Newsgroup sci.environment 104880

Directory

In article <324acfb4.100363496@agate>,
Craig Mohn  wrote:
>So, given the recurring attention to the tendency of many Sport
>Utility Vehicles to roll over when cornering, this may be an
>advantage.  The only times I can think of that it is desirable for a
>car to be rotated out of a plane is when ascending or descending a
>hill.  I suspect that the front suspension of the vehicle will be
>strong enough that the bumper won't dig into the road when
>encountering a reasonably steep slope, and the car willl be
>sufficiently massive that the front wheels would not lose contact with
>the pavement at the top of a hill.  However, if this effect is at all
>significant, people would have to get used to cars which handle
>differently than current vehicles.
>
>But there may be more to it than this, I really haven't thought too
>hard about it.
The rotation of the car as it angles down teh hill could cause a yawing
force, i.e., an abrupt turn...
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In article <3249ba53.4884395@news.demon.co.uk>, Mr R Chew  writes
>On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 16:50:13 +0100, Paul Allen
> wrote:
>
>
>>>In coastal areas of the UK turds are usually treated then pumped out to
>>>sea about a mile off the coast - inland they're taken to sewer farms.
>>Thanks for that. I'll eat fewer whelks.
>>-- 
>>Paul Allen
>I note that nothing is said about the danger to our children bathing
>in the sea's around our coast which is filled with all sorts of crap
>human , dog , you name it .
On the contrary, a great deal is said about it.  Don't you ever read the
newspapers?
--John
-- 
John Fisher   john@drummond.demon.co.uk   johnf@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Drummond is an independent site; its opinions are my own

I'm an author  putting together a proposal for a new book to be called
(something like) "Nature's Heroes."  It would be about people who have
fought worthy environmental fights, overcome significant challenges, and
achieved something significant. 
Like the Swedish schoolboy who started a movement to preserve a part of
the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, in Costa Rica (now known as the
Children's Rainforest).  A Cree elder who's been fighting the James Bay
hydroelectric project, which will flood an area the size of France.  A
Lakota woman who has fought to keep a nuclear weapons testing site out of
the Black Hills.
At the moment I'm casting about for a few more interesting people to
profile in the book.  Any ideas?
I'd like to find people who are not too famous (like Jane Goodall), not
politicians or "officials," but rather ordinary people,  people who have
overcome great obstacles (makes for a better story) and who have really
changed things in some demonstrable way.
I appreciate your help!  (P.S. I'm aware of the winners of the Goldman
Prize.)
Stefan Bechtel  [Dhand302@aol.com]

In article <324AC472.3BBA@fc.hp.com>, Victor Johnson   wrote:
>David Wei wrote:
>> 
>> In message <324852DF.216F@fc.hp.com> - Victor Johnson Tue, 24
>> Sep 1996 15:30:07 -0600 writes:
>> 
>> :> Remember what happened when you tried to "twist" a gyroscope as a kid?
>> 
>> Stack another gyro that's counter-rotating onto the original gyro, that'll fix
>> it.
>
> I don't think so.  I haven't worked the equations, but the ME in me sez
> that all that will do is:
>
>   1. Cancel out the imparted torqe that is passed through in bearing
>      friction.
>
>   2. Cancel the lateral (opposing) Coriolis force components.
>
>   3. Double the magnitude of the vertical (colinear and in same direction)
>      Coriolis force component.
>
> So, you end up with twice the problem, just in a different direction.
> Two gyroscopes counter-rotating in the same plane and bound together by
> some manner of rigid frame will still resist being rotated out of that
> plane.
That's true. You need at least three pairs of counterrotating gyros
mounted orthogonally.
There will still be precessional stresses in the mounting between the
gyros, but I don't believe there would be any outside the gyro package.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

Dodge Boy wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 
> What information do you have on the recent information, that R134a is a cancer
> causing agent, or it could be that under labratory conditions rats naturaly get
> cancer.
> 
> Dodge Boy
> 
Well, let us look at some rational arguements here.
Unless you've converted your automobile to burn propane or straight
ethanol, you are probally filling with gasoline, 1 to 5% benzene.  Not
a small cancer risk, if fact we have epidemi data that shows a greatly
increased risk of death from gas station attendents, owners.  
If you are in a nonattainment zone that is using RFG you have a
significant less risk as the benzene is greatly reduced, but thats
another story.
So if the preliminary studies pan out, and a slope factor for 134a is
developed, then we will look at the potential exposure which is...?
Maybe on catastropic leak every five years, short duration, damn near
nil risk.
I am sure that OSHA will require proper safeguards for the workers in
the
industry.
Ya, big bloody risk.
So let us instead destroy the ozone layer, destroy the ecosystem, starve
to death.  Good plan

The National Academy Press has put more than 1000 Books On-line free for
the reading.  The National Academy Press is the publisher for the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the
Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council.  The on-line
publications are in the Reading Room section of the site.  This can be
reached through the main page:
http://www.nap.edu
This is a great science resource, so be sure to check it out.

Natural Allies
If only hunters, anglers, and environmentalists would stop taking potshots
at each other, they'd be an invincible force for wildlands protection.
by Ted Williams
.... "More than 50 million Americans fish, and 15 million hunt, yet
environmentalists have made scant effort to forge any lasting alliance
with them to protect the land and water that sustain wildlife.
"Environmentalists don't reach out to sportsmen," says Chris Potholm, a
professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College in Maine. "If
they did, they' d be invincible. Whenever sportsmen combine with
environmentalists, you have 60 to 70 percent of the population, an
absolutely irresistible coalition."....
rest of article at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/199609/sohunt.html

Nick Eyre  wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>>>>>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"
>>>>}
>>>If correct (I may or may not bother to check), 
>> 
>>\begin{flame} 
>>
>>Listen up, you son of a bitch.
>>
Ah, a typical scholar, knows how to use dirty words.  Now I believe
you.  Kiss my butt.
>>Either do the lit-search, and then retract your innuendo, or
>>save yourself from further embarrassment, and retract it
>>immediately.
I retract nothing, quarter wit (it's a geometric progression).  I
asked a question, "when was your last peer reviewed paper?" (see
above), and you answered it.  While I did not look up your article, I
did find a library in Alabama (Auburn Univ., I think) that has a copy
of your journal.  I decided not to request a copy just to confirm your
statement, as it does not seem sufficiently important to get a bunch
of librarians from other work simply to satisfy my curiosity.
I will not retract the question.  We were discussing peer review (a
question which I note you have dropped).  You appeared to feel that
the anonymity of the reviewers was not important to the process.  I
wanted to see if you had any experience, since this surprises me.
I consider it a legitimate question.  Sorry you don't.
>>\end{flame}
Ohioan, your insults hurt so much!!!
>
>Don't encourage him Steve.  He claims to have looked for a well known
>international journal I referred to and failed to find it.
As you can note in another comment, this is correct.  And to date,
except the URL you gave on the Internet, I have found no reference.  I
asked if the First Search was limited to less than the world (maybe
just Eastern US?) but have got no answer from the library.
Regards, Harold
----
"The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in
the effect was already in the cause."
	---Henri Bergson, Philosopher (1859 - 1941)

rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
> No, both references do not note this, and it is not true.
> Shawn London specifically mentioned the Antarctic and Argentina,
> where very dramatic UV increases accompanying the seasonal ozone
> hole have been measured since 1988. For example, surface UV-B at 
> Palmer Station in October 1993 exceeded UV-B in San Diego in 
> *midsummer* 1993. See:
>
> R. D. Bojkov, V. E. Fioletov, and S. B. Diaz,
> "The relationship between solar UV irradiance and total ozone from
> observations over southern Argentina", _Geophys. Res. Lett._ _22_,
> 1249, 1995.
>
> J. E. Frederick and A. Alberts, "Prolonged
> enhancement in surface ultraviolet radiation during the Antarctic
> spring of 1990", _Geophys. Res. Lett._ _18_, 1869, 1991.
>
> J. E. Frederick, P.F. Soulen, S.B. Diaz,
> I. Smolskaia, C.R. Booth, T. Lucas, and D. Neuschuler,
> "Solar Ultraviolet Irradiance Observed from Southern Argentina:
> September 1990 to March 1991", J. Geophys. Res. _98_, 8891, 1993.
>
> R. Smith, B. Prezelin, K. Baker, R. Bidigare, N. Boucher, 
> T. Coley, D. Karentz, S. MacIntyre, H. Matlick, D. Menzies, 
> M. Ondrusek, Z. Wan, and K. Waters, "Ozone depletion:
> Ultraviolet radiation and phytoplankton biology in antarctic
> waters", _Science_ _255_, 952, 1992.
>
> K. Stamnes, Z. Jin, and J. Slusser, "Several-fold
> enhancement of biologically effective Ultraviolet radiation levels at
> McMurdo Station Antarctica during the 1990 ozone 'hole'", _Geophys. Res.
> Lett._ _19_, 1013, 1992.
I must admit your are correct, I made an error, there has been
increase observed in UV.  I could have added the qualifier "from human
activities", and did not.  My mistake entirely.  I am surprised though
that you neglected to mention the one from Mauna Loa Observatory, in
the Geophysical Res. Letters, vol 23, no. 12 p 1533, June 1996, by
Hoffman and a cast of thousands.
Regards, Harold
----
"The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in
the effect was already in the cause."
	---Henri Bergson, Philosopher (1859 - 1941)

Jeremy Whitlock (cz725@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: 
: When you do a steam dump and crash-cool a BWR, there is a huge insertion
: of positive reactivity.  This is only a "small (relatively) burp" if the
: safety system is designed to handle this event, which it is.  This is all
: I'm saying.  Chernobyl demonstrated how a large and power-dependent void
: coefficient can be undesirable (albeit not the root-cause of the
: explosion); 
Jeremy is right, certain pressurization transients (turbine trip) insert 
well over a dollar of reactivity in the system although this is 
counteracted by the scram and doppler.  Rapid depressurization 
(crash-cool) doesn't happen unless there is a some form of LOCA and 
this would void the core, inserting negative reactivity.
tooie

tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb) wrote:
>>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.
>They're much better, but still produce pollution when cold. 
Even that can be largely avoided.  A vacuum-insulated catalytic
convertor is being commercialized now that stays at  > 300 C even when
the engine is off for 24 hours (hydrogen stored in a metal hydride on
the inner wall of the vacuum insulation degrades the vacyuum when
the convertor is hot enough, preventing overheating.)  There are some
pages on the net describing this technology.  Some 98% of car trips
occur within 24 hours of the previous trip.
	Paul

James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
> 
> Eric Anderson  wrote:
> 
> ->Kirk Johnson 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.
> 
> ->Yeah, they are an authority on the subject for sure.
> 
> Their business depends on predicting the probabilities of disaster
> accurately, so they have a strong non-politicized interest in accurate
> models.
Non-politicized, yes.  But they have a large financial interest in
models that predict disaster.  This gives them justification for
charging higher rates.  Are you going to deny that?  Or are you going to
bring in lawyers as the next set of *credible* experts?
> ->themselves *exactly* like predicted.  They are not manifesting
> ->themselves *anything* like predicted.  The models are simply wrong.
> 
> "Anything?"  Are you claiming that global temperatures haven't been
> rising?
Use whatever figure you want, the best I've heard is that global
temperatures have increased by *one* degree (Celsius, I presume) in the
last century.  This with an error rate of +/- 4 degrees.  Even if you
want to average everything out, I will concede that global temperatures
have risen *slightly* in the last century.  But such a rise is
completely within the realm of *natural* processes.
Sure, it's fine to assume that increased CO2 levels have *something* to
do with it.  But we really don't know, do we?
> Are you saying that the sea level hasn't been rising?
See above.  Change out sea-level for temperature.
> Are you saying that yearly temperature extremes haven't increased?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  As I recall the global high
temperature of 136 degrees in Death Valley has been standing for
decades.  Was matched once a few years ago.  Now, where were those
extremes you mentioned?  Be sure to include in your data the
mini-ice-age of the mid-19th century, oh and the one that occured some
300 years ago, lasting for decades.  Gee, haven't seen anything like
those *natural* occurances in this century, now have we?
> ->Can you prove that?  Can you prove that with the invention of, say, the
> ->weather satellite, that we aren't simply doing a better job of
> ->documenting these "anomolies", as you call them?
> 
> Taking an epistemological stand, eh?  Can you prove that you are
> actually respponding to a post, and not strapped to a board in a
> mental ward imagining all this?  Can you prove you are not an AI
> operated by Shell Oil to respond to global warming posts?  Can you
> prove that the Sun is not a malevolent God?
Now you are getting ridiculous.  No good answer to my question, eh? 
What I am saying is that we did not have good global weather monitoring
until the 1960s.
And even that wasn't very good.  (Even today, we are lacking in much of
the data we would *like* to have--such as ocean surface temperatures
which we have only begun to gather global-wide data on in the last 2-3
years.)  Before this century, there was virtually no way to document the
*global* weather of each day.  Today, we can document almost every
single lightning strike that occurs in the USA, and many other parts of
the world.  What do you think your conclusions would be if you were to
compare today's lightning data to that of 20 years ago.  "Oh my God,
there has been a *tremendous* increase in thunderstorm activity.  This
must be an anomaly!  It *must* be caused by global warming."  And
frankly, since we have had the technology to do so, there has not been
enough time elapsed to gather reliable data to support your claim of
increasing "anomalies".  In fact, the best we can do today is determine
a good baseline for future observations.  We know of some anomalies of
the past but we have no consistant record of them to use as a baseline
for today's observations.
Case in point:  Tucson, Arizona.  Two years ago, the weather service
finally decided to move its weather station away from the *tarmack* at
the airport.  It's location was determined to be the reason for our
string of record-breaking high temperatures over the last decade. 
Record-breaking temperatures that I am sure were added into the global
average now used to predict the greenhouse effect.  Guess what has
happened now?  Our temperatures have dropped by an average of 3
degrees.  I guess that means we have solved the problem of global
warming. :)
Tucson is just one city that has been very inconsistant in its gathering
of weather-related data.  Just moving the station has effectively
negated all past data collected by that station.  The gathering of that
data has never been *controlled*.
Now, moving on.  Where are most weather stations located (in the USA)? 
Gee, they're at airports.  How many are on the tarmack (as Tucson's
was)?  How many are not?  How many have been moved?  How many times have
they been moved?  What do you think would happen if every city moved
their weather stations away from airport tarmacks?  All we have proven
is that cities (or airports) are getting warmer.
Okay, now I have conceded that cities are getting warmer.  And there are
more cities than ever.  Perhaps this alone is enough to have caused the
observed temperature increases.  Oh but wait, it's the CO2 levels that
are causing global warming isn't it?  While, in the cities it is vast
stretches of asphalt that are increasing temperatures.  Smog has
certainly not been shown to be the culprit in the cities.  I've not yet
heard any asphalt theories.  Have you?
Btw, desert areas just outside ot Tucson do NOT show the same
temperature increases as the city has.  (Kinda how they figured out
there was a problem to begin with.)
> Are you willing to gamble with the fate of the whole world that
> there's nothing really wrong?
Yes, I am.  And if there is something wrong, I am in for the ride.  I am
very glad that I have ~50 years (I hope) to observe all this
armegeddon(sp?) that has been predicted to occur.  It will be quite a
show.  (Film at 11:00.)  BTW, if you caught the jist toward the end of
my last post, you will understand that I actually believe a little
greenhouse effect to be a healthy thing for our planet.  I also put much
weight in the finding that the (alleged) greenhouse effect could cause
an ice-age.  Again, my curiosity of the matter is such that it would be
very interesting to observe this phenomenon first-hand.
And, by all means, please save my email address so you may say, "I told
you so."
> ->Kind of the same way we didn't know about the ozone hole until we had
> ->the equipment to detect it.  Strange coincidence, eh?
> Strange coincidence.  The ozone hole was predicted, and then when we
> looked for it, there it was.  What a strange coincidence, since you
> claim that the models are invalid.
And a couple of years ago I managed to get the writer of an "Ozone FAQ"
(don't remember which one) to finally concede that human contributions
to the ozone hole are on the order of 10%.  I still think that's a high
number but I will concede to it.  The moral is, there is obviously
something much greater going on here that we have very little
understanding of.  90% of ozone depletion is natural.  I would assume
then that there is a pretty big (natural) force working to restore it. 
Can this force handle our contributions?  I don't know.  Sure, the
hole's been growing (usually) for 16 years now.  But there have also
been some big natural events that may be causing this.  (It was proved
that Pinatubo caused one increase.)
BTW, the ozone hole was predicted as a natural phenomenon (which it
is).  I'm not sure if anyone predicted that it would be growing when we
found it.  But that *is* the state it was in *when* we found it.  How do
we know that this growth isn't related to natural cycles or other
natural phenomenon?  I believe it was immediately assumed to be
human-caused even before we studied it.  Thus my belief that biased
scientists have found exactly what they were looking for.  (No, that
*never* happens, does it?)
> ->Just in the last 200 years, we have experienced 'natural' climate swings
> ->far greater than the most dire of these greenhouse 'models'.  Go back
> ->further and you find even greater 'natural' climate swings.
To help your comprehension.  Past climate data is very incomplete.  Yet,
the little that we have documents some pretty wild 'natural' climate
swings.
> First you claim we don't have the data to say whether our current
> climate is aberrational, then you say we do.  It's one way or the
> other.  Make up yyour mind.
I'll try to clarify for you.  What I'm saying is that we don't have the
long-term data we need to *predict* future trends.  And while we may
have data on past climate, we still don't know the *causes* for past
climate swings.  Data is one thing.  Predictions are another.  For the
past, we have some data with few explanations.  Today we have
inconsistant data used to support grand conclusions.
Maybe this still isn't a good explanation but I *know* that you know
what I mean.
> ->Oh, wait!!  We do have lots of paleoclimatic data.  What does it say?
> ->It says that our current climate (since the last ice age) is *unusually*
> ->stable.  It also says that today's climate is much cooler than for most
> ->of the Earth's history (barring said ice ages, though there is no
> ->denying that we are simply between ice ages at this time).  It also says
> ->that CO2 levels are lower today than throughout most of Earth's history.
> 
> Oops, now we're back on the plenty of data tack...
Data with no explanations.  BTW, the recent climate history (last few
million years) of the Earth is not in great dispute.  Details are, but
not the general trend.  And the reasons for it are *completely* unknown.
Nitpick away!
> ->may well be the initial stirrings leading to the end of life on this
> ->planet--though said scientists predict this process will take 100
> ->million years.
> 
> Of course, we do seem to be dead set on pushing the schedule up a bit.
Think that if you want.  Your human-kind vanity is quite apparent if you
think we will have any effect that will change the infinite and restless
cycles that have controlled this planet from the day it was formed.  At
most we will be cause for *yet another* momentary blip in the history of
life on Earth, perhaps another (relatively minor) mass-extinction event,
six of which the planet has already survived.  No, a six-mile asteroid
equalling thousands of times the energy in our nuclear stockpiles
couldn't destroy the (life on) Earth.  But us mere humans, yeah, we will
do it.  NOT!
Get off your high-horse.
> ->Why don't people just put away their vain view of humanity and realize
> ->that there are much greater forces at work here than we mere humans?
> 
> You are right, the earth is a big place, a lot bigger than humans, and
> it will still be here when all of us are gone.  But should we
> sacrifice the health, safety and comfort of the entire world so that
> the oil companies can continue to run the show?
Ah, now the cry for a scapegoat.  If you want to blame someone, then
blame society.  We created the oil companies, not vice-versa.  The basic
problem is that petroleum is a cheap and (dare I say) plentiful energy
source.  (Dad is a petroleum geologist so don't even try to deny its
abundance.)  However, even Dad agrees that using petroleum for gasoline
is a tremendous waste, essentially because it has so many other uses. 
And there is that pollution as a human-health factor.  Frankly, natural
gas and nuclear energy are the ways to go.  (At least as far as today's
technology is concerned.)  But somehow I doubt you concur.  (Or do you?)
> Your stand is that since we haven't run over a cliff yet, there's no
> need to panic just because the ground is sloping.
There is no conclusive proof that it is even sloping.  And to be quite
honest, if you want to talk about "sloping", I'd be pretty damned
concerned about the cycle of ice-ages that has been occuring for the
last few million years.  Nobody in the credible science community denies
this.  There *is* something wrong (if you want to call it that) with the
Earth.  And it started a long time before intelligent humans walked the
Earth.  And, no, we do not have the power to stop it.  (Maybe) we have
the power to understand it.  But we don't yet.  Not by a long shot.
Were you even aware of this *major* anomaly?  Most people are not.
> After all, maybe it
> sloped like this before.  Let's just run pellmell ahead, and keep our
> eyes shut so we don't get scared.
You wanna live your life in fear, fine.  I live my life in awe and
admiration of this wonderfully diverse, adaptive and hardly-fragile
world that nature has provided.  And what *nature* has provided,
*nature* will take away, some day.  I'm not going to live my life
fearing that day.
And before you accuse me of being a "pave-the-Earther".  You might be
surprised to know that I ahbor air pollution because it is a
human-health hazard.  Who cares if the Earth is warming up?  That stuff
is causing cancer, and it's ugly!  I happen to believe that there are a
lot of things we need to improve upon in order to insure the
preservation of *humans*.  There is a lot of *local* clean-up work that
needs to be done.  It just amazes me that so many people waste their
efforts on fixing something that we have no control over while ignoring
those things that we do.  There are plenty of good reasons to clean up
our act regardless of global warming.  And guess what?  Most of those
things would solve global warming *if* it is occuring because of us. 
Which makes it moot in my book.
And I now ask again.  PLEASE forward emails of any responses, flames, or
opportunities for lively debate.  I rarely have time to keep up with
Usenet.
But I always answer my mail!
Eric J. Anderson
eric@as.arizona.edu
Voting for the lesser of evils still means that evil wins.
Remember that on election day.  We *can* change the system.

In article <52dupl$n9t@lex.zippo.com> dietz@cin.net (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
   > 
   > mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel) wrote:
   > 
   > 
   > >Right.  There are substitutes for gasoline powered cars.
   > 
   > >There are *many* many fewer substitutes for the wide variety of petrochemical
   > >feedstocks which supply major chemical and pharmeceutical industries, which
   > >will mean that all sorts of very useful things will be very expensive in the
   > >future because we depleted petroleum. 
   > 
   > Nonsense, particularly the pharmaceuticals.  *Everything* we get from
   > oil can be made from other sources of reduced carbon compounds.  The
   > cost would be somewhat higher, but not enormously so; in some cases
   > chemical companies are finding that the alternate sourecs are less
   > expensive even today.  The quantity of carbon going into these
   > chemical uses of petroleum is small enough that alternate sources
   > such as biomass would be sufficient.
   > 
   > Moreover, as substitution becomes necessary, our ability to
   > ecoomically substitute can only improve, as effort is expended finding
   > alternate feedstocks and synthetic routes.
The mistaken idea that oil and/or natural gas is irreplacable as a
chemical feedstock has cropped up repeatedly in this newsgroup and
elsewhere.  I'd like to track down a published source for it.  Would
Matt Kennel tell us (or just me) where he got it.
Incidentally, coal used to be the main source of carbon for chemical
purposes and is apparently still used in Europe for some purpose for
which the U.S. uses natural gas.  Abundant natural gas came in much
earlier in the U.S. than in Europe.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

DaveHatunen  wrote in article 
> >What's your point???  Are you saying that's too much power for the
utility
> >to supply???  I fail to see what you're getting at.
> 
> Obviously, a utility would be only too happy to sell more power. But to
> have, say, 200 such stations in an area like southern California would
> then require 160 Mw, or the output of medium-sized coal-fired power
> plant. So all that's needed is to project how many cars might need
> charging in a region at the same time.
The problem with your theory is that you do not see the reason for these
stations.  Most commuters go from home to work and back.  In most cases
this is less than 100miles (round trip) and thus they wouldn't need to use
these charge stations.  Also, there could be a Level II charge outlet at
their work which would allow them to slow charge their vehicle while they
are working.  This would give them a range of 200miles a day.  The fast
charge stations are to be used primarily by fleet operators which may have
a vehicle do 400miles a day, which would require they charge up the
vehicles 4 or more times a day in the quickest possible time.  A limited
amount of public service fast chargers would be available for emergency
fill ups (as the charge on these would cost more per KWh than the regular
slow chargers).
> Also, of course, such a charging station would normally be used in
> daylight hours. Not too many people are going to go out in the evening
> to get a charge for their car. This obviates the advantages of off-peak
> power usage.
Exactly, why it will be used primarily by fleet operators and under
emergency fill up situations.
> Please consider an actual practical design for such an operation. The
> capital investment would be considerably higher than for a few pumps
> and tanks, and that cost must be included in the cost of the charging.
You're talking to the wrong person.  I don't design these chargers nor do I
implement their infrastructure.  Call up your local Edison office and ask
to speak with the EV infrastructure dept.  They'll give you the necessary
info.
> And consider the number of such stations that would be required should
> a substantial number of EVs need charging. A while back there was a
> calculation that southern California would need several more nuclear
> plants or their equivalent to do the charging for a substantial number
> of EVs in that area.
I don't even want to get into something I know very little about
(efficiency and safety of nuclear plants), so I'll just drop that section
of the argument and let it be.
> The current carrying capacity of a typical 220v cable is lower than a 1
> volt cable of similar conductor cross-section. Current carrying
> capacity of a cable is dependent on the temperature rise in the cable,
> because the insulation at a higher voltage insulates the cable more
> than the thin insulation of a low-voltage cable. In, current at 200v
> and current at 12v aren't "the same current".
Except for one thing.  Have you ever seen 2/0 cable rated at 12v??? 
Hardly.  The welding cable we use BTW is 3/0 rated at 600v.  Even the 4awg
cable in my car (for the sound system) is rated at 400v or something like
that.  Here's an interesting little scenario for you (since you seem so
stuck on wire gauges and so on).
Our slow charge cables are 8awg wires and since they only pass 30+amps for
a few hours they don't increase their temperature by more than a couple of
degrees (if that...you have to put a temperature probe on them to see if
they actually differ from ambient).  Inside the charge box however
(designed by an outside company) the feed wire is only 14awg.  The
temperature of the wire goes up to 85C and stays there fore the duration of
the charge.  Is that bad???  Not really, since the wire is rated at 150C. 
The insulation is a teflon variety and that seems to make all the
difference.  
I guess through all this what I'm saying is that, we've built them, have
them running (2 of the suckers are portable - towed by either of our two
3500 Duallies) and have proven them safe and effective.   So are you still
trying to convince me that they don't work???
-- 
John Theofanopoulos
JT45@CHRYSLER.COM
johnth39@mail.idt.net
NS-EV E/E Systems

>>         Oh, and just for another R-12 story, the EPA currently does not regulate
>> household use of R-12.  This means that it is legal to discharge R-12 from
>> your household A/C (to the atmosphere) and to recharge it without special
>> equipment.  Yes, as a matter of fact your house's A/C does hold more than
>> twice the refrigerant than your car. What a scam!
>>
I thought houses used R-22...I'm trying to ignore this thread
altogether, but the speculation about DuPont being the
evildoers caught my eye...hehehe.
Dan

I am starting a web based happenings page for environmentally based events.
I am hoping that people with Rallies, Lectures, Clean ups, etc. from all
over the country will
send the events to me. I will need the date(s), time(s), a short
description, a contact if
applicable, the cost if any, your organization, and a link if you have one.
I will also start an organization list for interested parties. Send me your
organization name, URL and email if you have one, a description of your
organization, your address and phone and a contact person. 
I everything works out I will begin to organized the pages by state or as a
national event/organization. 
e-mail:   hsg@exit109.com
Page:    http://206.136.197.145/env-bbs/index.html

mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel) wrote:
>Right.  There are substitutes for gasoline powered cars.
>There are *many* many fewer substitutes for the wide variety of petrochemical
>feedstocks which supply major chemical and pharmeceutical industries, which
>will mean that all sorts of very useful things will be very expensive in the
>future because we depleted petroleum. 
Nonsense, particularly the pharmaceuticals.  *Everything* we get from
oil can be made from other sources of reduced carbon compounds.  The
cost would be somewhat higher, but not enormously so; in some cases
chemical companies are finding that the alternate sourecs are less
expensive even today.  The quantity of carbon going into these
chemical uses of petroleum is small enough that alternate sources
such as biomass would be sufficient.
Moreover, as substitution becomes necessary, our ability to
ecoomically substitute can only improve, as effort is expended finding
alternate feedstocks and synthetic routes.
	Paul

On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 18:14:32 GMT, jhavok@lava.net (James R. Olson,
jr.) wrote:
>rbossard@nauticom.net (Richard Bossard) wrote:
>
>->In article ,
>->   charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>-> 
>
>->>If you have read many of my postings, you will find that I 
>->>agree with your assessment.  The fervor that many 
>->>environmentalists follow the current models, even though 
>->>those models are recognized as being as yet incomplete, 
>->>borders on superstition!  Since I think that "seeing is 
>->>believing", I have not jumped on the global model bandwagon 
>->>yet, because the models' predictions have not yet been born 
>->>out by observation.
>
>->Besides, during the '70s didn't they start a big hysteria about the coming 
>->"ice age"? They got everyone excited over a near certain "global cooldown". 
>->I'm still waiting. Now in the 90's they claim a global heatup. Based on 
>->their past record, how can anybody believe them? Why should anybody spend 
>->billions of dollars to prevent their uncertain predictions?
>
>I first read about global warming in the early late '70s, in a story
>buried in the back of my hometown newspaper.  It was ignored for a
>decade, chosen as one of the ten most censored stories one year
>(sorry, I don't have the reference handy, but if you'd like I'll try
>to dig it out), and finally started getting some notice about ten
>years ago.  The only reason you consider it a recent story is that you
>weren't told about it when it was new.
>
>Why should we spend billions to avert climactic disaster?  Well, why
>should we spend billions to assure it?
>
>	JimmyO
>
>   
>   Help to launch the future from
>http://www.apollo-society.org/apollo
>       The Apollo Launch Pad
>
A short comment here:  If you visit a good public library, you should
be able to find a book upon what the climate was like in past ages.
Note at about the end of the Neolitic (10,000-8,000) years ago, the
climate was supposedly a bit warmer than it is now.  There was more
rain, and it was easier to grow crops.  Thus, global warming may not
be the "disaster" that the eco-freaks make it out to be...

In article ,
Steinn Sigurdsson   wrote:
>
>LeC's original (1888) formulation applied strictly to
>isolated systems in chemical equilibrium.
 And that's the way the terminology is normally used today.
>The general concept extends to systems in non-equilibrium
>(or dynamic equilibrium with external forcing)
>and analysis of global stability.
>Prigogine, famously, has worked on formalising the generalised
>principle, or rather a set of statements that reduce
>to LeC's principle.
 Consulting De Groot and Mazur, _Thermodynamics of Irreversible
 Processes_, I see that they do discuss a theorem ("systems
 disturbed from a stationary state characterized by minimal
 entropy production return thence etc. etc.") which they characterize 
 as an _extension_ of LeChatelier to nonequilibrium stationary states.
 Not sure I like this nomenclature, though, since the original
 LeC. Principal compares two *different* equilibrium states (as
 it has to, since equilibrium thermodynamics never lets you do
 anything else.) Vary the state variables of an equilibrium system
 (add NaCl to a saturated solution of AgCl) and the system goes to
 a new equilibrium which is distinct from the original, but not as
 much so as the size of the "forcing" would suggest (Cl precipitates 
 out, taking Ag with it, so as to keep the product of the Cl and Ag
 concentrations the same as decreed by St. Gibbs and St. Van't Hoff,
 so there is still more Cl in solution than there was before
 you added any, but there is less additional Cl than what you added).
 This seems to me to be rather different from the example of an
 asymptotically stable dynamical system, with some point or limit
 cycle or other attractor, that you seem to have in mind. There,
 when you disturb the system a little, it goes back _to_ the stable state.
 (Or with no dissipation, does oscillations around the state as you
 discussed in another post.)  In LeChatelier you go from one equilibrium
 to a *different* one, and you find that it's not as far away as you
 might have guessed. So I don't like the nomenclature. But I never did
 care for the Belgian School of nonequilibrium Thermo/Stat. Mech.

In article <324B25BA.1F71@as.arizona.edu>, eric@as.arizona.edu says...
>
>Case in point:  Tucson, Arizona.  Two years ago, the weather service
>finally decided to move its weather station away from the *tarmack* at
>the airport.  It's location was determined to be the reason for our
>string of record-breaking high temperatures over the last decade. 
>Record-breaking temperatures that I am sure were added into the global
>average now used to predict the greenhouse effect.  Guess what has
>happened now?  Our temperatures have dropped by an average of 3
>degrees.  I guess that means we have solved the problem of global
>warming. :)
>
Your assertion seems to be that people who analyze climatic data
for long term trends are complete morons.  Generally the first order of 
business is to isolate baseline sites that are least affected by
urban heat islands, site moves, altered landscapes, etc.  Can't speak
directly for the US, but there are quite a few papers concerning
the selection & testing of historical climatic records for 
inclusion in analysis. Urban climate data analyses should be reported in 
separate category(ies).
-bb

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
Director of Environment Protection Unit,
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Overview
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is a 5,000 member not-for-profit 
conservation organization founded in Naples, Florida, in 1964. The 
mission of The Conservancy is to conserve the biodiversity, 
environmental quality, and natural resources of Southwest Florida's 
native ecosystems for present and future generations. The purpose of 
this position is to direct and provide the organization's research and 
public policy by promoting the mission through local environmental 
protection, land acquisition, conservation stewardship, and ecological 
research activities.
Qualifications
-Strong commitment to the conservation of biodiversity, environmental 
quality, and natural resources
-Ph.D. in ecology or related field, with experience in aquatic 
ecology/hydrology and environmental policy
- Strong scientific background and experience in specialty area
- Hands-on experience in conservation of ecosystems and natural 
resources at local and regional levels
- Demonstrated supervisory and team building skills to work 
cooperatively with individuals of diverse interest and backgrounds
- Excellent written and oral communication skills; demonstrated ability 
to communicate technical concepts to a broad range of audiences
- Strong organizational, team building, interpersonal, and leadership 
abilities
- Willing to work variable hours and to travel locally and regionally as 
necessary
-Demonstrated experience in writing and administering grants and 
contracts
-Experience in development and management of budgets
Essential Responsibilities
-Reports to and is supervised by the President of The Conservancy
-Advise Conservancy President (and Board of Directors as requested) on 
environmental issues and long-range conservation strategies.
-Design and direct all Environmental Protection Unit projects and 
programs.
-Propose, prepare, and manage Unit budgets.
-Participate on local, regional, and state-wide natural resources 
management committees as directed by the President.
-Coordinate and/or provide technical assistance to other agencies and 
organizations involved in natural resources management and research 
activities.
-Act as a staff scientist and technical resource in areas of 
professional research and expertise.
-Develop grant applications which support The Conservancy's visions, 
goals, and objectives.
-Supervise Environmental Protection staff including hiring 
recommendations, performance reviews, salary  recommendations, 
corrective action, and provide support to maintain a positive 
relationship between EP staff and other units.
The above statements describe the general qualifications required to 
perform the job and the general nature and level of 
responsibilities---not a complete list of duties---additional duties may 
be assigned by management.
To Apply:  
** Please do not respond via email -- direct all correspondence in 
writing or telephone to The Conservancy of Southwest Florida **
Send application letter highlighting relevant experience and interest, 
curriculum vitae, writing sample, and three references to Human 
Resources Manager, Dept. ISE, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, 1450 
Merrihue Drive, Naples, FL  34102. Salary: Commensurate with 
qualifications and experience. Closing Date:  October 10, 1996 or until 
filled. Equal opportunity and drug-free employer.
revised 9/9/96

Xerox PARC Forum
Thursday, October 3, 1996, 4:00PM, PARC Auditorium
       Betrayal of Science and Reason:  
How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future
    Prof. Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University
Despite widespread public support for environmental protection,
a backlash against environmental policies is developing.
Through relentless repetition, anti-environmental sentiment
has acquired an unfortunate aura of credibility, and is now
threatening to undermine 30 years of progress.
In this talk, Prof. Ehrlich will systematically debunk
revisionist "truths" such as:
- Population growth does not cause environmental damage
- Humanity is on the verge of abolishing hunger
- There is no extinction crisis
- Global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain are not serious threats.
Prof. Ehrlich will counter this mis(dis?)information
with empirical findings; he will talk about how to balance
science and activism.
Paul Ehrlich is Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor
of Biological Sciences at Stanford University.  He is the author
of over 20 books, including the 1968 bestseller "The Population Bomb",
and the recipient of a MacArthur Prize.
----------------------------------
This Forum is OPEN to the public.
Host: Marshall Bern  415-812-4443
Web site: http://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/projects/forum
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

It should be possible to determine whether the Tucson Airport
temperature measurements took part in determining averages before and
after the station was moved, with or without some kind of correction.
Maybe the people who compute averages examine each and every one of
the thousands of sites.  It would be a lot of work.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

In article <52dhmu$7gn@sun3.uni-essen.de>,
   jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>In a thread to sci.chem, and sci.physics
>Ken Fischer (kfischer@iglou.com) wrote:
>: calvin and elaine long (clong@iwl.net) wrote:
>: : Something strange happened to me this morning and I hope 
someone can
>: : explain it to me.
>: 
>: : This is not a joke.  I have first degree burns from my 
knuckles to my
>: : elbow on my right hand.
>: 
>: : I have a pyrex 1cup measuring cup in which I brew tea.  
Normally 2/3
>: : cup water boils in 2 minutes.  Someone objected to the 
tea stains in
>: : my cup and decided to wash it this weekend.  They left 
it  full of
>: : water and dishwashing liquid.  I rinsed it out well and 
decided to
>: : fill it completely and boil to remove any further 
residue.  After 4
>: : minutes it had not boiled.  I shut off the microwave and 
reached in to
>: : check if the cup was hot.  I touched the cup for about 2 
seconds.  It
>: : was warm to the touch and I started to remove it from 
the oven.  There
>: : was a "WHUMPH"  and all the water blew out of the cup 
and up my arm.
>: 
>:        I had the same experience with a glass tea-kettle,
>: which I had washed with a common kitchen compound, 
although
>: not dishwashing liquid.
>: 
>: : What was this reaction?  It sounded almost like a 
laboratory hydrogen
>: : explosion.  I assume this was a case of superheated 
liquid flashing
>: : into steam, but how and why.  Did the dishwashing 
residue have any
>: : thing to do with this?
>: 
>:        I would not try to repeat the event without 
>: protective clothing and mask.
>:        I did not see the water boil (bubble) at all,
>: and it was when I moved it that the water blew all
>: the way to the ceiling.
>:        Explosions somewhat like this are common where
>: water comes into contact with very hot metal or rock.
>: i
>Does this mean Ralph was right and John has been unfairly
>persecuting him?
>
>Josh Halpern
>
>
>: Ken Fischer 
I will speculate on this one.  Normally, when you boil water, 
there are very small pockets of air in the "pits" on the 
inside surface of the water container.  These "pits" are 
nucleation sites for boiling.  The water surface tension is 
strong enough to prevent the pits from being wetted by the 
water.  It is apparent that a thin soap film reduced the 
surface tension of the water enough to wet most or all of 
these nucleation sites, somehow preventing boiling.  Thus, 
the liquid in your container became superheated.  
Unfortunately, scratching the inside surface of the 
containter, or shaking the water, induces the formation of 
the first steam bubble.  Once this happens, there is rapid 
boiling until the water temperature drops to the normal 
boiling temperature.
The next time you try this, place a "sister" container next 
to the one with the soap film.  Fill this second container 
with the same amount of water.  When the second container is 
boiling, it is safe to assume that the "soap film" container 
should also be boiling.  This should give you a clue 
regarding when to turn off the microwave oven in order to 
keep from superheating the water in the first container too 
much.  Be careful, and good luck.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom.  Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!

In article <32497FDD.10FD@nando.net>, Sam McClintock 
 wrote:
>charliew wrote:
>
>> >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.  
>
>1. I agree that the statement regarding aircraft and 
possible
>solutions to aircraft pollution (pollution which is not 
>trivial) is pretty silly and was not well thought out.
>
>2. Most environmentalists are not stupid, just like most 
>chemical or mechanical engineers are not stupid (unless you
>are into physics and chemistry like me, then you assume the
>worst of engineers). :<)
>
>3. Environmentalists, scientists finding great solutions or 
>even activists trying to get involved, are pretty far down 
on
>the list of possible collapses in the world economy.  
>
>4. Clean air is really important, particularly to following
>generations.  A kid does not have a choice in the matter, 
nor
>does the surrounding ecosystem.  And solutions to clean air
>are NOT the predominant reasons "developing" nations have
>problems.
>
>5. There are all types of environmentalists and all types of
>agendas.  "Liberal" as a descriptive word says absolutely
>nothing in terms of an argument.  As for government, is 
>always a necessary evil, and for the most part has been the 
>driving force to cleaning up our environment.
>
>6. Much of the effort to solve environmental problems has
>also resulted in a healtheir economy and more jobs. In many 
>cases pro-environment ideas, such as energy efficiency, 
>reduction of dependency on oil imports, or reducing waste,
>are sound capitalistic measures.
>
>Sam McClintock
>sammcc@nando.net
We'll see how much you agree with environmentalism if Clinton 
gets re-elected.  He will probably try to either tax the hell 
out of fossil fuels or ration them.  When the price increases 
substantially, or you can't get the fuel you need, remember 
that you are doing the right thing for the environment.
Incidentally, I am not anti-environment.  I am against the 
people who want air and water so clean that there is 
absolutely no trace of any industrial influence.  As 
measurement techniques get better, we can see into the ppb 
and ppt ranges (which we couldn't do until recently).  If you 
look hard enough, you will find anything you are looking for. 
Since it is likely that there are acceptable (admittedly low) 
levels of any specified pollutant that are likely to be 
"safe", asking for zero levels of pollutants is uncalled for, 
especially since this is a practical impossibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom.  Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!

Victor Johnson  wrote:
> Two gyroscopes counter-rotating in the same plane and bound together by
> some manner of rigid frame will still resist being rotated out of that
> plane.
This is incorrect.
If what you said was  true, one could easily violate conservation of
angular momentum.
	Paul

In article <01bbac0e$c39a2780$LocalHost@i-johnth39>,
John Theofanopoulos  wrote:
>DaveHatunen  wrote in article 
>
>> >What's your point???  Are you saying that's too much power for the
>utility
>> >to supply???  I fail to see what you're getting at.
>> 
>> Obviously, a utility would be only too happy to sell more power. But to
>> have, say, 200 such stations in an area like southern California would
>> then require 160 Mw, or the output of medium-sized coal-fired power
>> plant. So all that's needed is to project how many cars might need
>> charging in a region at the same time.
>
>The problem with your theory is that you do not see the reason for these
>stations.  Most commuters go from home to work and back.  In most cases
>this is less than 100miles (round trip) and thus they wouldn't need to use
>these charge stations.  Also, there could be a Level II charge outlet at
>their work which would allow them to slow charge their vehicle while they
>are working.  This would give them a range of 200miles a day.  The fast
>charge stations are to be used primarily by fleet operators which may have
>a vehicle do 400miles a day, which would require they charge up the
>vehicles 4 or more times a day in the quickest possible time.  A limited
>amount of public service fast chargers would be available for emergency
>fill ups (as the charge on these would cost more per KWh than the regular
>slow chargers).
One of the problems with the discussions about EVs in these venues is
that everybody is talking about different things. Some people think EVs
will only be used for short trips, and an ICV will be retained for
everything else (of course, for many people the day consists of a quick
series of short trips: for isntance, my wife can easily put 100 miles
or more on her car running short trip errands). Others think problems
will only be solved if ICVs disappear. So we really need to talk about
how high a penetration into the number of vehicles is to be made by EVs
before some questions can be properly addressed.
That being said, the cars must be charged, whether at home, at work, or
at some sort of special charging station, and the problem should be
addressed on a day-round basis. The total daily energy requirement of
the entire fleet of EVs in a given region must be considered.
So, how about some numbers to discuss? Assume an area like Sothern
California, which probably has probably has some 20,000,000 ICVs. What
woudl you consider a reasonable percent of replacement by EVs, and how
much energy, on average, would be required per vehicle? From that we
can make some educated estimates of the actual power requirements for
recharging.
[...]
>> And consider the number of such stations that would be required should
>> a substantial number of EVs need charging. A while back there was a
>> calculation that southern California would need several more nuclear
>> plants or their equivalent to do the charging for a substantial number
>> of EVs in that area.
>
>I don't even want to get into something I know very little about
>(efficiency and safety of nuclear plants), 
That didn't stop you above.
>so I'll just drop that section of the argument and let it be.
[...]
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In article <52cts2$dpr@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, %%spam repellent: remove this
prefix%%kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov wrote:
[snip]
> Petroleum is too valuable to just burn. 
> 
The late Shah of Iran made the same observation.
-- 
"The stronger the opinion, the weaker the logic"
                           McKenzie political axiom #2
Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA
"Liberal: 1. Favorable to progress or reform..."  
      Random House unabridged dictionary  

 * Crossposted from: FidoNet ECOLOGY Ecology, problems and potential s
Looking for information about state or federal regulations that put specific
areas of coastal waters off limits to oil vessels, based on potential
impacts to living marine resources should the vessel ground or otherwise
spill petroleum product into the particular waters in question.
Some US National Marine Sanctuaries have such limitations. Do any states in
the United States restrict oil vessels from certain waters due to potential
impacts to living marine resources?
Do any other nations?
Please send your reply to coastwatch@ecolink.avcnet.org
Thank you!  Ron Huber,
for the Coastal Waters Project
Coastwatch@ecolink.avcnet.org
... "Therewith he plunged beneath the heaving deep."  -Odysseus

 * Crossposted from: FidoNet ECOLOGY Ecology, problems and potential s
Looking for information about state or federal regulations that put specific
areas of coastal waters off limits to oil vessels, based on potential
impacts to living marine resources should the vessel ground or otherwise
spill petroleum product into the particular waters in question.
Some US National Marine Sanctuaries have such limitations. Do any states in
the United States restrict oil vessels from certain waters due to potential
impacts to living marine resources?
Do any other nations?
Please send your reply to coastwatch@ecolink.avcnet.org
Thank you!  Ron Huber,
for the Coastal Waters Project
Coastwatch@ecolink.avcnet.org
... "Therewith he plunged beneath the heaving deep."  -Odysseus

Steinn Sigurdsson  wrote:
>> Drag force is proportional to the density of the air, times the square
>> of the speed, times the frontal area.  Thus, using the above numbers,
>> airships would need about four times as much energy to overcome drag as
>> airplanes need, in order to transport the same cargo over the same
>> distance.  This is not the whole picture for energy use, since
>
>Propulsion power is F.v, so power requirement scales as v^3.
Power is energy used per unit time.  The relevant quantity here is
energy used per distance traveled.  This is equal to the drag force.
--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu

Mark,
The analogy does hold. Mountain biking is a relatively new 
activity. At first when a new sport or activity occurs, there are rarely 
any laws or rules to prevent it. As time passes, if the new activity 
causes danger/damage/etc., then it may ultimately be banned. The 
specific nature of the damage/danger that it causes was not my point, 
only that it is an activity that causes problems, and should possibly be 
banned in parks and public areas. 
						Rob Gray
Mark Woodhead wrote:
> 
> > In article <323A0DF3.58B7@injersey.com>, Rob Gray 
> > writes
> 
> > >enjoyed, but after a while, when more kids got into skateboarding, and
> > >more accidents occured involving pedestrians, etc, the town council
> > >decided to ban skateboarding on streets or sidewalks downtown.
> > >
> 
> The parallel fits for mountain biking. The inevitable
> > >and desireable ultimate ban on mountain biking on dirt trails will not
> > >be an attack on mountain bikers, but will be an attempt to protect the
> > >land and the wildlife. So mountain bikers, don't take these opinions as
> > >personal attacks, but instead look at your activity, look at the ground
> > >on which you ride, and observe how damaging your activity is. 
> 
> > >                                               Rob Gray
> 
> Rob,
>   To start with this one, the parallel is completely inappropriate. The
> issues with the skateboarders had to do with safety between different
> groups of *humans*. If we use your parallel, it would be the buildings,
> railings and benches that they were trying to protect, and in that case, I
> think you're right. The benches, etc. are in about as much danger from
> skateboards as the land is from mtn bikers (very little). If your issue is
> safety, then that is another matter, which I would say does need to be
> addressed, as there are *some* riders who do not ride in control. But that
> is a policing issue, not a banning issue.
> 
> >
> > You saved me having to compose a similar post Rob, thanks. We have the
> > same problem here (UK) but on a much smaller scale of course, and the
> > damage done to habitat by MB'ers is quite catastrophic. In any
> > discussion relating to "sports"/pastimes/hobbies that seriously affect
> > wildlife and habitat (eg hunting, off-roading, MB'ing) the practitioners
> > consistently adopt the pouting, selfish "what about my rights" posture.
> > If the choice is between protecting the natural valid rights of
> > wildlife, habitat and ecosystems and the self-awarded "rights" of
> > selfish, thrill seeking, weekend habitat vandals....... the latter
> > should *lose* every time.
> >
> > If the good Lord... 

Hi, everyone.
I have a friend who's been in treatment for several years for various
ailments, and has just found that the root cause is chemical poisoning
caused by toxins he breathed while painting automobiles (toluene,
benzene, xylene, etc.).  Is there any info on 
a:  How to remove these from the body (they are stored in the fat
cells)
b:  How to help the liver and neurological systems survive while all
this is being done.
He tried the Gerson detox method, and found it too debilitating; every
time the poisons would start to move into his bloodstream, he would
suffer a tremendous setback caused by overload of his liver and other
organs, and become very ill.  He needs a method that will somehow
bypass his own "toxin removing" organs, and permit him to rid himself
from all this "stuff."
If you don't mind, email me at:
steveb@cts.com
Thanks very much!
Steve Bradley

In article <52fgu0$jc6@lex.zippo.com>, dietz@cin.net says...
>> Two gyroscopes counter-rotating in the same plane and bound together 
by
>> some manner of rigid frame will still resist being rotated out of that
>> plane.
>This is incorrect.
>If what you said was  true, one could easily violate conservation of
>angular momentum.
Yes. The two gyroscopes will fight it out between themselves. Their 
bearings will suffer though.

In article <52djsr$cjk@sun4.bham.ac.uk>, "Sam J. Turner"
 writes
>Paul Allen (paul@rbsltd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article , Frank Erskine
>:  writes
>: >In article , Paul Allen
>: > writes
>: >>>
>: >>I always thought that in the UK the turds floated off to sewer farms
>: >>(where I used to love playing when I was a kid, dodging the sprinklers)
>: >>and eventually ended up in reservoirs for sending back to us as drinking
>: >>water, which might explain the British people's sickly complexion.
>: >
>: >In coastal areas of the UK turds are usually treated then pumped out to
>: >sea about a mile off the coast - inland they're taken to sewer farms.
>: Thanks for that. I'll eat fewer whelks.
>
>Why? Because they live off shit?
>
>Through how many steps of the consumption
>ladder does it have to pass before you'll
>deem it edible again? Grain-chicken-chicken-
>chicken-cow, perhaps?
>
I love whelks. Must have a bit of Essex lad in me. I know they live off
turds in the Thames estuary, but I still love 'em. Even tomatoes thrive
on human turds.
-- 
Paul Allen

In article <52emt6$14su@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, r16360@email.mot.com 
says...
>> But you make a serious point. Is it not worth having one less thing to 
>> fight about? Oil was the major factor in the two gulf wars, a major 
>> factor in the Arab-Israeli wars, and in the second world war. It even 
>> played a role in the Falklands war. Thank God the Chinese and Russians 
>> have got lots of their own oil. A pity the West is running out... 
>
>The citizens on the Falklands were there primarily to raise sheep and
>fish.  There might not have been a war without the British subjects
>there.  The conclusion: Don't eat fish, don't wear wool!
Did the Argies invade to get at our sheep or because of the potential oil 
reserves? (Prior to the war there were few fishing restrictions).
>I'm happy, the Saudis are happy.  A classic win-win situation from
>free trade.
What is the current US trade deficit? What is oil's contribution to
this? (This is a genuine question - I don't have the figures). (I'm 
assuming you're in the US - apologies if not). We in Britain have a trade 
deficit despite an oil surplus. And despite having had a rabidly free 
trade oriented government for the last million years.
>I personally think spending 20 to 100% more for organic food is silly.
>But hey, its a free country, I don't care what other people buy.
It's a free country if a. you aren't a commie, b.you aren't a black, c. 
you aren't poor. 
>> They're much better, but still produce pollution when cold. 
>
>Good point.  Warmed up ICV's make almost no pollution.  The 
>latest round of regulations will also reduce these emissions
>considerably.  I don't object to pollution laws - just make
>them reasonable and technology neutral.
Actually I started this thread by advocating some extra regulation about 
zero emission vehicles. Electric Cars is just a nice provocative thread 
title. Seems to make peole foam at the mouth.
>Again, pass noise regs, DON'T tell the automakers how to meet them.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to argue with you. Stop being so 
bloody reasonable!
>The basis of this progress has been a relatively simple set of laws.  
>Note also that cars perform better, get better mileage, handle better,
>and last longer.  The system we have works, don't go mandating
>technology.
I never tried to!
>The Canadians will take us over long before that.  World's longest
>undefended border = huge mistake !!
No. The Canadians have their own mini-French state to fight. They seem to 
be gearing up already.
>> Space
>
>Yes, this is not a money making venture.  We can go to the moon,
>but not cheaply. Cars must be affordable.
Our society makes extensive use of Space in the form of satellites. 
Companies are making huge amounts of cash from telecomms, satellite tv, 
and probably other things as well. This would almost certainly not have 
happened yet without government involvement. Telephones and satellite tv 
*are* affordable.
Free enterprise is trying to get to the moon. Heard of the Artemis 
society?
>
>> Commercial aircraft (I omit military aircraft, they're too obvious)
>
>The DC-3 was the most successful airliner of all time,
>totally privately developed.  Yes, military contracts
>help aircraft makers, but they hurt them too, by encouraging
>inefficiency. The British and French lag in market share for
>airliners, and they were more heavily subsidized for years.
Actually the British were way ahead in jet airliner technology, but we 
had a little problem with metal fatigue. I can't comment on the DC-3 but 
I understand the 747 was developed on the back of military contracts 
(knowledge getting hazy here, but I *know* I'm right :-).)
>> Computers
>
>IMO this industry would have developed anyway.
Certainly, but surely we're further ahead than we would otherwise have 
been? 
Also the US industry is strong partly because the US was able to mandate 
US technology for the military, while maintaining an internal free 
market. This didn't work for other countries because their economies were 
smaller, so competition was inadequate. It still happens - only a couple 
of years ago a British supercomputer manufacturer (Meiko?) had to move 
it's base to the US and becom a US company to be allowed access to the US 
market.
> At any
>rate it is now civilian driven.  At any rate, the
>government never forced any technology on computer
>buyers.  Imagine if 10% of the machines sold were required
>to be TRS-80's, under the excuse of promoting technology.
I've never heard of a TRS-80. Is this like a ZX81?
>> Nuclear power
>
>Part of the current problem.  
But it appeals to the same class of people that like IC engines (or it 
seems to)
> Telecommunications
>Better off with less government, IMO.  
Yes but I'm talking about the early days. In the UK at least the Post 
Office had to take over the telephone network because private companies 
were making such a pig's ear of it. It's now in private hands again, and 
BT is the best telephone company in the world. (Guess who I work for).
>> Medicine
>
>??
How many advances in medicine have been due to government funded research 
institutes, universities etc? (Of course this applies to all kinds of 
scientific and technologigical advances). Vaccination programs would not 
work without government.
>
>> Clean water
>
>Some sort of regulation needed here, as pollution
>is an externality.  Again, thankfully, the government
>does not mandate specific treatment technologies.
Clean water supplies and sewage systems were originally developed by 
public authorities. Once the market requirement was established and 
technology became understood it was possible for private enterprise to 
take over.
Again, I never advocated that the government should mandate specific 
technologies. But it frequently has to have a role, both in regulation 
(as we are agreed upon) and in developing candidate new technologies 
where there is either no obvious market or where the risks are too great 
for private capital, or where the costs are too high for private capital 
but the potential benefits are sufficiently high.
>If you want to the result of an industrial economy
>look at eastern europe under central-planning.  Much 
>lower living standards AND much worse pollution AND
>more dangerous products. 
I know. I never advocated anything of the kind.
I think we're trying to argue while holding fairly similar opinions.
Cheers
Tim

My name is Nynke Kooi and right now I�m investigating 
TENANT BEHAVIOUR IN SUSTAINABLE (or environmentally adapted) 
HOUSING-PROJECTS IN SWEDEN. 
What I would like to know is:
1. Which sustainable housing projects are there in Sweden, I�m interested 
in projects that are already inhabited (finished) as well as in project 
that are on their way or being planned
2. Which are the environmental adaptations of these projects?
3. Have any investigations on the tenants and their behaviour and 
opinions been done? If so what are the results of these?
4. Which organisations, institutions, individuals and companies are 
involved in the projects?
5. Which studies and reports have been written on the projects?
I have just started, so if you can help me either with information on 
this subject or with links (adresses, websites, newsgroups) to 
information, please contact me (It�s possible to write in Swedish if you 
want to). I would be very grateful. Thank you for your attention!
Nynke Kooi
Interfacultary Department of Environmental Science
University of Amsterdam
Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130
1018 VZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 - 525 6202  Fax: +31 20 - 525 6272
E-mail: 209s@stud.frw.uva.nl

dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) >
[...
>What's the big deal?  
You talkin' to me?  8^) It isn't much of an argument, true, but that's
sorta been my point all along.  Almost every cash register is in
place, every item on sale exempted and waivered by state and statue.
Implementation of a national sales tax is almost trivial.  The
mechanism exists.  Just ratchet up the rates until we match what we
pay now in income taxes.  They do it every year already!  Taxing
energy seems even better, because it promotes conservation.
It seems to me that to make a coherent argument against taxing only
energy, one would have to (at least indirectly) take the stand that we
should use more energy and waste more of our leisure time than we do
now.  One would also have to side with maintaining a large, expensive,
intrusive bureaucracy. 
>There are only a few hundred power generating
>companies in the entire country.  Presumably they are already counting
>how much power they put on the line every day -- right down to the
>nearest hertz and amp -- so you just send 'em a note saying "How many
>kilowatts did you sell today? Please mail in three cents each by
>Friday."
Exactly the point. I figure about $15 apiece ought to do it, for the
residential rate.  The rest of the taxes would come from fuel oil,
natural gas, etc.
>Since the stuff is already metered and charged for, they will have no
>difficulty passing on the tax pro rata to the users.  I'm beginning to
>like this one: it's objective, automated, environmentally wonderful,
>and it nails big spenders.  
[...
>It's enough to retire the national debt in a generation.  We could
>call them the Reagan taxes.
Nice trick.  Some would think they would be to fix what he and his
administration did, others would think it was in honor of him for
finally balancing the budget like he promised.  We get everybody on
board!

In article , "Joseph King"
 wrote:
> Our company makes re-usable software components and we need to be able to
> find ways of getting exposure for our components in our key markets. The
> three components we have now are intended for individuals who program their
> own applications in the scientific and engineering fields. Two of them
> allow people to organize large amounts of data in hierarchical
> relationships like that used in modeling real world entities. Our content
> model is robust, quick and flexible and is a means of opening up one's data
> to other applications via scripting or through integration with other
> software components. The biggest virtue of our components is that they are
> solid, well-tested and perform well defined functions while retaining
> enormous flexibility.
> 
> That is the context. One of the things I would greatly appreciate
> suggestions on is how to get the attention of individuals who write their
> own apps in the sci-tech/engineering fields. One of the thoughts I had was
> that alot of the products that find their way out into the market in the
> chemistry fields is inside research institutions, goverment organizations,
> and academic institutions. The question is, how to get their attention?
> 
> Help is appreciated.
> 
> jking.
You may want to post this to 

I urge every conservation-oriented person to follow up on Jim Powlesland's
thoughtfulness expressed in article <52esn1$1dd6@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
powlesla@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
He advised us about Ted Williams Sierra article "Natural Allies." that can
be found at http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/199609/sohunt.html
Conservation oriented persons who are not members of the Sierra Club and
who follow up on Jim's thoughtfulness will appreciate the Sierra Club's
publishing the article free of charge on the web.
Sierra Club members will find the article in the current issue of SIERRA
(September/October 1996) as well as on the web.
Jim wrote:
> Natural Allies
> 
> If only hunters, anglers, and environmentalists would stop taking
potshots at each other, they'd be an invincible force for wildlands
protection.
> by Ted Williams
> .... "More than 50 million Americans fish, and 15 million hunt, yet
environmentalists have made scant effort to forge any lasting alliance
with them to protect the land and water that sustain wildlife. 
>"Environmentalists don't reach out to sportsmen," says Chris Potholm, a
professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College in Maine. "If
they did, they' d be invincible. Whenever sportsmen combine with
environmentalists, you have 60 to 70 percent of the population, an
absolutely irresistible coalition."....
> rest of article at:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/199609/sohunt.html
Maurice Schwartz