Subject: Re: RCRA
From: blymyer@nntp.best.com (Blymyer Engineers)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 04:03:10 GMT
Spencer David (spencerd@odo.msoe.edu) wrote:
: Where, precisely, can one find the RCRA regs?
: I know they are in 40 CFR 260 and 261, but why is "RCRA" never EVER
: mentioned anywhere in the Code?
: Am I missing something here?
: How would one answer the question, "Where are the RCRA regulations found"?
I think you may be somewhat confused by the difference between the US Code and the Code of Federal
Regulations. The US Code is the accumulation of laws passed by Congress and the President. The Code of
Federal Regulations is the implementation of the US Code.
That said, the regulations for RCRA can be found at http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-I/
Keep in mind that these regulations are current through the July 1, 1995 printed version of the CFR. Any
changed made since then could be found by searching through the Federal Register at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
The US Code can be found at http://law.house.gov/usc.htm
Hope that helps.
--
Blymyer Engineers, Inc. Environmental Consulting and Engineering Design
1829 Clement Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-1355
Ph: (510) 521-3773 Fax: (510) 865-2594
Email: blymyer@blymyer.com http://www.blymyer.com
Subject: Re: What Chemical Is Used To "Mask" Aviation Smoke
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 03:15:04 GMT
In article <527n4t$l2l@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
rockaway@usa.pipeline.com(Bill Mulcahy) wrote:
>Does anyone know the chemical that was added to aviation
>fuel a few years ago to solve the problem of black smoke
>coming from jet engines. I have heard that this chemical
>only masks the pollution. Could it be a carcinogen itself?
>
>Below is a recent article on aviation pollution:
>
>LONDON (Reuter) - The Green lobby says aircraft are a
serious threat to the
>atmosphere and
>the pollution they cause is increasing and should be
stopped, or at least
>made more expensive.
>
If these stupid environmentalists keep trying, they may be
able to collapse the world economy. I wonder how important
clean air is going to be to nations whose people are largely
unemployed? Oh, I forgot. The liberal agenda of the
environmentalists will ensure that big government takes care
of the unemployed. Well, government had better plan to print
money on rice paper. A collapsed economy means very little
production of goods and services. Few goods and services
means little to eat, even with a lot of government money in
your pocket. Obviously, if money has a substantial caloric
content, the problem will be solved!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom. Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 04:25:24 GMT
OK, one last cross-post to sci.energy and sci.environment.
DaveHatunen (hatunen@netcom.com) wrote:
Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) wrote:
: > OK, I have spent enough time arguing with nuclear industry goons.
: You betray your lack of objectivity in labelling anyone who defends
: nuclear power against ignorant posts as "goons".
Well, I could have expressed myself better. Certainly not everyone
who defended the US nuclear industry was a goon. For example, there
was the fellow who talked about the industry learning, and about the
complex regulations. And you will note, I did not give him a hostile
response, even though I heartily disagreed with him.
The problem was that the way I wrote that, it could seem as though
I was calling *everybody* a goon. I wasn't, but sorry anyway. And
thanks to Tooie, I think by now everybody can see what I actually
meant.
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: Lead Poisoning according to the EPA.
From: "William C. Skaer, DVM"
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:30:37 -0700
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>
> In article <51va0e$h2q@news-central.tiac.net>
> allen writes:
>
> >I have yet to see a child eating wood work or licking walls .
> > Have you ?
>
> Just last year there was a tragic case here in New Zealand
> where a toddler ate the paint on their bassinet and died of
> lead poisoning. Somebody had just painted over the old
> leaded paint and the family had bought it. The incident
> created much greater awareness of the problem, and as
> testing for lead in paint is a free service, a large number
> of people realised they hadn't checked paint that their
> children could encounter, either on furniture, or when
> parents are preparing a house for painting with flakes
> and dust around.
>
> > Japan is a toxic waste dump and they never have this at all.
> > It's just that some of our residents are too darn lazy to keep
> > a clean home and watch their children .
>
> Really?. I'd suggest that Minamata indicates otherwise...
>
> >I would like someone ( environmentalists especially welcome ) to tell us
> >where they suggest we put all this " witch hunt " leaded wood that is
> >about to be tossed out .
>
> I'm sure the mother of the above deceased child really
> understands that it's just a "witch hunt". As for disposal,
> I believe that here in NZ, they authorites suggest that
> lead paint scrapings, dust etc are just disposed of with
> normal household refuse.
>
> Bruce Hamilton
I'm just reading a book by two pediatricians here in the U.S., one of
whom did pioneering research with lead poisoning back in the 70's. The
book is "Raising Children Toxic Free" by Needleman and Landrigan. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry estimated in 1989 that
3 to 4 million children in the states had blood-levels above the toxic
level of 15 ug/dl. The same report stated that 17 percent of all
children, without regard to race or income, exceeded this threshold.
Lead poisoning is a major cause of learning deficits and behavioral
problems, and lead paint is a major exposure route. These authors state
that "deleading a part or all of a house requires experience, great care
not to distribute the lead more widely in the dust, and careful cleanup
at the conclusion." They recommend a professional abatement firm, but
don't say where to dispose of it.
I hope this is of some help. My wife and I have advanced degrees in
environmental studies and are "environmentalists." By the way, I agree
about Minamata. I hope we've learned a little since then, at least
about Mercury.
Bill Skaer
Subject: Re: Brasilian alcohol (was Re: ELECTRIC VEHICLES
From: rickydik@ix.netcom.com(RD Rick)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 05:09:40 GMT
In B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
writes:
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...
I was in Rio de Janeiro for a few days in June of this year, which
happened to be the very last month of production on the Brasilian VW
Beetle.
A VW dealer with cars on display at a shopping center was able to show
me a 2 page brochure on the Beetle, nothing more. I am no longer
proficient in Portuguese, but I was able to read that the car was
available as either a gas guzzler, or an alcoholic, but not both.
As I remember, the gas model had a little more horsepower.
The boulevard in front of Copacabana Beach has open air gas pumps in
the center islands, an interesting use of real estate.
The auto exhaust fumes in Rio were distinct, with definite odor of
burning alcohol.
RD
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 06:30:52 GMT
Tooie (tooie@sover.net) wrote:
: You still have yet to offer any answers to questions that enquiring
: minds want to know, such as:
Disingenuous minds in your case, Tooie. But moving right along:
: *What are your alternatives to nuclear power?
A sandbag question. Actually, I'm not opposed to nuclear power.
Of course, I favor fusion, instead of fission. In the meantime:
Wind, Solar, Hydro, Gas, to name a few. Honest energy industry effort
could produce clean gas from coal. And honest effort could manage
greenhouse effect - simple green moss LOVES CO2. But no...
: *What's your definition of safe?
Safe, in the adjectival sense; quoting from Webster's Scholastic
Dictionary - "safe (adj) Secure; free from danger; unharmed; no longer
dangerous; trustworthy." You see, Tooie, nuclear power is NOT safe.
The best you can say about it as it stands (primitive, fission-based),
is that it is a necessary evil, and even that is debatable.
: *Do you consider driving a car safe?
Not if you're driving wildly on a sidewalk, and firing cops who blow
their whistles. Hey Tooie, did the nuclear industry hire back those two
workers who were fired because they blew the whistle about the unchecked
evaporating coolant that was supposed to have been around those spent fuel
rods? How long did it take the industry to stop killing those messengers,
Tooie? Why don't those enquiring minds ask about this, Tooie?
: *How about eating a charcoal grilled steak?
I do this occasionally, when I can afford it... But I don't force YOU to.
: *Flying in a plane?
Safe? Not if the pilot keeps falling asleep during flight tests.
And not if the airline blackballs mechanics who try to keep wing flaps
from falling off the planes. I think NYC had three falling parts
incidents just in one week this summer. No, if the nuclear industry
ran the airlines, flying in a plane would not be any safer.
: *Eating peanut butter?
I do this. But I don't force YOU to.
: *Living in an area that is high in air pollution?
Not safe. And don't forget water pollution. Too bad wealthy interests
want to keep things dirty. They don't have to be.
: *How has nuclear power adversely affected the public/environment?
Even if you think the industry hasn't leaked anything ever, just who do
you think is paying for the cleanup at TMI? The electric utility gets
its money from us, you know, they don't have their own printing presses
yet. And who paid for the evacuations, the tooth fairy? And what about
all the resulting lost work? That's not an adverse effect? Come on,
Tooie.
: Your complacency arguement shows how little you know about the nuclear
: industry. A plant that received a SALP 1 five years ago and has
: had no improvements since then may find itself on the watch list
: today. I know TMI-2 happened in 79 but this 96, try to catch up.
I'm surprised you admit that TMI even happened. You want to talk
recent? How about that systematic spent-fuel problem at several US
reactors? You know, that problem with the spent fuel-rods that the
industry put out back somewhere with no containment building, and
nobody noticing the spent-fuel coolant getting hotter and hotter and
evaporating. That was much more recent, Tooie, and the nuclear
industry response was simply to fire the messengers. Yeah, I know, I
must have mentioned this four times already - but you never even seem
to have heard about it, so I guess you need to be reminded.
Tell me, Tooie, why did they have to fire those whistleblowers? You
know, that spent fuel was the type that could melt down, and there was
NO containment building around it! Don't argue that new techniques
can eliminate the need for coolant, that fuel needed it. Don't argue
that it would take an unlikely series of events for that to cause a
problem - that's the complacent response that brought us TMI. And TMI
demonstrated that complacency causes meltdowns. And still, the guys who
wanted that spent-fuel problem fixed, were fired by an industry that
really doesn't care about safety. THAT's the problem, Tooie.
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 08:26:00 GMT
> I'm not a petro-fiend, but I play one on TV. Let me answer.
>
Are you famous? Can I have your autograph?
>As far as what truck companies etc will use, they will find
>something.
Yes, but what? I can go along with the efficacy of free market economics
up to a point, but it only works because real people think about the
problems and come up with solutions.
There seem to be many people around who do not acknowledge that oil is
not going to be a long term answer to energy needs, and assume that they
can going on burning it forever. Perhaps they just don't care? If so, why
do they take the effort to dicsuss the issues at all?
> There are already many alternatives, and whatever
>one is cheapest and works best will be implemented. Free markets
>work.
>
>Resources don't deplete suddenly, there will be decades of rising
>prices.
>This will encourage conservation (stretching supplies) and
>alternatives.
>But don't believe me, just look at history. We have switched from
>whale
>oil to petrol, and from wood to coal. In both cases market mechanisms
>worked beautifully.
>
>As far as a few rich dudes being able to afford petrol, energy
>companies make big money selling to MASS markets. Someone will
>have to chase the real demand, millions of people who want their
>own personel transport. Cars are truly the REAL mass transit in
>the USA.
>
>I was cheering the steep gas price rise a few months ago . . .
>this would cut pollution, encourage alternatives, and make
>traffic less. AND earn EXXON more money. I love this country.
I agree with most of this. BUT I think it's worth pushing the new
technologies along now, for many reasons:
Geopolitical stability: if no-one is dependent on oil, we don't have to
fight wars about it.
Economic: Oil is a major contributor to many countries' balance of
payments deficits.
IC engines are noisy smelly and dirty.
IC engines are a major contributor to global warming.
IC engines are a major contribuor to pollution.
IC engines are very inefficient in their use of energy. (No-one seems to
have mentioned fuel cells. Electric cars don't have to run on battery
power alone).
When the oil does begin to "run out" it may not do so gradually. We could
see very rapid price rises, creating severe economic disruption to the
world, with all of the nasty consequences that could bring; if there are
proven alternatives around, these can be minimised.
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 08:34:41 GMT
In article <3246a949.71134671@nntp.st.usm.edu>, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu
says...
>>What happens when the oil runs out? It could happen sooner than you
>>think, particularly with all these newly industrialising countries, and
>>especially China.
>>
>You are about the 5 millionth person to say that, starting about 100
>years ago. SInce that time known world reserves of oil have increased
>each year, by the way.
We keep asking because no-one who wants to keep burning oil gives a
sensible answer.
>But the answer to your question is simple, almost as simple as the
>questioner.
Is this sarcasm? We don't have it on Betelgeuse.
> When the scracity reaches a point which affects the
>price, efforts to change to other fuels will increase.
Why not start trying harder now, so it's not so painful when it does
happen?
Subject: Re: health hazards of dog faeces
From: WHYD99
Date: 25 Sep 1996 08:49:42 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------------------238162807917428
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ron@dane.u-net.com (Mr R Chew) wrote:
>On 24 Sep 1996 09:19:33 GMT, WHYD99
[snip]
>>I agree, not only that, but if I couldn't give the dog at least 2 walks
>>of at least an hour each during the day and if the dog had to be left
>>alone for any length of time during the day I wouldn't own one.
>>Unfortunately that is the case at the moment.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
[snip]
>>
>>One thing that has really peeved me off recently was just after I had
>>re-seeded my fromt lawn, I went out to water it to find that some dog had
>>shat in the middle of it and then *buried* it. Either someone is letting
>>thier dog run around without any control or has stood and watched while
>>the dog did this. Both are deplorable actions (or rather inactions).
>What about all the cat shat that is buried on your lawn , you lot make
>me sick you are all anti dog .
If you re-read the above you may realise I am not anti dog. I would love
to have a dog, but I feel that I can't give it the attention and
commitment that would require at the moment. To have a dog and not give
it sufficient attention is one of the cruelest things you can do, if that
is your idea of being pro dog, you have no idea about dogs. What I was
getting at in the second paragraph was the irresponsibility of some
owners for either letting their dogs run around without control or
encouraging them to mess on other peoples property. I do not blame dogs
for doing what is a natural function, but I do blame their owners for
where they perform those natural functions.
As for cats, that is another story altogether (no police squad jokes
please :->), but correct me if im wrong in thinking this thread is about
dogs.
---------------------------------238162807917428
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
Don Whybrow
Any opinions expressed are all my own work unless otherwise stated.
---------------------------------238162807917428--
Subject: Re: Scrubbing CO2 (was Re: Hydrogen Energy)
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:22:21 GMT
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <9177cc$51918.ed@HERMES>,
> B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>>The terrestrial option is large ( 400 metre diameter ) thermally-insulated
>>spheres of solid CO2 with 2 metres of glass-wool insulation. It is
>>estimated they would take 4000 years to sublime and a 500MW(e)
>>coal-fired unit with 80% load factor and 50 year life would require the
>>construction of 3-4 spheres, and the on-site construction would reduce
>>transportation costs. The reference given is W.Seifritz in Hydrogen
>>Energy Progress IX (eds. C.D.J.Pottier and T.N.Veziroglu ), 1992 p.59.
.....
>What do you think of this option?
Sure to confuse aliens and future historians, we're bound to
be considered Pluto worshippers, or Eskimos who never
learnt successful igloo building....
Less economically viable than the current NZ practice of requiring
new fosil-fuelled power station operators to also plant forests.
I'd favour the use of larger areas of slower-growing ( 1,000+ year
Kauri ) forests, rather than the smaller area of 30+ year pinus radiata
commercial forest currently specified.
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 25 Sep 1996 12:03:06 +0100
jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : Leonard Evens writes:
> : > Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> : > >
> Snip....:
> : BTW, the reason CO2 emissions were not a worry early on
> : (eg no one really worried about runaway greehouse effects
> : in the literature as far as I'm aware of) - _is_ Le Chatelier's
> : Principle.
>
> It is not clear to me that LeChatelier#s Principle is
> appropriate for discussion chaotic systems such as
> the atmosphere. It is after all, at the bottom a
> statement that all equilibria that can be reached
> by changing conditions infinitesimally are stable.
> (i.e. there are no metastable equilibrium points
> such as the top of a hill for a rolling ball).
I would claim it is, in that there is natural,
low frequency variance in the forcing terms.
eg. effectively stochastic changes in the
carbon cycle induce low amplitude changes in the
CO2 levels (certainly at the < 10 ppm level,
arguably larger amplitude than that, on time
scales of decades-millennia - from the historical record).
If the climate was unstable to infinitesimal
perturbations (eg by being on the border of
a runaway greenhouse effect through water vapour
feedback), then these natural fluctuations would
have triggered this instability and we'd either be
in a mesoscopically unstable regime (in which case
any question of anthropic forcing is secondary)
or we have in fact already been driven to a
stablish equilibrium state (which is LeC principle!).
If you want to introduce the language of chaos theory,
the argument would be crudely modified to state
that by LeC princip. we're in a stablish basin
of attraction, and (small enough) perturbations at worst
drive us into a small amplitude limit cycle about the
fixed point, or back to the fixed point if there is dissipation,
- in both cases a large enough perturbation can certainly
drive the climate to instability (either out of the local
minimum, or flip to distinct basin of attraction), but
since the there is a dynamical component to the equilibrium,
there is a second question as to what frequency perturbations
are most likely to force the onset of an instability.
Purely on heuristic grounds, the most dangerous perturbations
are those matched to the intrinsic time scales of the
coupled components of the system, and on observational grounds
the system is already stable to surprisingly large amplitude
high frequency components. Very low frequency perturbations
may or may not be dangerous.
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 25 Sep 1996 12:12:21 +0100
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> : Not everything I do has to be submitted to a peer reviewed
> : journal. I happen to enjoy "academic tea" (well, I prefer coffee)
> : speculation.
>
> Me too; that's fair enough.
> I'm also the person who first (as I far as I could tell)
> : raised the issue of Atlantic Conveyor instability _on this newsgroup_
> : as a major possible climate change hazard.
>
> When? First in the newsgroup or first at all? I heard of that in 1991
> or so (Nature article, with refs to earlier ones).
Certainly _not_ first of all! I first heard of this in the
early 80s in a coffee room full of geologists (amusingly
enough in the context of possible geo-engineering solutions
should it happen), and it was an old concept then!
I've been reading this newsgroup since shortly after it
was created, and noted the possibility of the Atlantic
Conveyor instability early and repeatedly as a possible
adverse effect of climate change - this was a counter-point
to the implied assertion that I ignore possible climate
instabilties in this discussion.
> : BTW, the reason CO2 emissions were not a worry early on
> : (eg no one really worried about runaway greehouse effects
> : in the literature as far as I'm aware of) - _is_ Le Chatelier's
> : Principle. It is still valid, the interesting question is where
> : does it fail. CO2 levels have had > 10% excursions in the recent
> : past - with apparent timescales of centuries or less - we know
> : dropping the CO2 much below pre-industrial values would be disastrous.
> : We also know of secular CO2 draw down on geological time scales,
> : and at least one major ramping up of CO2 levels, on relatively short
> : time scales and in the not too distant past - possibly through
> : volcanic action, and possible this averted the planet already
> : having entered a permanent ice age.
>
> This idea is interesting; I've heard of it for years (Analog Magazine,
> circa mid 70s was the first time); what is its status? Have climate
> simulations of any sort yielded answers like this?
> I'm not harping; I just would like to know if anybody has done this
> (were I in the field, I would have).
Two recent data points. There was a Nature article about
1-2 years ago on CO2 draw down and ecological implications.
Conclusion was that in order 10^8 years CO2 levels would
fall below that necessary to sustain photosynthesis in C3 plants
(and I gather the more expensive C4 cycle became competitive
only recently (in geological times) because CO2 levels became
low enough that C3 photosynthesis was struggling.
The argument for secular CO2 draw down is from fairly recent
work on silicate erosion in the Himalyas. It was rather controversial,
but argues the upthrust and erosion of the Himalays has swung the
long term carbon cycle out of equilibrium
On the other hand there has been at least one relatively recent
(few million years ago) large injection of CO2 into the atmosphere,
possibly form volcanic activity (probably indirectly - lave meets
limestone) which may have ended the previous ice age cycle.
> : What I was doing, because _I_ am interested in it as an intellectual
> : speculation, is considering what absolute CO2 level we would like
> : to stabilise at, why, when, and what the optimal way to get there
> : would be. I am relaxing, deliberately, one of the main assumptions
> : that people carry with them in discussing this, which is that
> : such change is necessarily detrimental or injudicious.
> Perfectly OK. Here we are discussing mechanism, not politics or
> sociology.
Well, since we are, for whatever reason, rapidly shifting CO2
levels, it seems timely to consider both sides of why
this should or should not be done...
Subject: Re: Scientific American article re: ozone
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 25 Sep 1996 12:21:07 +0100
pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) writes:
> I would have thought it very unlikely that _Reviews of Geophysics_ would
> come up with a figure greater than $5 Trillion (or even more unlikely
> a negative figure) which would be required to produce worse accuracy
> Than what from the title appears a blatent piece of doomsaying.
Its probably done through an old trick (and it is amusing
to see where the industry NGOs take their lessons from...)
You can make the apparent cost of something be arbitrary
large, by taking an instantaneous fixed annual cost, and
assuming it will persist for N years and refuse to
discount the future costs (or better still inflate the
future cost to then-year dollars).
So, if a year after conversion the extra running costs
worldwide is $ 1 billion, you just assume that this
situation will persist for a few thousand years, and the
total economic cost is as many trillions as you like.
Dishonest, common, and not totally surprising.
Can be amusing though, like figuring out the
total janitorial cost over the last 750 years
of a Cambridge College.
Subject: Re: health hazards of dog faeces
From: iain.rowan@nojunk.e-mail.ta.very.much (Iain Rowan)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 11:41:56 GMT
In article <324864da.4826303@news.demon.co.uk>, ron@dane.u-net.com
says...
>
>On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:35:52 +0100, egbert@htre.edu (Mrs Eva Egbert)
>wrote:
>>Alternatively, sterilise all women at 15 and then they can
>>have the op reversed if they so wish in later life.
>My god Mrs Egbert I never thought I would see the day when I would
see such statements coming from a female !!! . you are to be applauded
>for having spoken out against your fellow women in this way .
Mmm, I completely agree, after all it is a well known phenomenon of
twentieth century life that women become spontaneously pregnant with
no input from men whatsoever. As a result the appearance of unwanted
children to single parents can be completely laid at the door of women.
>Kids do make a lot more noise than any dog but no one ever complains
>about noise from kids or for that matter hifi's blasting out at all
>hours of the day and night for all the "world " to hear !! .
>Very well said Mrs Egbert, Dogs are much better company than humans
>and a lot less anti social in many ways . if we are forced to put up
>with other forms of animal waste cat, horse , cow , on our roads and
>sidewalks then I am sure a bit of DOG waste will do no more harm .
OK, lurkers, hands up. When was the last time a cat, horse or cow
excreted on the pavement outside your front door? When was the last
time you wouldn't let your kids play in the public park because there was
so much cat/cow/horse crap there?
--
Iain Rowan iain.rowan@sunderland.ac.uk
All half-baked opinions, wild assertions and misguided
attempts at humour are down to me, not my employer.
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: "John Theofanopoulos"
Date: 25 Sep 1996 12:20:56 GMT
DaveHatunen wrote in article
> >> >What is the 'high current' you are referring too. Currently I have
> >> >seen 150KW chargers which are able to recharge battery packs in
> >>20 minutes.
> >>
> Um. How many cars your figure this charging station can charge at a
> time? And what kind of conductors and connections are you figuring to
> carry those currents?
In answer to your first question, that's an infrastructure issue. This
will all depend on how the utility companies decide to set these chargers
up. Point to keep in mind is that the utility companies will be
responsible for setting these stations up, and NOT the car companies. Each
box however, will charge one car at a time, much like each gas pump refuels
one car at a time.
As for the second question, I don't have to envision anything. The wires
currently used are 0/2 awg welding cable and they do the job just fine.
All the Yazake and ODU connectors on our EPIC don't even flinch (never mind
heat up) when we charge the car up. So, to answer your question, I'm not
making this up. We have these chargers and have been using them on our
cars for over a year.
--
John Theofanopoulos
jt45@chrysler.com
johnth39@mail.idt.net
NS-EV E/E Systems
Subject: Re: health hazards of dog faeces
From: M Sandberg
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:58:12 GMT
Mrs Eva Egbert wrote:
> In message <3246f6b1.1107025@news.worldaccess.nl> you wrote:
> > no@flames.com wrote:
> > >If I did not have anywhere proper to "walk" a dog, I would not have
> > >one. Few people see things this way, however, which is why every piece
> > >of green ground in a town area is covered with dogshit so much you can
> > Somehow, the most anti-social part of the dog owners seem to think that
> > they have a RIGHT to own a dog, no matter what (which, unfortunately, is
> > *legally* true), and because they have this right, they think they also
> > have a RIGHT to harass their neighbors with dog shit, dangerous biting
> > animals, or dogs barking continuously for hours, preferably at night.
> > "Because that's the dog's nature."
> > But I DO have something against those 'wrong' dog-owners. They just do
> > as they like, until someone with enough power (or courage) stops them.
> OK, but it hardly seems fair to criticise some people for having
> dogs when you say they are unfit to have them.
> What about all those dim-witted, brain-dead, smeg-heads who
> generate kids as if they were shelling peas?
> You think it's bad living next to someone whose dog barks
> all night? Try living next to someone whose idea of fun
> is to produce a litter of juvenile delinquents.
> Put contraceptives in the drinking water, I say, and charge
> people a minimum of $10,000 to buy some antidote pills.
>
> Alternatively, sterilise all women at 15 and then they can
> have the op reversed if they so wish in later life.
A few reflections:
1. Dog faeces is no real problem in the countryside where they get spread over
a fairly big area for each dog. When the concentration is low natyre have no
problem to take care of it. The problem is when you either get faeces
(dog or cat or horse as the most common problems) concentrated in a small
area like a village or in a town. There is an extra problem in towns in that
there are big paved areas where nature have no way of taking care of it.
If you do nothing in such concentrations it will become a big problem.
BTW you see the same problem when some place becomes popöular for tourists.
If nobody arranges to take care of the human faeces they will pollute nature,
but when there is not many tourists nature cleans up perfectly well.
Nature have also made some such problems. Passenger Pigeon was one of them,
they collected in a pice of forrest to breed and that forrest was killed of
from their faeces. I also think that the guano islands have been hit by
the same problem since they look like they could have had some ecology
if not smothered in guano.
It all comes down to that too much of a god thing is bad. A little fertilizer
from some spread out population only makes for a greener nature, but too much
kills.
2. Dogs (some) are a big problem in cities. There are a lot of people who have
dogs who are compoleately unfit to have a dog (or a child). You sometimes even
see social security workers giving a dog (usually a big, potetially dangerous)
to a dropout to anchor him/her to something. Those dogs can be very big problem,
having an unstable handler tend to make a dog neurotic and dangerous.
You also have those that think that sincer dogs are natural they shall be
allowed to behave as they like. Result: Dogs marking teritory on many things
including lighting poles and electricity connecting boxes. Having one of them
exploding (incidently killing the dog doing it last) with a result of breaking
electricity until the day after can kind of make you hate dogs. Hearing how
much it costs to replace signposts etc just rottened or rusted away from
dogs (or sometimes human dogs) releiving themselves ( I do not think that
the humans are marking teritory?) only cements the dislike for people
who can not (or will not) realize that you must take trouble with your animals.
3. Children: What to do? It is inhuman to say that "You are unfit to have
children, they will suffer and I do not think that you should be allowed
to procreate just because you happen to like it ( or are to lazy to protect
yourself). On the other hand, most kids with parents who are living on
social security or from criminal income are quite overrepresented in
all statistics of problems. Getting a child to save a marriage usually
dooms the marriage and even more usually dooms the child. Likevise to
save somebody from a habit or the street.
BUT when you see what social workers can do with the limited means they
now have you do NOT want to give them more power. A big problem is that
propaganda works best with those who are the least problem and is almost
useless with the group that is the biggest problem.
I am afraid that we must look at this problem as evolution in progress,'
but i pity the persons and comunities hit.
SAG
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 12:09:22 GMT
A couple of alt.politics groups removed from followups.
Kirk Johnson (newkirk@olympus.net) wrote:
: Go ask someone at Allstate or any other large home-owners insurance
: company if they don't think the effects of global warming are real. I'm
: not joking.
:
: It is irrelevant if the effects of global warming are not manifesting
: themselves exactly as was originally predicted. The point is that
: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing at a steady (and
: accelerating) pace. This *is* causing large and more frequeny dangerous
: anomolies in our weather. That's the point.
While the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely
increasing, this increase has yet to be tied with a signal of
larrger or more frequent weather "anomalies", whatever that may
actually mean. There have been some statistical studies of possible
climate alteration but the signal is not clear yet, only suggestive.
However, the insurance industry takes some _predictions_,
like that of an increasing frequency of damaging hurricanes, quite
seriously.
I just hope that if a clear signal does emerge from the
noise, which might be indicative of upcoming future problems, there
won't be chorus of "Why wasn't something done about this earlier?"
from the same people who currently say "None of this matters because
those climate models can't make predictions."
===============================================
| 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.
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: r16360@email.mot.com (Andrew McNeil)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 14:19:18 GMT
In article <52aqao$4j@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb) writes:
>
> > I'm not a petro-fiend, but I play one on TV. Let me answer.
> >
>
> Are you famous? Can I have your autograph?
Well, actually I'm not THAT famous. I played one
of those evil petroleum company execs in Steven
Segal's "On Deadly Ground" ;-)
>
> >As far as what truck companies etc will use, they will find
> >something.
>
> Yes, but what? I can go along with the efficacy of free market economics
> up to a point, but it only works because real people think about the
> problems and come up with solutions.
Yes, and last time I checked there were tens of thousands of real
people (engineers, scientists) out there. Many are working on this.
When (not if) oil does become expensive, those big greedy oil companies
will have incentive to put their massive resources to work.
> There seem to be many people around who do not acknowledge that oil is
> not going to be a long term answer to energy needs, and assume that they
> can going on burning it forever. Perhaps they just don't care? If so, why
> do they take the effort to dicsuss the issues at all?
But when will oil run out? after 50, 100, or 1000 years? Anyway, many
people
are too busy trying to earn enough money to pay for their huge trucks.
> > There are already many alternatives, and whatever
> >one is cheapest and works best will be implemented. Free markets
> >work.
> >
>
> >Resources don't deplete suddenly, there will be decades of rising
> >prices.
> >This will encourage conservation (stretching supplies) and
> >alternatives.
> >But don't believe me, just look at history. We have switched from
> >whale
> >oil to petrol, and from wood to coal. In both cases market mechanisms
> >worked beautifully.
> >
> >As far as a few rich dudes being able to afford petrol, energy
> >companies make big money selling to MASS markets. Someone will
> >have to chase the real demand, millions of people who want their
> >own personel transport. Cars are truly the REAL mass transit in
> >the USA.
>
> >
> >I was cheering the steep gas price rise a few months ago . . .
> >this would cut pollution, encourage alternatives, and make
> >traffic less. AND earn EXXON more money. I love this country.
>
> I agree with most of this. BUT I think it's worth pushing the new
> technologies along now, for many reasons:
>
> Geopolitical stability: if no-one is dependent on oil, we don't have to
> fight wars about it.
War is over 5000 years old, it pre-dates petrol.
> Economic: Oil is a major contributor to many countries' balance of
> payments deficits.
Oil is useful, it is worth spending money for. I personally feel that
the 1000 bucks I spend on gasoline is a bargain.
> IC engines are noisy smelly and dirty.
New IC engines are almost too clean to measure. If every car on the
road had met "new car" emissions, pollution problems would go away
in most locations. A few % of cars make half of the pollution.
"Dirty" and "Noisy" are subjective, but I would suggest you go
drive a new Honda Civic, and let me know what you think.
> IC engines are a major contributor to global warming.
If global warming exists, if it is caused by CO2, and if it is
adverse, then, yes, you are right.
> IC engines are a major contribuor to pollution.
You are absolutely right. But we have the technology (right now)
to greatly reduce this pollution. The last 20 years shows an
amazing decrease in IC pollution per vehicle.
> IC engines are very inefficient in their use of energy. (No-one seems to
> have mentioned fuel cells. Electric cars don't have to run on battery
> power alone).
IC engines are not hugely efficient, less so than fuel cells appear to
be. Just remember that if fuel cells are H2 powered, the H2 was likely
made in a process of less than 100% efficiency (coal to electricity to
electrolosys, 25%? just a SWAG). Also remember that fuel cell techno-
logy is not yet practical. People tend to choose technologies that
are tried and true.
Will oil run out in my life? I am half way home (35 yr old) so probably
not. I almost wish that it would, just so we could see the economy
evolving to new technologies. Well, maybe not - we could repeat
President Carter's "Synth Fuels" disaster, where BILLIONS were wasted
on non competitive plants to reduce our reliance on oil.
> When the oil does begin to "run out" it may not do so gradually. We could
> see very rapid price rises, creating severe economic disruption to the
> world, with all of the nasty consequences that could bring; if there are
> proven alternatives around, these can be minimised.
The history of mineral resources shows that gradual price increases are
the rule. Consider: if oil appears to be running out in the next few
years, greed will force some people (speculators) to hoard it in
large quantity. Why? if oil prices double in 2 years, what greedy
capitalist wouldn't want to double his money? This will tend to
push prices up earlier, making the market anticipate future
shortages. Also, many sources of oil are not being used today
because they are to costly to extract - if prices increase these
sources will produce, but will raise prices.
Capitalism works, last time I checked.
Subject: Re: Safety or Sanity (was the Rusland Beeches, England)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:16:49 GMT
andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) wrote for all to see:
>In article <32484d6e.26716671@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>>>Energy Policy.
>>
>>I am afraid that this is not a satisfactory response. A world wide
>>search of periodicals does not yield any journal by this name. Do you
>>have more identification?
>
>Not only are you rude, you also can't do a search. An Altvista search
>for "energy policy" and journal produces as its first hit a URL for
>
>Energy Policy
>
>The International Journal of the Political, Economic, Planning,
>Environmental and Social Aspects of Energy
I used the library search program for world wide distribution of
preriodicals. It is called 1st Search by the librarian who did the
search for me. Sorry, I will reprimand Teresa most severely for this,
rest assured. Actually, mine was probably one of many requests during
the day for her.
You will note that I did not say I do not beleieve the Journal
existed, I simply requested more information.
Incidently, I just went to First Search, the World Catalog by OCLC,
and still did not find it, even though I found the listing on the URL
you provided.
BTW, how is that rude?
Regards, Harold
-----
"And having looked to government for bread, on the very first
scarcity they will turn and bite the hand that fed them. To
avoid that evil, government will redouble the causes of it;
and then it will become inveterate and incurable."
---Edmund Burke, 1795
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:09:44 GMT
In article <01bbaaf0$cbbdb0e0$LocalHost@austin>,
John Theofanopoulos wrote:
>
>DaveHatunen wrote in article
>
>> >> >What is the 'high current' you are referring too. Currently I have
>> >> >seen 150KW chargers which are able to recharge battery packs in
>> >>20 minutes.
>> >>
>> Um. How many cars your figure this charging station can charge at a
>> time? And what kind of conductors and connections are you figuring to
>> carry those currents?
>
>In answer to your first question, that's an infrastructure issue. This
>will all depend on how the utility companies decide to set these chargers
>up. Point to keep in mind is that the utility companies will be
>responsible for setting these stations up, and NOT the car companies. Each
>box however, will charge one car at a time, much like each gas pump refuels
>one car at a time.
OK. A modest charge for an EV would be, perhaps 20 kwh. Suppose a
charging station can do twelve cars at once. Then it would need to draw
a total charge of 240 kwh. To do this in 20 minutes would require 720
kw of power input. Given charging inefficeincies, 800 kw would be
closer to the mark. That's 0.8 MEGAwatts. For only one charging station.
Most people are cussing their local utility company, BTW. I'm not sure
why you want them contolling your car as well as your house.
>As for the second question, I don't have to envision anything. The wires
>currently used are 0/2 awg welding cable and they do the job just fine.
>All the Yazake and ODU connectors on our EPIC don't even flinch (never mind
>heat up) when we charge the car up. So, to answer your question, I'm not
>making this up. We have these chargers and have been using them on our
>cars for over a year.
How much current do those wires draw? And that current is achievable
because an electric welder is essentially a stepdown transformer, so
that welding voltage is very, very low. A conductor carrying those
currents at 240 volts or so would be a far different animal.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: Brasilian alcohol (was Re: ELECTRIC VEHICLES
From: cdagord@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Cesar D'Agord)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:48:42 GMT
In article <52aeqk$n0c@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> rickydik@ix.netcom.com(RD Rick) writes:
>In B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
>writes:
>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...
I being ss close as an expert in this subject as anyone, I can tell you that Bruce
Hamilton is right. At the time the Alcohol program started in Brazil (1976 or
whereabouts, first commercially sold vehicle running on alcohol was 1979, I
believe) the price of oil would manage to have alcohol sold at competitive
prices at the pump. But, by 1979, oil prices were on downward espiral,
coupled with the inefficiencies of a subsidized alcohol program. Alcohol
distilleries were all working under heavy subsidies, which I believe, and
many others agree lead to inefficiency, though less competiveness with the
oil derivatives.
If that was not enough, the break down of oil into its derivatives is a
process that can be modified only to a certain extent to produce, let's say,
more diesel and less gasoline from the same amount of oil. And it is an
expensive proposition, anyway. Then what happens is that Brazil still had to
produce Diesel (alcohol does not have enough calories to compete efficiently
with diesel, in a country where the trucking and bus industry is the major
form of commercial/passenger transportation), and what's done with the excess
gasoline? It really pushes its prices down... So, Brazil resorted to export
gasoline at low prices (to make it affordable for the importers) basically
just to get rid of the excess production. And with all that, diesel prices
were also subsidized.
Do you want more? The rapid increase in crop areas destined for sugar-cane
(main crop for alcohol production in Brazil) displaced agricultural products
that were the major staple of the country, like beans (black beans), coffee,
corn, etc., notwithstanding sugar, creating another problem for a country
struggling to develop (this from my own masters thesis, by the way).
AND, the cars were more expensive to build because all parts in contact with
alcohol had to be plated with something (forgot the alloy, or whatever was
used) to avoid corrosion, and they had to be backed with a special warranty by
Federal law (not necessary for gasoline cars). Also, for the public to accept
the program and buy a car that ran on alcohol, they had to have some
incentives, so, more subsidies were placed there so that cars and alcohol
prices were attractive for new buyers.
To summarize, some facts:
- Brazil regulates (used to until recently, at least) fuel prices;
- Cars were either to be ran on alcohol or gasoline, but not interchangeable;
- Heavy subsidies had to be phased out, threatening the stability of alcohol
production, henceforth threatening the commercialization of cars running on
alcohol;
- Low oil prices did not afford the alcohol program to run on its own;
- The program was initially established as an oil imports substitute rather
than a safer environment program;
- By around 1985, more than 90% of the new passenger cars sold in Brazil were
running on alcohol;
- By around 1985, the alcohol consumption in Brazil was about 50% of total
fuel consumption by passenger cars (some form of alcohol was used in
the gasoline as an additive - up to about 20%, still is, actually);
- I owned a VW Fox which ran on alcohol... (this qualifies this posting on this
group, I believe) :-)
Today, the program would had been envisioned in a completely different way.
A couple of suggestions: Cars should have to be able to use either alcohol
or gasoline interchangeably, so that consumers could choose fuels based on
price. This would avoid the sugar distilleries from being on a position where
they can ask subsidies and be inefficient because consumers depend on alcohol
after they purchased their vehicle and the government had to assure the
production of alcohol would meet this less flexible demand (rather inelastic,
for the economists of this group).
And I could go on...
I’ll spare you for now, but I will answer questions on this subject should they arise.
Cesar D'Agord
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: Dodge Boy
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:33:58 -0400
Jeff Brinkerhoff wrote:
>
> >
> > >>Dodge boy said:
> >
>
> I wonder if anyone else read a recent (Sorry, I don't have it here)
> issue of Popular Science (or maybe Discover, I can't remember)that
> contained an article about electric vehicles. The one article was about
> the production of a flywheel energy storage system (battery) that is at
> the point of real-world testing.
>
> I think that this technology might be the future of electric powered
> vehicles. No acid, no heavy metals, more compact, higher energy
> density, it never wears out and will most likely be more efficient than
> chemical batteries.
>
> Briefly for those of you not familiar with the technology: you create a
> flywheel of optimum size/density and spin it very quickly in a vaccum
> while suspending it on magnetic bearings. The once spun up (Via an
> electric motor) flywheel will store A LOT of energy for a really long
> time, and when you want to use some energy (go somewhere) the motor
> becomes a generator and away you go. If you need more energy storage you
> add more flywheels. I think the article said a "pack" of about 8-10
> flywheels could give a car the magic '300' mile range and would fit in
> the average engine compartment. The other advantage of flywheel
> technology over chemical is that the re-charge time is very fast (spin
> 'em up)- something like 5-10 minutes on a high-current connection.
>
> I know there will probably be flames about this technology, but if you
> are thinking of the hybrid flywheel/gas engine indy car from a few years
> ago I beg you to read the article first. There apparently have been
> quite a few advances in the technology in the past few years. (mainly in
> the design of the bearings and the construction of the flywheel).
This sound like a good idea it will solve alot of the problems that are
associated with lead acid batteries. Chrysler has been racing a
flywheel car in the World Sports Class of IMSA a test.
I can only see to major problems with the concept.
1) The electric to spin the flywheel will most likely come from coal
fire generating stations, only shifting the emissions on elminating
them.
2) A flywheel will have to be heavy to store kenetic energy and spin
very very fast. In a crash, if it shifts, and grabbs a hold of
something the resulting explosion would be akin to a jet engine
compresser exploding. Think about it, the is fly has all the energy for
a 300 mile trip already moving. I'm sure this can be over come, but the
resulting weight of saftey equipment may cause a problem in range.
Dodge Boy
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 15:23:35 GMT
In article <52b7di$m2l@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
James G. Acker wrote:
> While the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely
>increasing, this increase has yet to be tied with a signal of
>larrger or more frequent weather "anomalies", whatever that may
>actually mean. There have been some statistical studies of possible
>climate alteration but the signal is not clear yet, only suggestive.
> However, the insurance industry takes some _predictions_,
>like that of an increasing frequency of damaging hurricanes, quite
>seriously.
> I just hope that if a clear signal does emerge from the
>noise, which might be indicative of upcoming future problems, there
>won't be chorus of "Why wasn't something done about this earlier?"
>from the same people who currently say "None of this matters because
>those climate models can't make predictions."
I read an article a few weeks ago [and, unfortunately, I don't remember
where] saying that the frequency of hurricanes had actually gone down
in the last several decades. Any increase in damage was actually due
to higher population densities along the coast. I don't know if this
was supposed to apply to Pacific storms as well, or only to
Carribean/Atlantic ones.
>| James G. Acker |
snark
Subject: Re: health hazards of dog faeces
From: Paul Allen
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:03:36 +0100
In article <52b5q4$ivq@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>, Iain Rowan
writes
>In article <324864da.4826303@news.demon.co.uk>, ron@dane.u-net.com
>says...
>>
>>On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:35:52 +0100, egbert@htre.edu (Mrs Eva Egbert)
>>wrote:
>
>>>Alternatively, sterilise all women at 15 and then they can
>>>have the op reversed if they so wish in later life.
>>My god Mrs Egbert I never thought I would see the day when I would
>see such statements coming from a female !!! . you are to be applauded
>>for having spoken out against your fellow women in this way .
>
>Mmm, I completely agree, after all it is a well known phenomenon of
>twentieth century life that women become spontaneously pregnant with
>no input from men whatsoever. As a result the appearance of unwanted
>children to single parents can be completely laid at the door of women.
>
>>Kids do make a lot more noise than any dog but no one ever complains
>>about noise from kids or for that matter hifi's blasting out at all
>>hours of the day and night for all the "world " to hear !! .
>>Very well said Mrs Egbert, Dogs are much better company than humans
>>and a lot less anti social in many ways . if we are forced to put up
>>with other forms of animal waste cat, horse , cow , on our roads and
>>sidewalks then I am sure a bit of DOG waste will do no more harm .
>
>OK, lurkers, hands up. When was the last time a cat, horse or cow
>excreted on the pavement outside your front door? When was the last
>time you wouldn't let your kids play in the public park because there was
>so much cat/cow/horse crap there?
>
How do they get on in India with all that sacred cow excreta?
--
Paul Allen