Subject: Congress Passes Flood Control for Sacramento
From: rpenny@netcom.com (Richard Penny)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 03:13:26 GMT
For Immediate Release:
September 30, 1996
For More Information:
Richard Penny
American River Coalition
916/442-3155
Ron Stork
Friends of the River
916/442-3155
Kathy Crist
Sierra Club
916/557-1108
Congress Passes Modest Flood Control Package For Sacramento
WASHINGTON, DC - Congress Saturday passed the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (WRDA), which authorizes $57 million to improve American River
levees, provides a high-water early warning system and continues the
reoperation of Folsom Dam. The bill authorizes the federal government to
fund 75% of the cost of construction.
Sacramento's flood control package was supported by environmental
organizations who also defeated a proposed Auburn dam amendment to the
1996 WRDA.
The bill authorizes a $57 million flood control package with an estimated
federal cost of $43 million and a local/state cost of $14 million. The
project, which will improve the reliability of Sacramento's existing flood
control system, includes:
¥ Twenty-four miles of slurry wall in the existing levees along the
lower American River.
¥ Twelve miles of levee modifications along the east bank of the
Sacramento River downstream from the Natomas Cross Canal.
¥ Three telemetered streamflow gages upstream from the Folsom
Reservoir.
¥ Modifications to the existing flood warning system along the lower
American River.
¥ Authorization for continued reoperation of Folsom Reservoir and
federal contributions to its cost for four years.
Federal construction financing of Sacramento's flood control package will
depend on funding by Energy and Water Appropriations bills in future
Congresses.
"We really have David Conrad of the National Wildlife Federation and Ron
Stork of Friends of the River to thank for developing an amendment and for
working with Congress and the Administration to see that it was inserted
in WRDA," said Richard Penny, Coordinator of the American River Coalition.
A subsequent amendment, developed by the Sacramento area's delegation,
added the provision for four years of federal cost sharing of Folsom
reoperation.
The $57 million provision stands in contrast to the defeated Auburn dam
proposal which would have cost taxpayers $1 billion and destroyed nearly
50 miles of California's American River. The dam project, supported by the
region's congressional delegation, Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), Bob
Matsui (D - Sacramento), John Doolittle (R- Rocklin) and Richard Pombo (R
- Tracy), faced a bipartisan defeat in the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee on June 27, 1996. This was the second
congressional defeat of an Auburn dam proposal in four years.
The dam was opposed by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ñ
which developed the dam proposal Ñ had not endorsed it. Earlier this year,
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army had pointed to federal budget
constraints and environmental concerns as reasons why he could not support
the dam.
"The WRDA fight this year demonstrated that Auburn dam is not fiscally,
environmentally or politically feasible. Twenty years of controversy
should be enough. I hope our community leaders avoid another divisive
fight over Auburn dam and get down to the real business of flood control,"
said Ron Stork of Friends of the River.
Because of the apparent agreement that constrained the actions of the
area's delegation and the hired lobbyists for the City, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), none of
these entities worked for Sacramento's flood control amendment prior to
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's vote on June 27th.
Nonetheless, the American River Coalition's efforts proved sufficient to
ensure its passage on a 36 to 16 vote.
"The $57 million levee improvement package was opposed by dam boosters on
the Committee," said Penny.
In the debate prior to the vote on the amendment (after Auburn dam had
been defeated), Mr. Doolittle's friend and colleague, Rep. Bill Baker
(R-Walnut Creek) led the opposition with an impassioned speech that
reflected a poor understanding of the proposed project. His comments
included, "So I'm going to ask that we not spend $56 million trying to
contain a flood in very high channelized levees. It would be a mistake
environmentally. It would be a bigger mistake financially, and it wouldn't
do the job."
Sacramento is already protected by levees; the "common elements" package
would strengthen those levees, but would not build new ones or increase
the channelization of the American or Sacramento Rivers.
Although the $57 million package should be sufficient to remove most of
Sacramento from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 100-year
regulatory floodplain, it is only a first step in improving Sacramento's
flood control system. "Now that Auburn dam has been proven, once and for
all, to be unobtainable, it is time for our local political leaders to
work for our community to find practical and affordable flood control
solutions," said Kathy Crist of the Sierra Club.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Penny American River Campaign Coordinator rpenny@netcom.com
American River Coalition 128 J Street, 2nd.Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
916-442-3155 x201 FAX 916-442-3396
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Death Threat for Opposing Mountain Biking
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:55:16 -0700
Alan Hirsch wrote:
>
> Why is this being cross posted on ba.transportation
> sci.environment, rec.animals.wildlife, or most of the other
> newsgroups?
Mountain biking falls under transportation, biking, &
wildlife/environment (impacts).
> Alan Hirsch Ahirsch@best.com
> Palo Alto, CA 94303
--
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Subject: Save Earth from Destruction
From: tom chalko
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 15:32:07 +1100
SAVE EARTH FROM DESTRUCTION
Public Lecture by Michel Desmarquet, author of "Abduction to the 9th Planet"
Coming very soon: TOTAL destruction of life on Earth, with NO SECOND CHANCE,
unless all peolpe unite in immediate conscious action. This is NOT a theory,
it happened on other planets already. The reason is our own ignorance and
continuing arogant approach to Nature. We do not understand what we do...
Michel brings advice from the most advanced beings in our Galaxy.
Lectures:
Sat 12 Oct 4:30pm Public Lecture Theatre, Melbourne University
Mon 14 Oct 6:30pm Rotunda Theatre R5, Monash University
Sat 19 Oct 12:00 noon Public Lecture Theatre, Melbourne University
more details:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/health_/michel.htm
Reservations recommended (limited number of seats) by email: tjc@mame.mu.oz.au
Subject: Re: Pure habitat.
From: 2bits@wco.com (Todd O.)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 06:02:36 GMT
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:42:07 -0700, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> Todd O. wrote:
> There is a
> > place near the southern most Condor Sanctuary in the Los Padres National
> > Forest called "Bear Heaven." It is completely off-limits to humans,
> > including scientists.
>
> By regulation? Or by being difficult to reach? I am talking about the former.
I'm talking about both, which is more effective. Prior to 1964, there
were some trails leading into parts of Bear Heaven. Some time between
ten and 1972, a decision was made to allow those trails to fall into
disrepair, get brushed in, and disappear as part of a conscious effort
to keep humans out.
So, you see, your supposedly revolutionary idea was already accomplished
within a few hundred miles of your home a couple decades before you even
though of it. That being the case, perhaps you can spare us the next
wave of spam about you being th only human on the facce of the earth who
has every dared to suggest there should be places that are off-limits to
humans. It's simply not true.
> There are no trails there, and it is on the side
> > of a steep, rugged, thickly vegetated mountain. Because it is so hard
> > to reach, it isn't worthwhile for scientists or others to visit, so it
> > is likely to remain off-limits for the foreseeable future.
>
> So it is not really off-limits, just hard to reach! You just contradicted
> yourself within the space of one paragraph. I am talking about areas that
> we have deliberately decided to leave to wildlife.
No, I didn't contradict myself, you just jumped to another false
conclusion. The place is hard to reach in part because the Forest
Management Plan says it should be.
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?
No thanks, it's already been done. And done much better than your lame
idea of encouraging people to visit Alcatraz by boat but not landing on
the island, I might add.
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California
--
I am working on preserving mtb-oriented cyberspace that is
off-limits to Vandeman ("pure mtb discussion"). Want to help?
(I spent the previous 2+ years fighting Vandeman's unwelcome
disruptions.)
http://www.cycling.org/mailing.lists/mtb/mailing.list.info
Subject: Re: Pure habitat.
From: 2bits@wco.com (Todd O.)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 06:02:30 GMT
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:34:32 -0700, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> Todd O. wrote:
> > What's the point of removing Alcatraz from all maps? It is easily seen
> > with the naked eye from several large cities. It is also right next to
> > a heavily used shipping lane. All we could expect to accomplish by
> > removing it from maps are tanker spills and other shipping disasters.
> > What sort of environmentalist would advocate that?
>
> It would be replaced with a blank spot marked "Terra Incognita", as I
> said. That has meant "danger" to mariners since the beginning.
Mike, terra incognita has meant and still means "unknown land" in Latin.
Meanwhile, here is what you really said. Please explain what the point
of falsely labelling Alcatraz as unknown land has to do with the plans
you have described in the following passage:
#I'd like to start with Alcatraz Island -- not because it is great
#habitat, but because it is VERY public, & would create lots of
#publicity & therefore education of people around the world. Instead of
#seeing a prison, people could go around it in a boat & look through
#binoculars -- at the world's first area off-limits to people. Want to
#help? I doubt that it is good mountain biking material.
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
> fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
For an explanation of what Mikey means by "working on creating wildlife
habititat," see the preceding passage ABOUT Alcatraz (and try not to
laugh).
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California
--
I am working on preserving mtb-oriented cyberspace that is
off-limits to Vandeman ("pure mtb discussion"). Want to help?
(I spent the previous 2+ years fighting Vandeman's unwelcome
disruptions.)
http://www.cycling.org/mailing.lists/mtb/mailing.list.info
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens)
Date: 1 Oct 1996 07:33:19 GMT
In article 002@pm0-53.hal-pc.org, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>In article <52o6cg$fb7@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
> pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>>In article 005@news.lm.com, rbossard@nauticom.net (Richard
>Bossard) writes:
>>>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!
>>
>>The concern for global warming does not come from the models
>but from
>>basic physics. The models give us some isight as to what we
>>might expect.
>>
>>*NOBODY* is placing the faith in them that you critise them
>>for. They just prefer to be less ignorant than you do.
>>
>>>>Since I think that "seeing is believing",
>>
>>Translation - you will not do anything until it is too late.
>>Would you play russian roulette if I were to to give you
>>$100 per shot.
>
>I will if you go first! BTW, for you, I will *remove* one
>bullet from the gun before you go!
So since I am not prepared to go first you are not
prepared to play the game.
Therefore in this case you are prepared to pay a cost to
avoid an uncertain risk (you don't know how many bullets
I have put in the chamber). You demonstrate your hypocricy yet again.
>>>>I have not jumped on the global model bandwagon
>>>>yet, because the models' predictions have not yet been
>born
>>>>out by observation.
>>
>>If you do not accept the models then you have to rely purely
>on
>>the basic physics that CO2 will cause warming and that this
>>warming could be catastrophic.
>
>Hell, Pete. Hydrogen sulfide is commonly found in refineries
>that run sour crude (e.g., the refinery I work in). One good
>whiff of this stuff *will* (not could) be catastrophic for
>the person who breathes it (he will be dead in short order).
>Knowing this, I am still willing to work there because
>reasonable precautions are taken to prevent exposure,
Quite, so why the hostility to taking reasonable precautions with
the climate.
>since the risk is known.
What, you mean you have a verified scientific model which
predicts on which day you would otherwise be exposed to
hydrogen sulphide. What is more personaly suffered this exposure
several times in order to convince your self of the validity
of the model. After all as you are so fond of saying
"seeing is believing".
Or are you if favour of science when it suits your prejudices?
> Saying that something "could" be
>catastrophic is ridiculous.
No it isn't.
>Is it, or isn't it?
Of course not.
Just as pulling the trigger in the game of Russian roulette
you are not prepared to play *could* be catastrophic even
if it is unlikely to be.
>>If you act rationally then the information of the models
>>justify less drastic action since they reassure us that
>>change is likely to be at the lower end of the
>possibilities.
>>
>>>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".
>>
>>NO NO NO,
>>They were pointing out the chaotic nature of climaite. ie
>>how the climate *COULD* switch to ice age conditions is a
>>short period of time rather than gradually over millions of
>>years. It was *NOT* a prediction that such a change was
>about
>>to happen though it does seem to have been taken as such
>>by the scientifically illiterate.
>>
>>>I'm still waiting. Now in the 90's they claim a global
>heatup.
>>
>>The 1890s indeed. Global warming is nothing new.
>>
>>>Based on
>>>their past record, how can anybody believe them?
>>
>>Try basic physics.
>>
>
>And you might want to try a valium.
Do you want to ignore basic physics too?
>You seem to get excited
>over things that are not yet verified as being a problem.
It is most certainly verified as being a problem.
The exact extent of the problem is uncertain.
Just as your refinery does not know for certain when
or where hydrogen sulphide could be a problem we do
not know for certain when or where global warming
will cause the severest problems. Just as your refinery
takes sensible precautions to avoid the uncertain possibility
of you being exoposed to hydrogen sulphide.
If you want to make a rational case for inaction it is just
about reasonable to argue that costs of action to reduce
CO2 emmisions would outweigh the benefits of prevented
climate change, but to do that you would have to accept
the validity of the climate models and the even more uncertain
economic models on which estimates of costs are based.
---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@dl.ac.uk
Subject: Chemical Equilibrium Model (MINEQL+) Available for Download
From: ersoftwr@ersoftwr.sdi.agate.net (William Schecher)
Date: 30 Sep 1996 13:00:09 GMT
Reposting of software availability:
-----------------------------------------------------
This is a notice to anyone interested in chemical equilibrium
software for educational and research use. MINEQL+ is now available
on our web site at :
http://www.agate.net/~ersoftwr/mineql.html
MINEQL+ uses the same numerical engine and thermodynamic database
as EPA'S MINETEQA2, but it is much easier to use and understand.
The user interface is a cursor-driven, spatial motif that is
similar to the tableau's used in Morel and Hering's "Principles of
Aquatic Chemistry." This motif also parallels the underlying ideas
within the numerical engine. The program is a DOS/PC program.
This software was designed as a research tool, but it has primarily
been used as an aid to teach chemical equilibrium modeling at the
graduate level. It is currently used in over 400 colleges and
universities.
The software is distributed in a freeware manner, so students can
each have a copy. The manual must be ordered and purchased
separately, but it too can be copied for student use.
Check out our web site for more information or e-mail us at
ersoftwr@agate.net
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mur
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 08:47:53 -0700
charliew wrote:
>
> In article <52o6cg$fb7@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
> pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
> >In article 005@news.lm.com, rbossard@nauticom.net (Richard
> Bossard) writes:
> >>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!
> >
> >The concern for global warming does not come from the models
> but from
> >basic physics. The models give us some isight as to what we
> >might expect.
> >
> >*NOBODY* is placing the faith in them that you critise them
> >for. They just prefer to be less ignorant than you do.
> >
> >>>Since I think that "seeing is believing",
> >
> >Translation - you will not do anything until it is too late.
> >Would you play russian roulette if I were to to give you
> >$100 per shot.
>
> I will if you go first! BTW, for you, I will *remove* one
> bullet from the gun before you go!
>
> >
> >>>I have not jumped on the global model bandwagon
> >>>yet, because the models' predictions have not yet been
> born
> >>>out by observation.
> >
> >If you do not accept the models then you have to rely purely
> on
> >the basic physics that CO2 will cause warming and that this
> >warming could be catastrophic.
>
> Hell, Pete. Hydrogen sulfide is commonly found in refineries
> that run sour crude (e.g., the refinery I work in). One good
> whiff of this stuff *will* (not could) be catastrophic for
> the person who breathes it (he will be dead in short order).
> Knowing this, I am still willing to work there because
> reasonable precautions are taken to prevent exposure, since
> the risk is known. Saying that something "could" be
> catastrophic is ridiculous. Is it, or isn't it?
>
> >If you act rationally then the information of the models
> >justify less drastic action since they reassure us that
> >change is likely to be at the lower end of the
> possibilities.
> >
> >>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".
> >
> >NO NO NO,
> >They were pointing out the chaotic nature of climaite. ie
> >how the climate *COULD* switch to ice age conditions is a
> >short period of time rather than gradually over millions of
> >years. It was *NOT* a prediction that such a change was
> about
> >to happen though it does seem to have been taken as such
> >by the scientifically illiterate.
> >
> >>I'm still waiting. Now in the 90's they claim a global
> heatup.
> >
> >The 1890s indeed. Global warming is nothing new.
> >
> >>Based on
> >>their past record, how can anybody believe them?
> >
> >Try basic physics.
> >
>
> And you might want to try a valium. You seem to get excited
> over things that are not yet verified as being a problem.
>
> ============================================================================
>
> For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
> http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/articles.html
I would like to point out that it is not selfevident that an increase in
CO2 leads to an increased temperature level. The way additional CO2
affects absorption and transmiision throught the atmosphere is a rather
complex problem and an basic physics.
Chris
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: Lou
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 12:52:03 -0400
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> T.M. Bong wrote:
> > One thing also confuses me the most about your above statements.
> > For somebody who claims having to dedicated most of his/her
> > life to saving the evironment, you certainly are spending a lot
> > of time in your ass... typing away instead of being out there in the
> > field supporting your cause.
>
> Out in WHAT field? Communication is how we learn and teach, and the Internet
> just speeds up the process & makes it instantly global. I think people who
> stay home, and out of wildlife habitat are actually doing more to benefit
> the environment than most people who go "out" and tear up and down the landscape.
But, the people who stay at home and out of the woods will probably have less of an
emotional motivation to protect. I say emotional because we can list figures and facts
all day, but until someone goes out and *feels* the outdoors, they will have less of a
stake in protecting it.
I ride mountain bikes, and no, I don't rip up the trail (believe it or eat it). The
areas I ride in are mostly private property or along power lines. I know this isn't
"wilderness", but it is outside and away from roads (I'd ride on the road, but I'm
allergic to cars...I break out in broken bones). I can listen to the endless details on
why I should pay attention to the environment, but none of that will have as much of an
impact as actually going out and seeing deer, moose, hawks, skunks, meadows, bogs,
swamps, trees, and rocks. Riding like I do, I get a chance to see all of this and can
*feel* on a very deep level that all of this is good and beautiful, and worthy of my
protection. I don't want to stop riding/hiking on the trails. I want the woods to be
there for not only for my enjoyment/education, but also for the terribly cool animals
that live there.
Yes, people are the problem, but ironically, people are the solution. And, if folks
just stay at home and watch "Nature" or the Discovery Channel they won't have as great
an emotional stake in protecting these things.
Lou
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 03:19:08 -0600
In article <5298ja$erb@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com>, jmeltz@boi.hp.com (Justen
Meltz) wrote:
> Mike Edgar (Mike@edgarco.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : 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
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What catastrophic damage is caused my MTB's that isn't caused by hikers?
> The only thing I can think of _may_ be increased erosion, but trail
> erosion harms neither the habitat or wildlife. It only harms the trails.
>
> justen
O.K... I'm sick of this. I love to ride my mountain bike, but I also avoid
riding in areas that are obviously *wild* (as in My Bike Doesn't Belong
There -- Common Sense and Concern can tell the open mind quite a lot). DO
MOUNTAIN BIKES CAUSE HABITAT DAMAGE TO ANY GREATER EXTENT THAN HIKING? Can
anyone *please* quote some factual studies? I have no desire to damage my
favorite places.
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 03:28:24 -0600
In article <52a034$83v@news.bconnex.net>, clements@bconnex.net (Daniel
Clements) wrote:
> Mike Edgar wrote:
>
> >If the good Lord wanted it that way...
>
> PHHHFFFFT! (That's supposed to be a big raspberry sound.) The good
> Lord wanted you ignorant and naked!
>
> >In 50 years time when your children are existing on a large concrete
> >covered golf-ball, relying on Encarta to see green stuff and wild-
> >animals, and wondering why their parents were so stupid and selfishly
> >short-sighted........ Mike Vandeman will be (sadly) vindicated.
>
> PHHHFFFFT! If it turns out this way, there will be lots of people
> (sadly) vindicated, but Vandeman ain't gonna be one of them. You do
> *real* people doing *real* work to save the planet a HUGE disservice
> by lumping Vandeman in with them.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DANIEL CLEMENTS (Barrie, Ontario CANADA)
Thank you.
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: What Chemical Is Used To "Mask" Aviation Smoke
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 07:38:10 GMT
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>One of the most sensible things the U.S. could have done,
>they haven't done. If the U.S. taxed *imported* oil, we
>could maintain some degree of independence at the same time
>that we reduced our emissions, because the rising price of
>domestically produced oil would encourage conservation.
>Obviously, NAFTA and GATT strongly discourage this sort of
>activity.
It's called not having your cake and eating it at the same
time.
The USA lobbied strongly in the international trade community
for the Japanese to reduce their tariffs on imported rice and
manufactured parts, whilst at the same time innovatively ( and
successfully ) improvising mechanisms to inhibit energy and
agricultural products from other nations reaching the USA..
The reality is that, for once, the government realised
that international competitiveness would be compromised
in internal energy prices were allowed to increase above
global rates, just to support non-viable energy businesses.
Be grateful, look at the former USSR for one alternative.
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 03:44:20 -0600
In article <324D4586.5762@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> Chernobyl Cowboyz wrote:
> *Everything* creates a potential safety hazard. That's
> > called life.
>
> A good example of how mountain bikers reject anything that gets in their way,
> and trivialize any damage they do.
An even better example of how self-proclaimed experts without facts damn
the opposition.
>
> > Mountain biking is what the name says. You cannot possibly ride the
> > bike at your home.
>
> I can't ride a bulldozer at my home, either. I guess that makes it okay to
> ask the world to supply me with a place to ride it, huh? This is what passed
> for thinking, among mountain bikers.
>
> > Riding it downtown is no thrill
>
> So? Who says you are guaranteed to be provided with thrills? Talk about
SELFISH!
>
> > All you posts are similar, you morons. You never learn anything.
>
> Anyone who questions mountain biking can expect to be called all kinds of
> names and be threatened in every way possible, including being murdered. They
> will stop at NOTHING to be able to keep getting their selfish thrills.
Murdered? You are completely deranged individual. (I hesitate to say so
since I imagine you'll enjoy hearing it.)
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 03:51:34 -0600
In article <324D491B.6A49@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> Mark Woodhead wrote:
> > I hope you can get past the problems you've had with specific mtn
> > bikers, and learn for yourself that many, if not most, are not crazed,
> > juvenile delinquents out to ruin your peaceful experience.
>
> Dream on. 100% of mountain bikers ride where it is inappropriate (off road).
> YOU can't even control your own fellow MTBers, so why should anyone else be
> expected to do so? The only sensible solution is to ban off-road biking. I
> am sure there must be some smokers that try not to impact nonsmokers, but that
> is not sufficient to justify allowing smoking in public areas.
O.K. Vandeman... either you are insane or you are lying intentionally. If
I ride in a park that is set up for mountain biking, and that is not a
wild area, how am I destroying the world?
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 03:56:51 -0600
In article <324D5124.54F8@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> Brilliant! Don't you know that trails are (ex-)habitat? The difference between
> hikers & bikers is mostly one of degree: bikes allow MANY more people to get
> into wildlife habitat, do MUCH more erosion damage, cause MANY more accidents
> that are MUCH more serious, etc., etc. That is all obvious to everyone except
> mountain bikers, who deliberately look the other way so that they don't "see"
> any damage.
Mike, you may find that lumping people into general categories this way
will impair your ability to see your fellow man in a clear light... WHOOPS
I guess it's too late.
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:06:21 -0600
In article <1996092920021822766@cust9.max9.cleveland.oh.ms.uu.net>,
macgeek@earthlink.net (Andrew J. Paier) wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > Andrew J. Paier wrote:
> > if you don't provided an out let for the people who
> > > want to mountain bike (skateboard) you are just forcing them to do it
> > > illegally.
> >
> > If you don't let me drive my bulldozer in the national parks, you are just
> > forcing me to do it illegally!
>
> Mike -
>
> You have made hyour point here by taking my quote out of context. It
> was prefaced by the arguement that I have yet to see a study that showed
> that moutain biking is worse than hiking in all environments at all
> times. I said that this subject should be studied and that intelligent,
> well thought out decisions should be made about access.
>
> I think we can both agree that a bull dozer is worse than hiking/biking,
> and therefore could not be justified as legitamate use of the land and
> should be banned. However if biking and hiking have the same impact,
> and it is decided that biking should be banned, then I don't think a
> reasonable decision has been made. To just ban biking if the two have
> the same impact is not very fair. As I said earlier, why not just limit
> total access by making a pass/reservation system.
Hear hear.
> > Thanks for proving, once again, that mountain bikers are just outlaws,
> > nothing more. No, you are WORSE, because you want your land rape
> > LEGALIZED! And you are completely incapable of THINKING. Such people are
> > called "sociopaths", technically speaking.
>
> What is the technical name for someone who takes arguments out of
> context and refuses to try and understand a (I thought) reasonable line
> of thinking?
Um... combative, generalizing, paranoid fool?
> If two uses are said to have the same impact, and one is
> banned, it is not unreasonable to think that the banned party is going
> to find a way to enjoy access anyway.
Again, hear him. Someone quote a study by *qualified* *impartial*
*scientific* experts please. (And Mike, please spare us the conspiracy
theories about the "bought" scientists working for the bicycle industry.)
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:12:59 -0600
In article <324F2A13.701C@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> Noisy gasoline cars already kill millions of animals every year. Electric
> cars, which are nearly silent, will kill even more! And they still require
> roads, which are the greatest threat to wildlife, fragmenting habitat and
> bringing people into habitat areas.
Mike, please offer the world as it *is* some *reasonable* alternative
lifestyle (I'm all ears, really) or quietly consign yourself to the Home
For The Well-Meaning But Hopelessly Irrational -- and give your computer
away.
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:24:09 -0600
In article <324E89E6.B96@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> T.M. Bong wrote:
> > One thing also confuses me the most about your above statements.
> > For somebody who claims having to dedicated most of his/her
> > life to saving the evironment, you certainly are spending a lot
> > of time in your ass... typing away instead of being out there in the
> > field supporting your cause.
>
> Out in WHAT field? Communication is how we learn and teach, and the Internet
> just speeds up the process & makes it instantly global. I think people who
> stay home, and out of wildlife habitat are actually doing more to benefit
> the environment than most people who go "out" and tear up and down the
> landscape.
>
Please stop teaching the world what "environmentalists" think, especially
since this is a global medium. You're just making it that much harder for
the real environmentalists.
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: athos@io.com (athos)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 04:30:10 -0600
In article <324ED48F.735C@patriot.net>, Will Stewart
wrote:
>
> Most of these are quoted without context, and many of these contain
> responses that I have agreed with. Of course, I am not against MTBing
> in managed trails, or against driving completely. We must all examine
> those activities we choose to get our thrills for their impact on
> sustainability considerations.
>
> Cheers,
>
I'll cheer that statement, *sober* and open minded as it is.
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
Subject: NEW BOOK: geological walks in Snowdonia by earth scientist & ecologist
From: Graham Beech
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:30:26 +0100
************* NEW BOOK ON WALKING & GEOLOGY OF SNOWDONIA ****************
This information may be of interest to those who read postings in
this News Group.
If not, we apologise in advance for what might be seen as a bit of a
commercial approach!
On the other hand, if you *are* interested in getting a copy for
yourself, price details are below and you can either order through
our web site (see end of this posting) or just e-mail your order to
us. We charge UKP2.00 for postage in the UK and airmail at cost elsewhere.
**************************************************************************
"SNOWDONIA ROCKY RAMBLES: GEOLOGY BENEATH YOUR FEET" (ISBN: 1 85058
469 9), by Bryan Lynas, is published by Sigma Leisure at UKP9.95.
This book is unlike any other guide to walking in the Snowdonia
National Park. It illuminates and informs by enabling walkers to make
sense of their surroundings as they are led on a journey backwards
through the Earth's history. The book is the sequel to "Lakeland
Rocky Rambles" which was universally well-received when it was
published in 1994.
The ten thoroughly researched rambles are characterized by the
encyclopaedic knowledge and evident enthusiasm of earth scientist and
ecologist Bryan Lynas. His knowledge is conveyed with a touch which
is as light as it is sure - unnecessary jargon is avoided, but clear
explanations abound and there is a comprehensive glossary, together
with a glossary of Welsh place names. The enthusiasm is communicated
throughout - as Bryan says, "I want these rambles not only to be
fun, but stimulating and thought-provoking. You may be surprised at
just how exciting and extraordinary the story preserved in
Snowdonia's mountains really is...a true story of the Earth."
The book was ambitious at its inception, and is truly impressive in
its execution. It is copiously illustrated with the author's
photographs and pen-&-ink drawings, and there are commendably clear
maps. There are notes on the flora and fauna to be expected on each
ramble and, thoughtfully, directions and descriptions are in
different type styles.
Bryan Lynas is a science writer and the science correspondent of One
World Online, the award-winning Internet site. His next book for
Sigma will be quite different - "An A to Z of Food and Health", but
there are plans for further "Rocky Rambles".
******************************************************************************
.............................................................................
SIGMA PRESS - One of Britain's Brightest Publishers!
E-mail: sigma.press@zetnet.co.uk | Web site: http://www.sigmapress.co.uk
Tel: (44) (0)1625 531035 | Fax: (44) (0)1625 536800
Snail Mail: 1 South Oak Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 6AR, UK
.............................................................................
. PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW WEB SITE NAME - COME & VISIT US! .
.............................................................................
Subject: Talking about nuclear technology.
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 1 Oct 1996 11:07:06 GMT
"Manus J. Cooney" writes:
> I once heard a nuclear plant operator talk like this post reads.
> Many of those listening were really impressed - of course they
> didn't know anything and like a one eyed man in a kingdom of blind
> men.... He worked down in the pump room - main job was taking
> readings, operating equipment and "learning to become a nuclear
> operator.. A nice guy but he had a lot of mixed up facts and ideas.
> "What happens is that water slows down the neutrons" (Fermi is
> rolling over in his grave even at this late age.) and "high burnout"
> or is it up? , and a positive void coefficient results in "stability
> on it's own. Come on give me a break. Some postings here are really
> good. other not so good. Prosit
How should it be presented? You can not tech curious people a 10 year
course in nuclear physics to explain how a nuclear powerplant works.
Is it for instance that bad to tell that the water slow down the
neutrons so they easier split U235?
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: Coal pollution and EV engineering
From: Will Stewart
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 06:46:31 -0400
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>
> richp@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) wrote:
>
> >Roger W. Faulkner (rfaulkner@interramp.com) wrote:
> >: Rich Puchalsky wrote:
> >: > It's almost always a safe bet to guess that any sci.energy/sci.env
> >: > cross-post is part of a thread about nuclear power. I'm an environmentalist
> >: > who has heard more than enough of both nuclear power attack and defense
> >: > to last a good long while -- shall we start on coal for a change? :-)
Agreed. The focus on nuclear is overblown, and we are sleepwalking
through an environmental catastrophe.
> OK :-).
> Coal is wonderful!
> It sequesters Carbon, radioactive elements, toxic metals, etc. for millenia.
Of course, Bruce is employing satire, as these elements are released
into the atmosphere we we burn it.
> >That's funny, I was conciously trying to start a coal thread that did *not*
> >bring in nuclear and it immediately returned to that topic. I hypothesize
> >that nuclear takes much more abuse on Usenet partially because its
> >defenders are so eager to carry on threads on the topic. Any coal
> >aficionados on sci.energy may correctly figure that not bothering to respond
> >will cause the thread to terminate very quickly. There may be a lesson
> >there for the nuclear people.
Yes, coal industry supporters are smart enough not to stimulate or
encourage discussion on coal's environmental effects.
> I've given up posting energy articles to sci.energy, a few interesting
> articles still appear, mainly from people like Tom Gray and Russ Cage.
>
> It's now just full of the "electric vehicles are best thing for humanity"
> mobs. The technical threads posted in 1996 are of lower quality levels
> than several years ago. Virtually no peer-reviewed science, lots of
> junk science from WWW pages of vested interest organisations, such
> as EV manufacturers and California regulators.
Peer-reviewed science usually deals with scientific research; EV
development normally focuses on the applied science end of the scale,
i.e., engineering. Battery research and development is really the only
area that is undergoing fundamental scientific investigation.
Junk science is plainly evident in the propaganda employed by oil
company agents and shills.
To wit, the bias and inaccuracies rampant in the Carnegie/Mellon report
on lead pollution would have caused Isaac Newton to have rolled over in
his grave. The report was funded by the "Green Design Consortium" that
was really a front funded by oil companies.
Visit http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard3.html#curreven and
http://www.primenet.com/~ecoelec/hazard4.html#funding
Regards,
William R. Stewart
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehical Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: Will Stewart
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 07:19:18 -0400
DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <32503227.1789001@news.idt.net>,
> John Theofanopoulos wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:31:55 GMT, hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <324f3877.6675731@news.idt.net>,
> >>John Theofanopoulos wrote:
> >
> >>>Uh...yeah. It's actually a 600Amp (350HP) service entrance, but we're
> >
> >>All very fascinating. But what has this to do with Joe Sixpack's EV?
> >
> >A- Answer to your question abou the 350A breaker.
> >B- If you think EMI's have nothing to do with Joe's EV you know very
> >little about cars, and are simply wasting bandwidth.
>
> You're not gonna answer the question, are you?
He told you upfront that he could only provide a few details as the
product is not yet publicly announced.
--
William R. Stewart
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehical Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
Subject: Re: Freon R12 Update
From: dough@netcom.com (doug h.)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:47:42 GMT
In article <52onut$j2j@larry.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>TL ADAMS (coltom@west.darkside.com) wrote:
>> I am talking about the expensive and ofter unneeded replacement of seals
>> and reconditioning of an AC unit because of low coolant. An AC repair
>> operation has to have recovery services, but the act of recharging
>> a system does not require recovery and repair. [... deletions ...]
> One person posted the EPA regs. A licensed technician can NOT discharge
> Freon into the air,
That's true.
> and recharging a system without fixing a leak is doing just that.
Perhaps, but according to my information, the EPA does not require
automotive AC leaks to be repaired.
This is the information that I have from the Mobile Air Conditioning
Society (MACS). If you've got something that says different, then
please post it.
"EPA Q & A
Q: Does the EPA require that all leaks in motor vehicle air conditioners
be repaired?
A: The EPA does not require that leaks be repaired, although it
recommends that vehicle owners consider repairing leaks to reduce
emissions and extend the useful life of their air conditioner.
Repair of leaking systems will help vehicle owners avoid the need
to continue to refill systems with high-priced refrigerant.
EPA recognizes that good service practices include recovering
and recycling refrigerant and performing leak detection. If a
leak is identified, the customer should be presented with all the
options for service, including repair. If leak repair is not chosen,
the technician may refill the system if requested to do so by the
customer (unless a state or local leak repair requirement exists)."
MACS Certification Training Manual, Revised 5/96, pg. 26
Approved by the U.S. EPA for Technician Training Requirements
under Section 609 of the Clean Air Act
The back of the manual has the following text:
"Where possible, the information contained in this manual identified
as ``EPA Q & A'' and ``EPA Tips'' have been excerpted from EPA fact
sheets; however this information is intended only as an overview,
not a detailed accounting of the subject regulations."
Subject: Re: Parks Do Not Protect Wildlife
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 05:36:18 -0700
Rick A. Hopkins wrote:
> We have been over this before. In most parks, roads and trails make up
> less than 0.5% of the land mass and in some parks this can be even
> less.
You continue to show an amazing ignorance of basic biology, for someone
who calls themselves a "biologist". Roads fragment habitat & prevent many
species from crossing over to desired resources. It has nothing to do with
the size of the road, just that it creates an area without cover.
The inner coast range of
> California (e.g., Mt. Diablo) consist of a mosaic of habitats and has
> fairly high species richness and diversity indices.
Not when compared to pre-human levels! When was the last time you saw a
grizzly there?
> Most park visitors rarely (if ever) leave the trail.
So what? Animals can detect humans from a great distance.
In otherwords, much of the wildlife
> of the park (particularly small animals), almost never come into
> contact with humans.
Thank God!
> So contrary to your beliefs, parks in the Diablo Range support
> relatively high quality wildlife habitat.
Not relative to pre-settlement times. Who are you kidding?
If on the otherhand, you want to argue/persuade
> that trails be sighted to avoid critical habitats of special-status
> plant or animal species, or unusually sensitive habitats, this is a
> very valid use of your time.
I do. Tilden park is Alameda whipsnake habitat (a threatened species),
and yet is VERY heavily used & developed. Did you ever follow through
on your promise to look into this? I guess not!
> > In temporal terms, nighttime has historically been available
> > for wildlife to travel and feed unmolested by humans. Camping
> > eliminates that "loophole"! People can potentially camp or explore
> > (with the proper equipment, all of which is available) at night
> > now, anywhere they want to.
>
> It seems you have any first hand knowledge of the biology of most
> animals in the Mt. Diablo area. The vast majority of bird species are
> active during the day.
So? I guess that means that they would be pretty upset to be disturbed at
night!
If you do not see wildlife on your hikes through the woods, it
> is because you do not know how to look for them
Yes, I stay on the trail.
or do not know what
> time of day to improve your chances. By the way many wildlife do not
> run from humans. I frequently get quite close (20 -50 yds) to deer for
> example without spooking them.
You are saying that deer run from humans! Name one animal that won't run
from us, given the chance! 99% do.
> The issue Mike is not do humans use an area, but how do they use it,
> the kind of contact, the amount, time of year, during breeding season,
> etc.
Behaviour is half, but presence is also detrimental. I guess you STILL
refuse to read the research on this subject that I told you about! Why
should anyone want to communicate with someone who refuses to learn?!
No rational person would argue that the very high visitation rate
> in Yosemite Valley is a good thing for wildlife;
So you agree that human presence is harmful.
Coe Park could support a fair increase in human
> use and not cause a significant problem for wildlife.
Depends on what you mean by "significant". You apparently mean "from my
(Rick's) or humans' point of view". Certainly not from the wildlife's
point of view. You shouldn't use such vague terms.
> The issue of humans and effects on wildlife is substantially more
> complex than you allow for.
So far, you have agreed with all of my points. You only differ in
calling the degree of damage "insignificant" or "acceptable". That just
begs the question.
You want it to be black/white; it simply
> is not, it is very gray and murky.
Not if you read the research, instead of discussing it with murky terms
like "significant".
You damage your cause by
> yourChicken Little approach.
It has worked for Charles Little (_The Dying of the Trees_), Rachel Carson,
Paul Ehrlich, and many others. You may not like to be that honest, but that
is a personal preference, based, I suspect, on your need to do this as a
profession, & hence not irritate the bureaucrats you do work for. I know many
compromised scientists like you, who are more interested in making a buck than
in protecting the natural areas they "study". Such "scientists" are a dime a
dozen.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles