fully 
understanding the consequences, and a sensible attitude
is to minimise the emissions, whilst researchers are
working hard to find what the consequences are, and what
may be safe levels of emissions. There is no doubt that some
uses of fossil fuels (eg aviation fuels ) aren't going to be
substituted in the near future, but there are many other
uses that can mitigated or substituted.
                             Bruce Hamilton                

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>Dave Hatunen closed with:
>|> Brazils' alcohol program is in bi-i-i-g trouble.
>I haven't heard anything about this in recent years.  Could you mildly
>elaborate and/or send me to a reference (note: library access for me is
>crap; it would have to be on the net)?
This claim seems to have originated from the US battle
over the use of "renewable" oxygenates in gasoline.
Brazil had moved to ethanol to reduce oil import costs,
but didn't have the infrastructure in place to reasonably
use the ethanol ( eg the cars didn't have catalysts and
sophisticated engine management systems, thus there
were emissions of toxic acetaldehyde ). The problem
for Brazil was that the continued low price of crude
oil in the late 1980's and 1990's, along with the 
intrusion of Asian competitors in some markets, and 
various internal political machinations meant that the 
economic advantages  of the programme were not as 
large as initially hoped. This has been used by the
anti-ethanol lobby as evidence that the scheme was
in part responsible for Brazil's economic failings, 
whereas the problems are far more fundamental.
It's difficult to characterise the success or failure,
but a continuation of the current rising price of crude
oil would certainly help the programme's viability. 
Unfortunately, I don't have an accessible reference for
you, but one good paper is " The Production of Ethanol 
in Brazil: A Good Business to the Biggest Companies,
A Medium Business to Brazil " M.Sinicio, S.Bajay 
p.333-340 Volume 1 of " Proceedings of the Tenth 
International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels - November
7-10, 1993 " DOE/CH10093-245, DE93018219.
                 Bruce Hamilton  

"Patrick Reid"  writes:
>Magnus Redin  wrote in article
><51n1cv$ou3@newsy.ifm.liu.se>...
>: "Patrick Reid"  writes:
>: 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.
It still makes me uneasy, it sounds like something that should be
avoided. I have heard this kind of issues were one of the reasons
heavy water moderated PWR:s were abandoned in sweden in favor of
BWR:s. 
> 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.
Yes, it might be safe enough but I would still prefer a design without
this problem.
> 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.
Good!
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

In article <51r45o$2h0@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>,
   tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb) wrote:
>
(big cut)
>You aren't just moving smog, you're eliminating whole 
classes of 
>pollution, especially particulates from diesel engines, now 
regarded as 
>the most dangerous emission from the ic engine in terms of 
human health.
These "environmental" reasons for regulation are starting to 
get ridiculous!  In the USA, 25% of the population smokes 
cigarettes.  This is far more damaging to humans than 
particulate emissions from autos.  Yet, many smokers have a 
30-40 year habit before they experience severe health 
effects.  How this can be considered "dangerous" is beyond 
me.  To go much further, and consider small amounts of 
particulates from autos "dangerous" is past absurd!
The environmentalists out there should go ahead and admit 
that they have a hidden agenda to de-industrialize the world. 
They are very clever in their tactics, as the label of 
"polluter" is now viewed at least as harshly as "bigot", or 
"Nazi", or "conservative".  It's too bad that so many in the 
general public are so afraid to take the unpopular viewpoint 
and speak out against such obvious attempts to erode their 
freedoms.  What we need here is a much better sense of 
proportion regarding the relative risk of our activities.
Incidentally, has anyone wondered what effect "non-auto" 
particulates have on a human?  I am sure that there are tons 
of dust in the air, and I am also sure that you can find 
particles in this dust of any size range you are looking for. 
Since most people do not seem to be affected, it seems likely 
that lungs have the ability to clean themselves of such 
"hazards".  In fact, anyone who looks in an anatomy book 
notes that the lungs are lined with microscopic hairs called 
cilia, whose sole function is to sweep particles out of the 
lungs.  It is apparent that humans have adapted to 
particulates, but not to all of the crazy worrying about the 
risks in our societies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom.  Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!

In article <51nr83$b1@news-central.tiac.net>, allen 
 wrote:
>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.
Umm... how many mouthfuls of soil does an average toddler eat 
per year?  When was the last time that you saw lead paint 
that was badly dissolved by rain?  If lead paint was this 
easy to dissolve, I wouldn't think there would be a need to 
work your rear end off to scrape before a new coat of paint 
was applied - you could wash the old layer off with your 
water hose!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom.  Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!

Tim Jebb wrote:
> 
> This is not true. Electric vehicles charged with solar generated power
> are emission free, as are vehicles charged with any renewable source of
> energy. You could even put a solar panel on the roof of the car, so it's
> being recharged all day (but park it outside).
> I agree, but this system is no in place, so the vast majority will becharged 
with fossile fuels.
>
> 
> Interesting. This has not been the effect in Europe, where pedestrianised
> city centres are magnets for shoppers. Also in Europe it's a lot harder
> to move a city: there's less spare land - and perhaps tougher planning
> regulations. I confess I was thinking in a European context here.
> Most people here wish to go where the can park their car right in front of 
the place.  It has alot to do with the mentality of us Americans and the 
love affair with the car, but here when city centers were pedestrianised 
people quit going there.
> 
> 
> More people benefit in terms of an improved environment. It's easier to
> target emissions from large power stations (for cleanup) than from
> millions of vehicles.
> I did agree, convert the cars to Alcohol fuel.
>
> >  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.
> 
> More renewable electricity is being generated all the time. Pretend that
> it's specifically for electric cars :-) Sooner or later we have to move
> to renewable energy anyway, so why not start putting in place the
> necessary infrastructure now?
> I agree, but Alcohol will be a much faster convertion to a renewable souce, 
and the infastructure is in place.  It can also be sent to the third world, 
so they don't even have to go through what we did.
> 
> You aren't just moving smog, you're eliminating whole classes of
> pollution, especially particulates from diesel engines, now regarded as
> the most dangerous emission from the ic engine in terms of human health.
> You no realy eliminating it your changing it so a different form.
>
> >Also since most of the crashes of automobiles happen in urban settings,
> have you given
> >any thought to the lead acid batteries being broken up on the streets of
> the cities.
> 
> Do you really think this would be a serious problem?
> Yes, refer to a post under capital ELECTRIC VEHICLE thread in 
alt.save.the.earth
>
> >The risk of environmental damage from electric cars is to great, until
> the lead acid
> >battery can be replaced with a envirnmentaly friendly one.  The used
> batteries also
> >create a major problem in the over crowded land fills, not to mention
> the environmental
> >risk of transporting this hazardous waste.
> 
> Lead acid batteries are entirely recyclable, and are actually recycled.
> You can even sell an old one to a scrap merchant and get enough money to
> buy an ice cream!
>Some recyclers hear are now refusing to take them because of Hazardous 
material laws.
>
> 
> 
> Apart from horses, feet, bicycles, reindeer, hang gliders, and electric
> vehicles.Horse, reindeer, feet (Human?) produce methane a green house gas.
hang gliders and bicycles (Nylon) made from petrolum.
EV refer to above.
(Ha, Ha)
I guess we need to pick the lesser of the evils, and I think alcohol fuel 
fits this best, because it can be implimented the quickest, with largest 
noticable effect.
Dodge Boy

Please find attached below finalised details of the forthcoming workshop. If you require any further information feel free 
to contact me directly.
Regards,
Tim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Tim Kedwards
ZENECA Agrochemicals
Ecological Risk Assessment Section
Jealott's Hill Research Station
Bracknell, UK
RG42 6ET
Tel:            +44 (0) 1344 414107
Fax:            +44 (0) 1344 414124
Email:          Tim.T.J.Kedwards@gbjha.zeneca.com
Disclaimer:-    'The opinions expressed herein are my personal opinions
                and do not necessarily represent those of my employer'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A WORKSHOP ON MULTIVARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS IN ECOTOXICOLOGY
Saturday, 16 November 1996, 8:30 - 5:30, Washington Hilton and Towers
Presented in conjunction with the SETAC 17th Annual Meeting, 
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Frameworks for ecological risk assessment often culminate in the evaluation of effects under simulated or actual 
environmental conditions.  A fundamental objective of such semi-field and field studies is to investigate effects at the 
community and ecosystem level.  To this end, data are collected on a large number of ecological variables. Study types 
include manipulative experiments (artificial streams, mesocosms, terrestrial field trials), environmental monitoring 
(before/after, upstream/downstream), and ecological surveys (plants, bird census).
Data from these studies are usually evaluated by using univariate statistics (e.g. analysis of variance, 
concentration-response regression).  These techniques have limitations because it is only possible to look at a small number 
of variables within the ecosystem at any one time, limiting effects determination to the population level, whereas the 
objective is normally to understand effects at higher levels of organisation.
The advent of greater computing power and recent developments of new multivariate statistical tools has made available a 
variety of techniques (e.g. CANOCO, RIFFLE, PRIMER) with the potential to overcome some of these previous limitations.  
Consequently, there is growing interest among ecotoxicologists in applying such techniques to field studies in order to be 
able to generate true community and ecosystem endpoints.  This workshop will provide an excellent opportunity for interested 
individuals to meet and exchange views on these approaches and allow developers of the statistical approaches to discuss the 
development and application of the techniques.  
The objective of this workshop is to provide information on and  generate discussion of multivariate statistical techniques 
in ecotoxicological field studies, focusing on the application of techniques for generating community and ecosystem level 
statistics, rather than mathematical derivation.
Attendance will be limited to 100 people to maximise information exchange. 
Registration is first-come, first served.  The registration fee is $225, and forms can be obtained from the SETAC Office.
Workshop proceedings will be provided to all registrants at no additional cost, and will be available for purchase by others 
after the workshop.
SETAC Office, 1010 North 12th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida  32501
T +1 904-469-1500    F +1  904-469-9778    
E setac@setac.org,  http://www.setac.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FORMAT OF WORKSHOP
The format of the workshop has now been finalised.  It will be in two Sessions, the first comprising three presentations 
addressing the current situation concerning the analysis of ecotoxicological field studies. Professor Jim Kennedy, from the 
University of North Texas, will be speaking on designed experiments and the relative strengths and weaknesses of current 
analytical procedures. This will followed by a presentation from Dr Mike Harrass, AMOCO Corporation, outlining monitoring 
and survey work in ecotoxicology. The last presentation of the session will be given by Dr Tony Maciorowski, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, and will provide a regulatory perspective of ecotoxicological field studies. 
The second Session aims to address the multivariate statistical methods currently used in ecotoxicology.  It will also 
include a review of new and novel methods currently being used elsewhere and which may prove beneficial in the 
ecotoxicological arena. The first presentation will be given by Tim Sparks from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in the 
UK.  Tim will review traditional multivariate methods and will give examples of their uses in ecology and ecotoxicology. The 
second presentation will be given by Professor Geoff Matthews (University of West Washington) addressing, amongst others, 
the non-metric clustering program RIFFLE which has successfully been used in ecotoxicological studies. This will be followed 
by a talk by Mr Paul van den Brink (SC-DLO, Netherlands) outlining the recent application of the CANOCO package to 
freshwater field testing. Dr Bob Clarke (Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK) will present the application of the PRIMER package 
to similar studies. These latter three talks form the centre of current multivariate statistics expertise in the 
ecotoxicology. After a suitable discussion period the final talk will be presented by Professor Wojtek Krzanoswki 
(University of Exeter, UK), who will talk about new and novel methods of potential value to ecotoxicology but not yet 
implemented. 

In article <9157cc$7270.3d4@HERMES>,
   B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
(BIG CUT)
>Few industries can afford to waste energy in the
>new global markets of today, and the harsh reality 
>for some US industries is that they haven't been
>paying as much attention to energy conservation
>as their Japanese and European  counterparts - who
>have to pay higher prices for energy. There is
>huge scope for improvement - you've already
>expressed surprise at the US CO2/person emissions.
>
Here, you are speculating on something you know very little 
about.  It is not an industry that tries to be energy 
efficient - it is the chemical engineers assigned to monitor 
individual process unit performance who try to be energy 
efficient.  I have spent the last 16 years or so continually 
trying to think of ways to obtain production with less 
energy, because it makes economic sense to do so.  I don't 
need a novice environmentalist telling me that I can make 
on-specification production with less energy.  The whole idea 
is totally ridiculous, and the implication that industry uses 
more energy than they need to is totally ridiculous.
When an energy project is considered in a petrochemical 
plant, an economic evaluation is performed whereby the 
reduction in energy consumption is compared with the cost of 
capital.  It should be obvious even to an environmentalist, 
that individual companies cannot afford to spend one million 
dollars on an energy conservation project if they only save 
one hundred thousand dollars per year from the capital 
investment.  The only way to change the economics in a way 
that will make this feasible appears to be to tax the hell 
out of oil such that energy costs become two or three times 
higher than they are now.  Unfortunately, the U.S. will not 
let this happen, as cheap middle east oil guarantees us a 
military involvement in that part of the world.  In other 
words, the U.S. military has a vested interest in remaining 
fairly large, and cheap oil is a good excuse for doing this.
Thus, the only way to obtain carbon emission reductions, 
while keeping the cheap oil flowing, appears to be through 
regulation.  Since the developing countries will not be 
regulated in this manner in the near future, and since their 
cost of labor is so very cheap, the likely outcome of such 
attempts to reduce carbon emissions is to shut down the 
industries that emit much of the carbon dioxide.  It should 
be interesting to see where people will get electrical power, 
gasoline, home heating oil, etc., once these industries are 
forced to relocate to other countries.  The real shame of 
this scenario, even if the supply of energy is maintained by 
foreign producers, is the fact that total carbon emissions 
will probably not be reduced by such a change, they will 
merely be moved to another country.  However, many U.S. 
workers will have much lower paying jobs as a result.
>US industry has been conservative, but when faced
>with a challenge, they have a huge skill base to confront
>and overwhelm any disadvantage. Just look at the
>US auto industry - recently they beat the Japanese
>to get Indonesian automobile manufacturing rights.
While my engineering talent is fairly well developed, I can't 
violate the laws of physics, and I can't obtain the necessary 
reductions of any pollutant without spending scarce capital 
dollars.  This isn't a case of being conservative or not 
knowing what to do.  It is a case of being prevented from 
making the change because I can't justify it economically.
>There is no doubt that the low price of fossil energy
>in the USA has meant that efficiency and conservation
>haven't been considered as carefully as elsewhere, 
>thus there are going to be areas where the 80/20 rule
>will provide advantages to US industry.
Oh, but conservation was carefully considered when the Arabs 
cut off the supply of oil in the '70's.  Those plant changes 
are still in place today.  There were even equipment 
modifications that were innovative in their approach.  
Unfortunately, some of these attempts at energy conservation 
caused more problems than they solved, so they couldn't be 
utilized for other reasons.  In the final analysis, my 
industry has a very big constraint imposed on it: it must be 
efficient, but product specifications and quality cannot be 
allowed to suffer.  Naturally, if the public is willing to 
tolerate poor product quality, I can guarantee you energy 
savings immediately.  However, this is not the case.
The point to the above paragraph is this: these plant 
modifications are cumulative in the sense that the first 
plant change obtains the most energy savings per dollar 
spent.  Further changes are intended to achieve more 
difficult energy savings.  It doesn't take long to get to the 
point at which an existing older facility can't do much 
better than it is doing now.  Since capital doesn't exist to 
build a new facility, I assume there is only one option left.
>
>Times are changing, and I'm sure that US global 
>competitiveness won't be compromised when they
>do start to face increased energy costs. The problem
>is not technical, it's more political - politicians don't
>like to be seen as following the advice of international
>bodies that obviously don't have a specific national
>interest at heart. 
>
Part of the problem is technical.  As you obtain energy 
integration between pieces of process equipment, process 
control gets much more difficult.  Since product quality 
isn't allowed to suffer, this process can only go so far.
BTW, there are concepts relating to reformulated gasoline 
which could be criticized as well.  While your FAQ gives 
voluminous detail regarding gasoline, it doesn't consider the 
impact of reformulated gasoline on the operation of a whole 
refinery.  As I get time, I may post a follow-up that points 
out the short-comings in the current thinking on this 
subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom.  Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!

Public Land Confrence to Discuss Public Land Management Alternatives
October 24 & 25, 1996
Missoula, Montana
     The 18th annual Public Land Conference will discuss proposals to 
make public land management more efficient and effective. Some scholars 
advocate changing existing federal law, other advocate abandoning federal 
control altogether, and focusing instead upon new strategies for 
management through the use of state and private control schemes.
     The conference is sponsored by the Public Land and Resources Law 
Review and the University of Montana School of Forestry.
     For further information, including registration, look for us on the 
web at  or contact David Scrimm 
or Erike Johnson c/o the Public Land and Resource Law Review at (406) 
243-6568.

In article <324224FB.70DF@capecod.net>, rcopland@capecod.net says...
>
>Right on, Hugh.  I love the  way alleged research moves from one 
>ill-founded assumption, builds upon it, and comes up with even a more 
>absurd conclusion.  
O omniscient one.  What pray tell are these "ill-founded assumptions"
and "absurd conclusions".  Please refer precisely to the original 
article.  REAL DOLTS don't bother to read papers & offer up irrelevant
critcism that stinks of political-religious ideology. Surely you're 
not one of those.
>Indeed, 
Mr. Spock locked up all patents & copy-rights on "indeed" 30 years ago.
Only vacuous twits can legally use it these days. Dogbert thinks you're 
probably safe.
>
>And as far as global warming is concerned, if the models don't agree with 
>what is observed, what do they do?  They tweak the models! The only way 
>to get research money these days is to invent something sufficiently 
>preposterous as to grab the attention of the popular press, and thus 
>subsequently special interest groups, lobbyists, etc and then the 
>politicians.  
Ah...  The cut and thrust of incisive scientific debate.
>This is not to suggest that there are not some dedicated 
>researchers out there doing fine research, 
Where? At the Institute of Creation Science?
>but watch out for simple solutions to complex problems!
>
And especially beware of self-righteous simps. 
>R. Copeland
>
-bb

"Robert C. Copeland" (rcopland@capecod.net) wrote:
: > In article <843088857snz@daflight.demon.co.uk>, hugh@daflight.demon.co.uk wrote:
: > 
: > > For years, climatologists have been telling us that human-induced
: > > "global warming" will mainly affect high latitudes. So far, there has
: > > been no clear evidence of a large-scale temperature increase in either
: > > the Arctic or Antarctica (or here in the U.K. for that matter!), a fact
: > > which has led many sceptics to claim that global warming is a myth.
: > 
: > > Tropical ocean  temperatures within the last 20 years are
: > > higher than they have been for approx. 4000 years, if not more.
: Right on, Hugh.  I love the  way alleged research moves from one 
: ill-founded assumption, builds upon it, and comes up with even a more 
: absurd conclusion.  REAL RESEARCH starts with REAL MEASUREMENTS.  Indeed, 
: tropical ocean temperatures 4000 years ago.  Toricelli must be turning 
: over in his grave.
	Who's Toricelli?
	More importantly:  do you have any idea how paleotemperatures
are estimated?  If not, do you think that your criticism is still
valid despite the fact that you can't critique the method?
: And as far as global warming is concerned, if the models don't agree with 
: what is observed, what do they do?  They tweak the models!  The only way 
	On the other hand, I guess that you would be satisfied with a 
model that continued to give unsatisfactory results?
	Let's say a model of ship hydrodynamics indicates a 
substantial fuel savings with a new hull design.  When the ship is
built, there are no substantial fuel savings.  Nonetheless, buoyed
by the success of the model in that it predicts substantial 
fuel savings with the new hull, the unchanged model is still 
used to design more ships.
	What's wrong with that picture?
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

ulysses1@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >So that will cost the tax payer more to equip the fire and rescue personel with more
> >equipment to deal with electric car crashes.  The risk of explosion is greater in an
> >electric car from a crash.  Discharging batteries emit poisonous flammable gases and a
> >spark is a real posiblity in a crash situation, more so than in a convetional car.
> >
> 
> How would it cost the taxpayers any more?  They already carry the
> equipment on the truck.   It's called WATER!  What do you think fire
> trucks use at a crash scene?  They also sometimes carry foam and other
> agents just for occasions like this.  If they really wanted to go low
> tech, they could use baking soda (huge expenditure I'm sure).
I agree that water will dilute the acid, but I hardly want the heavy 
metals from the batteries washed into the water system.
>  Firemen
> are probably more concerned about cleaning up the fuel spill than
> anything else.  My point was (if you read it) that it would take a
> very hard hit to damage and open up the batteries.  Assuming they are
> lead-acid batteries, worst case scenario, every single one of them
> cracked open and leaked acid out.  Now how much electrolyte do you
> think a deep cycle lead-acid battery has, not a lot. 
About 2 quarts per battery and about 30 to 40 batteries per car, so in 
total quanity around 15 to 20 gallons.
> You make it
> sound like gallons of acid are going to flood the street and firemen
> and bystanders will melt like the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz.
> If they were using Gel Cells, there wouldn't be much leakage at all
> (semi-solid). 
Plan for the worst case, not the best case, and you can deal with a 
problem better.
>  Battery acid is easily neutralized with plain water or
> any of various low-cost base agents.
I agree with this baking soda is a base and can neutralize the acid.  But 
what about before the fire dept gets there?  Say a wreck happens on a 
bridge made of concrete (CaCO2) and battery acid (H2SO4) leaks out onto 
the bridge.  Bridge damage will occur I agree a small amount, but it will 
happen, and those problems have to be address, otherwise the bridges will 
be turned into water (H20) and Calcium Sulfate (CaSO4). Go pour some 
acid on a piece of concreate and watch.  Hell the highway maintaince in 
this country is bad at best and these small problems will muliply.  Also 
what if a person had acid get on them, because the car is upside down and 
it is running out the vents in the batteries.  Gasoline will cause skin 
and eye damage, but it takes a long exposer time, acid reacts very 
quickly, within minutes or seconds depending on the area of exposure.  
Gasoline takes hours.
> 
> As for discharging batteries emitting flammable gases, this is true.
> Lead-acid batteries do emit a small amount of hydrogen which is
> flammable.  This is why batteries have always been vented in some way.
> That way, the gas won't build up inside and pop the top off the case.
> EV battery packs would be vented to the exterior of the car to prevent
> any buildup of gases in the pack.
> 
Agreed.
> >
>
> >
> 
> Those cars arriving at the yard were probably drained of fuel anyway.
Almost all arrive with fuel unless the tank has been damaged, that is were 
most salvage yards get fuel for their equimpent, not to mention the 
employees cars.  Recycling you know.
> If not, they would have had someone like you drain them.  As for
> antifreeze and power steering fluid, they are both toxic and not
> easily neutralized (while acid is using water).  The staydry material
> you speak of is for aiding in the CLEANUP, not neutralizing the fuel
> or oil spill. 
It is basically clay that will absorb the spills, so that they can be 
disposed of in a safe and eco sound manner.  The gasoline is not major 
problem to the environment as it has a high evaporation rate.  Staydry 
does a very good job when used properly.
> It's probably there to reduce the volatility so an
> errant spark doesn't ignite anything.  Battery acid is corrosive, but
> it's not going to melt your skin off in a matter of seconds.  Besides,
> how many firemen have you seen NOT wearing heavy gloves and NOT having
> water nearby?
What of the passengers are you going to require them to protective 
clothing incease of a crash, acid in the eyes only takes seconds to take 
your sight.
> 
> 
> 
> And who do you think is forcing EV's into existence? 
The government of California was requiring car manufactures to have them 
to sell, if they wanted to sell cars in California.  That is pretty close 
to a gun. And the high cost of development will be passed on to everybody, 
not just the people of California, because if the do, and there are no 
government subsidies, knowone but the richest of Californians could afford 
them.
> Is someone
> holding a gun to your head saying, "You must convert!  Submit!
> Resistance is futile!  You will be assimilated! 
At least your a Trek fan.
> Give me your Texaco
Exxon, You can't check everybody perfectly, it was the Captains fault not 
the company. 
> card, and hand over your Prestone!"  I don't think so dude.  Get real.
> You've been locked up in your compound too long....
>
> >
> >You increase the number of electric cars you need to build more power plants, most
> >likely coal fired.  And I personaly don't want the emissions moved to the country, just
> >because the city people don'y like the smog.  Hey its a free country move out of the
> >city if you don't like the smog, don't move the smog out of the city to where the people
> >are that moved to get away from it.  What about all the toxins from the batteries as
> >they wear out, already many recyclers quit excepting batteries, because of the risk.
> >Motor oil is being recycled, hell most of the motor oil sold at Wal-Mart is recycled
> >that's why they sell it so cheap.  But they will not except batteries and what are the
> >side of the roads going to look like littered with dead batteries, because people can't
> >get rid of them.  The electric car is to great a risk to the environment, until
> >technology changes.
> >
> 
> But coal and other power plants can be controlled and monitored for
> emission much easier than a lot of tailpipes.  EV's won't catch on
> everywhere.  They are not suited to many places in the country.  We in
> California don't have the coal generation concern you may have where
> you live.  But everything I've read from the regional utilities (which
> are mostly hydroelectric or natural gas burning plants) suggest new
> generation plants will not really be necessary since most people will
> be "plugging in" at nite when demand is already low.  The power will
> probably be cheaper at nite (for the consumer) and the electric
> company will be happy to sell the power it normally wouldn't be able
> to.  
I agree that is how it would be in a perfect world, but we don't live in a 
perfect world, so we must plan accordingly.  This how the real EV world, 
"Got to go to work, shit! I forgot to plug in the car last night.  I'll 
plug it in now (Peak use time), and take the regular car to work. It can 
charge while I'm at work."  Unfortunatly the well meaning person will do 
this, so new power plants will be a reality.
> I sympathize with your concern about coal-burning plants.  But
> smog is not caused by smokestacks (for the most part).  In the L.A.
> basin and other large metropolitan areas (like Denver & Boston) where
> smog is a problem, it is predominantly motor vehicles (in addition to
> the geography sometimes) that are the major cause of ozone (smog).
> Coal plants are more infamous for their contribution to acid rain from
> the sulfur emissions they produce.  Yes they try and use low-sulfur
> coal, but forests and lakes aren't dying by themselves.
> 
> >If you want to clean up the enviroment the run alcohol for fuel, it breaks down into
> >water and CO2 when it burns.  For spills, it is water soluble, and occurs naturaly in
> >nature.
> >
> 
> True, but it's highly flammable (much more volatile than gasoline) and
> doesn't have the power density of gasoline. 
Actually is is less volatile for the reasons you list below.
> Therefore, you need a
> greater quantity of alcohol (or methanol) to get the same power you
> would out of a smaller quantity of gasoline.  
Actually you double the amount you use over gasoline, but the power output 
is 2.2 times that of gasoline.  The cost is not as far out as you say.  1 
gallon of metanol sells for around $1.50, about the same as gasoline.  Now 
there is no large production and delievery network like gasoline has to 
reduce cost farther.  And since it is none polluting, take of the Federal 
47.5 cents per gallon fuel tax, and you are down to $1.03 per gallon, 
which means $2.06 equivilent to gas, that is less than in the 70's 
(Inflation corrected).  Take off all the emssions equipment, because it is 
no longer needed and repair cost drop, simply because there is less to 
break.  Alcohol burns cooler so you can run a smaller radiator reducing 
weight and giving the ability increase aerodynamics reducing fuel 
consumtion.  The fuel doesn't carbon, so alot of the grit that cuts valve 
guides and rings is gone, so engine longevity increases.  The cars also 
have less parts so, manufacuting cost go down, and the consumer pays less.
> This is the problem
> that has faced engineers for a long time.  Gasoline is very good
> (power wise), but it does pollute.  True that alcohol fuels are
> already in use in the US (gasohol and methanol) and I think it's
> great.  Brazil uses sugar cane bagasse to make alcohol fuel for many
> of the cars there (unlike here, petroleum products aren't cheap in
> most of the world).  I agree with you here, if we're gonna burn
> something, we should try some other things besides just gasoline.
> 
>
> 
> Given many of your statements, you don't know a lot about EV's or
> battery technology yourself, so you shouldn't be passing judgement.
I know enough that a person would need to own two cars instead of one, if 
one is an EV, because you can't take an EV on a trip. So unless you don't 
do anything besides go to work and go home you need two cars with an EV.  
And don't forget the environmental impact of the disposile of the dead 
batteries.  The alcohol fueled cars don't create a serious amount of 
hazardous waste, like EV's do.
> Get back in your crappy Dodge bud and head to the library....
Hey, I didn't cut on your cars. Besides I have actualy run my Dodge on 
straight Methanol, have owned an EV.  And your 69 Ghia is exactly 
emissions friendly.
Dodge Boy

Terri  writes:
>Hey guys, what are faeces, a weird face or 
>something?
>I thought it was feces..:)
You probably have already been told, but faeces is the correct spelling.
It comes from the latin word 'faex' meaning dregs.
Yrs,
Jon