Newsgroup sci.environment 105781

Directory

Sam McClintock wrote:
> 2.  Some of the data here in all likelihood came from tests
> performed over ten years ago.  In fact, a lot of information
> in AP-42 (emission factor guidelines) comes from even further
> back.  
Those are from a just release addition to the latest AP-42.  Those
particular numbers look about the same as the last time I looked
at a large bark boiler (pulp and paper mill).  On the other hand,
the new residential wood fire place section has some new additions 
which show the differences from a convential, cat and prefad system.
Its interesting.  Bark boilers make significant impact on an air
increment, so I think that the EPA and the Pulp and Paper industries
have updated the numbers.  Although emissions from residential
fireplaces need
to be included as an area source model, CO maybe the only pollutant
where
they make a difference, since fireplaces are not regulated after
installation there wouldn't seem to be much of need to reevaluate the
factors.  Since I work only in the southeast or rustbelt, which doesn't
have any CO nonattainment areas, I'm not that sure of need for these
factors.  For ozone nonattainment area, residential heating is not a 
large concern, as the exceedances occur during hot weather, not alot
of fireplace going in August.
I suppose that certain large cities have restricted woodfires.  I think
that SouthCoast Air District (LA) has restricted emission from char.
grills.  Glad I don't live out there anymore.
> 
> Not to take credit from analytical chemists (of which I am one).
> New methods are developed to drop the quantitation level further
> and further.  But they are not necessary for threat/emission
> analyses except in extreme cases, such as HPLC and post-column
> reactions for Cr+6 (known carcinogen and harmful in trace
> levels).
> 
> You're in the demonization mode and grasping at straws,
> particularly here.  What's even worse is you are discounting
> the obvious BENEFITS to industry over the lowering of detection
> limits in emission sampling and analyses.  If a haz waste co.
> has known emissions of a toxic, it must assume the quantitation
> level as the emission level if the chemistry cannot detect it.
> This in turn restricts their operations based on a threat that
> may not exist.  Improved quantitation efforts (lowering the
> detection limit) allows industry to depict actual emissions
> instead of estimating on the high side.  This becomes
> particularly important when an industry has to consider
> cumulative carcinogenic impacts from multiple pathways.  The
> lower the detection limit for compounds that really do not
> exist in great quantity, the better the risk assessment looks.
> Goes double for oil refineries (of which I have tested my
> share).
Yes, I agree.  But, sometimes a lower PQL/MDL is a double edged sword.  
Several states that I work with have a "clean til its clean" requirement
for reportable releases, (or do risk analysis) .  Whenever they are
trying to do a clean closure
type actions, why the only anal. test method is a 20 year old SW-846
method.  When risk analysis is needed, then its a state of the art
HPLC with magic gnomes.  Sometimes you just have to laugh.  Imagine,
industry bending science to fit its objective.
> 
> A LOT OF THAT RESEARCH IS FUNDED BY THE USEPA. E.g developing
> science to depict reality, not the worst-case scenario.
> 
Which is exactly how the AP-42 manual works.  It is a high average
guidance, if you need to prove less emissions you pay for a source
testing company to do the work.  Often the 10 to 50K pays for itself in
reducing the need for unnecessary control equipment.  Although alot
of EPA and state regulators are alittle stubborn and pigheaded, they
tend to come around to appropriate science.
Alot of the information in AP-42 is cosponsored by the industry that is
being regulated.  After all, they have a stake in accurate and fair 
information.  Anyone who thinks that the U.S. EPA is some big bully that
pushes the poor weak refining industry around. well they probally also
think that pro wrestling is real.
You know, I have no understand of why the subjest should be the subject
of flames, and rant and raves.  I simply responded with some pointers
to emission estimates for woodsmoke.  Made not comments about it being
a good or bad thing.

jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
>Dodge Boy (DodgeBoy@howellautomotive.com) wrote:
[edited]
>Cl2 (the molecule) absorbs light below 400 nm and breaks apart into
>two Cl atoms.  400nm is deep blue and there is lots of light at the
>surface between 400 and 300 nm (that's UV A).  Any Cl2 emitted at the
>surface will quickly break down into Cl atoms, near the surface.  
>The fate of these Cl atoms is eventually to react with any
>hydrocarbon and form HCl.  Cl2 emitted at the surface will
>NEVER reach the stratosphere.
There goes Joshua again, trying to pretend to scientific knowledge he
does not possess.  Molecular chlorine does not breakdown into Cl atoms
in the atmosphere.  In addition, atomic chlorine is highly reactive,
and would not "eventually" react, it would immediately react with
almost anything around.
Molecular chlorine is soluble in water, and reacts readily with
atmospheric moisture to form HCl.
>: The chlorine has to be broken off the CFC, in order to become a Cl- radical, my question 
>: is then, why would I Cl- radical formed form a CFC, last any longer than a Cl- radical 
>: formed from say Carbontetrachloride.  One broken off it is chemicaly the same.
Nomenclature problem here.  Ionic chlorine (Cl- as you wrote it) is
not a radical.  A radical is a chemical species with an unpaired
electron.  Ionic chlorine has all paired electrons.
To clear up a misconception you appear to have, it is absolutely
certain, known for sure, that ozone in the stratosphere decomposes.
Further, that decomposition is accelerated by chlorine.  Also, while
it is clear that natural sources of troposheric chlorine are some five
orders of magnitude greater than man-made sources, these are generally
in a form which is not not going to reach the stratosphere, due
primarily either to a high solubility or reactivity.
If you have read my posts, you know I am not an "ozone alarmist", and
I would not lead you astray on this point.
There are weak points in the popular vision of the "ozone alarmist",
but the question of CFC contributing to ozone decomposition in the
stratosphere is not one of them.
Regards, Harold
----------
"Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. Be industrious 
and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, and you will 
be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy. 
	---Benjamin Franklin, Letter, 9 Aug. 1768

synergy@MCS.COM (synergy) wrote:
>Wrong!  The correct thing to do is to stop subsidizing all mass transit
>scams and use the money saved to pay for road construction and maintenance.
Wouldn't work.  The most expensive public works project in the US
right now is the Big Dig at $7.8B and counting for 7 miles of road and
tunnel.  Even the most optimistic projections say that this will not
solve the traffic problems (though it will ease them a bit).
Some 15,000, IIRC, cars and trucks are using the billion-dollar Ted
Williams tunnel (first completed segment of the Big Dig, it connects
South Boston to the airport and will connect, in several years, to the
Mass Pike).
For a relative pittance, the entire Old Colony Railway is being
restored for commuter rail use.  Less than $200M if I remember my
numbers correctly.  They're looking at serving over 12,000 riders a
day on the 3 branches of this line.
Locally, it was estimated that rail service extensions from Lowell to
Nashua NH would cost anywhere from $26M to $80M.  This would hopefully
alleviate the incredible congestion along US-3.  The NHCH
(Nashua-Hudson Circumferential Highway) was originally designed as a
12-mile bypass through Nashua whose cost was running upwards of $200M.
Now, it has been cut back (only 2 of the 3 segments will be built, it
appears) and I have a hard time believing current statements about how
eliminating 1/3 of the highway is supposed to save half the cost when
that one third was the easiest part to build (lowest density
population, no bridges, etc).

synergy@MCS.COM (synergy) wrote:
>I prefer that you pay for the full cost of your usage of it.  Since I don't
>use or receive any significant benefit from transit scams, I shouldn't
>have to pay for them.  In fact, buses do little but slow down my commute
>as they clog up the roads while carrying very few passengers.
If you live in a major city, imagine how bad the traffic jams would be
if, for example, commuter rail just stopped.
In NY it was a nightmare when there was a transit strike.
In Boston, you'd be flooding the already overcrowded highways with
over 50,000 more cars.
As I recall, you're in the Chicago area.  Can you imagine what would
happen if Metra shutdown?

mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman) wrote:
>It is widely agreed that the price we pay for gasoline is far below the
>costs that driving imposes on society at large, in the form of air
>pollution, road building and maintenance, time wasted in traffic, climate
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For the record, if I took transit, I double my commute time.  In
addition, I still ahve to drive 15 miles into the center of a
drug-ridden city to GET to transit.
While other arguments may be real or ephemeral (go ahead, try to put a
real cost on air pollution in real dollars rather than 'it should be
better' feelings) this one, for me unfortunately, comes out on top
every time.  It boils down to me being able to spend an extra 10 hours
per week with my family.  No amount of reading a newspaper on a train
can make up for that.
..and mind you, I like taking the train and did so for years until I
had to economize my time.

felton@phoenix.princeton.edu (phil. Felton) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>
>I fail to see why you deny that the steady increase in global temperature from
>1880 to 1940 was due to human activity, it would seem to be reasonably in
>line with current theory, CO2 increased by about 13% between 1850 and 1974.
>What is interesting to me is why global temperature went down between 1940 and
>1970!
About half of the 0.56 deg C increase in the past one hundred years
can be explained by variations in solar irradiance alone.  The
remaining approx one quarter degree may indeed be due human activity.
I do not recall denying that.
But unlike you, I don't think we can know yet.  We are looking for a
small long term trend in the face of a large natural variation, always
very hard to do.
Regards, Harold
-------
"It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are not to be 
approached without some humor and some bewilderment."
	---Freeman Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe", pt. 1, ch. 1 (1979).

First, you demonized the AP-42 table, which is not a
rules table but an emissions estimate reference.  It
has nothing to do with the USEPA justifying its 
existance but in giving industry a way to estimate
their emission impact without spending a whole lot
of their own money.
Second, you thought that these quantities were in 
AP-42 were not there 10 years ago, which is untrue.
The data for AP-42 stretches back well over 10 years.
You failed to respond to either point . . . running
outside the baseline.
> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that the EPA is telling me that
> no fuel is totally safe to burn?  If so, it looks like me and
> a lot of other people are going to have a problem getting
> electricity, food, etc.
You confusing safe with relatively insignificant.  The concept
is one which a lot of Greenpeace folks hate to look at ,the
overall stance of Greenpeace is to block any new fossil fuel
plant.
Almost (if not all) fossil fuel burning leads to some emissions.
Natural gas has products of incomplete combustion (PICs), along
with the production of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of 
nitrogen (NOx).  Coal does also, but I'd rather be burning 
natural gas all things considered.  Burning fuel produces 
pollution - bottom line.  Can't get away from it (at least now).
We can minimize its impact - catalytic converters from cars,
improved combustion controls, and air pollution control tech. Or
we can choose cleaner fuels (such as natural gas).  But don't
absolve the argument of a fundamental problem - burning fossil
fuels produces pollution.  And that includes wood.  You have
repeatedly hailed to natural forest fires as some placebo in the
debate, but the problem is not the background level pollution.
It IS ALL THE OTHER BURNING by people, particularly around people,
or for the sake of farmland (in developing countries) that is
increasing the pollution levels.  And it can be looked at either 
locally (in cities and in concert with other emission sources) or
globally (savannah burning yielding a huge impact in greenhouse
gas emissions).
Is it "safe."  Sure, everything is relatively safe (insignificant)
when burned in small amounts, but MAY become a problem when other
of the same or different air pollution problems are considered.
So when residential wood fires are controlled, it isn't because 
we have discovered anything new, or minute quantities of stuff we
didn't think existed before, or are claiming huge differences
between residential and natural.  What is being claimed is that
burning wood, combined with other folks burning wood, localized
industrial sources, and cars, is bad (no brainpower required).
This is why we have the rules and why we have smog watches, etc.
> 2) That emissions table you talked about described *very*
> small emissions per ton for many hazardous chemicals.  Since
> forest fires occur all the time, there is already a natural
> background level of these pollutants in the environment.  Am
> I to assume that you and others are promoting the concept of
> no exposure being the only safe level of exposure for these
> hazardous chemicals?  If so, tell it to the no-riskers.  I
> intend to burn wood in my fireplace as I see fit.
First, the overall emissions of CO and NOx end up being huge
when considered from singular sources like boilers and power 
plants, or an aggregate of all the cars, localized sources,
and woodfires, lawnmowers, etc.  The toxics (those with
relatively small numbers per ton) are likewise treated.  One
source no problem - a lot of sources, then all those compounds
start to have an impact.  Particularly IN A CITY before 
everything disperses - comparing this to forest fires is
a huge mistake (freshman high school level) because we are
talking about immediate exposure to folks living next to the
source.  The only way you can ignore this is with tobacco 
comany research (that research that says statistics mean 
nothing in the face of overwhelming research that says 
otherwise).
Second, some extremists or others whose only exposure is
to extremists (see anti ditto-head) think any exposure is
too much.  Again, only education can resolve the lack of
knowledge some have about their lifestyle (consuming) and
industry's role in it, and what is reasonable - e.g. you
can't have a dishwasher or cars and expect no emissions. But
the current conservative platform is to disband education,
disembowel student loans and grants, instead of SOLVING the
problem - which is probably a problem with education also. :<)
> The problem in looking for the very last molecule of a
> hazardous pollutant involves the scare tactic associated with
> its presence.  There are bound to be safe levels of some of
> these "pollutants" in the environment.  Unfortunately,
> attempts to scare the public create more no-riskers every
> day.  If this is your intent, you seem to be succeeding.
Again, you are failing to realize that finding lower levels
of pollutants is actually good for industry.  It also allows
us to measure and research actual numbers instead of theorizing
about low levels.  There are insignificant risks associated with
the consumption of fossil fuel, but it is not always the case
and when combined with other sources it can lead to problems.  
And I wasn't the one who demonized the AP-42 tables (this is 
really funny to those of us in this business), so I think the 
idea of "scare tactics" is in your court, not mine.  And burning
wood in your fireplace during times of ozone/smog alerts or
during seasonal bans when impacts are worse is a personal 
failing of yours in not considering the health of the people you 
live next to - and if you have children I think you need to
reevaluate your priorities in life, they don't have a say in
the matter.
Sam McClintock
sammcc@nando.net
. . . In order to CRITIQUE the research, you must READ the research.

>TL ADAMS wrote:
>: Auto AC units are leaky,
>: that are by nature not sealed to the same degree as a home unit.
>
>  Perhaps they should be  leaky.  My home refrigerator has not
>lost any of its coolant in the last 15 years.  Our previous refrigerator
>kept its coolant for 25 years until it was scrapped.
>
>  What is it about automobile manufacturers that puts them at least 50
>years behind the times?
They are run by a mechanical linkmage to the engine, which requires a shaft seal; also, there 
are multiple connections between the compressor and the hot and cold coils. Your refrigerator is 
totally sealed; no hoses, connections, or seals.
If your car  A/C was a sealed 12 volt unit, it would help. It could be all-copper tubing with no 
hoses, and be rigidly held in place, and put in any handy out of the way spot. Electric cars are 
going to need them, so why doesn't somebody get to work on them ??????
-- 
      ----Jim Van Damme---
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

Byron Bodo wrote:
 Are they?  Got a source?  I have yet to see any analysis, let alone
> a convincing one, that shows this.
The only source that I'm going by is the "draft" EPA report on dioxin.
There where several references that I did not follow-up on.  I have
seen these numbers used as a reason not to use controls for a pulp
paper plant, as the predicted release of dio/fur would be much less than
a 100 acrea fire.  I have little professional reason to follow-up on
forest fire numbers, I've never had a client that needed help in getting
a permit for a forest fire.  As pro environmentalist as that dioxin
paper was, I tend to believe that the numbers would be conservative.  I
was shocked at how slanted the draft was, which might be why its not
been finalised in 18 months (?)
>
> A couple of open questions that I've yet to see addressed in reports I've
> read:
> 
> Any idea how much 2,3,7,8 TCDD & 2,3,4,7,8 PCDF are produced by
> wood combustion, say as a % of total PCDD/Fs?
> 
> In wood stoves, how much PCDD/F actually goes up the stack, versus
> what accumulates in chimney soot?
You mean creosote, the Aromatic ladden witches brew that forms inside my
chimneys.  All of the PCDD/F formation is a surface activated formation,
the PCDD/F forms on the fine particulates in the flue stream.  Surface
quench should not form dioxin.  
I ran a sample of creosote through a RCRA characterization test once. 
You 
don't want to know how bad is was.  Needless to say, I wear good gloves
and wash them twice afterwards.  Also wear my dust mask.
> 
> Is is reasonable to assume that modern stoves that burn much hotter &
> supposedly cleaner, generate less PCDD/Fs than the old pot-bellied smokers - of yester year?
Now, as you seem to have some familarity with the chemistry of PCDD/F
formation, you know that a hotter combustion temperature may increase
formation. Its tricky chemistry and well nigh impossible to accurately
estimate formation rates.  If I had to guess, I would say that the
U.S.EPA compliant woodstoves might produce more that a colder older
flue.  But, it would be a guess.
But, it don't really matter.  No one that I know of whats to regulate
residential wood stoves and fireplaces.  It would be plain silly.  There
are a set of U.S.EPA new source performance standards that regulated the
amount of CO and particulates in a new unit, but that is for a
completely
and totally different reason.  As suprising as this is to me, a bunch of
people do not like to see thick gray hazes in the morning skies.  Some
people dislike the smell of wood smoke.  Me, I grew up around it.  It
makes me remember my childhood and better days.  A thick cloud of wood
smoke makes me happy.  I have met many people who crinkle their nose and 
complain about the stink.  Oh well, one of the drawbacks of democracy.
I have been out in the Rockies when the cumlative haze from all of the 
woodburning causes visibillity problems.  Have also seen the Denver
air modeling that indicates that part of the problem with them exceeding
CO levels is from the wood burning.  
Now, bark boilers and industrial waste wood boilers are different
matters.
There have been some high profile permit/constructions.  Testing has
been done, by an independent contractor of course, that show detectable
and significant dioxin production (U.S. EPA method 24), from a waste
wood
boiler(no added source of chlorine, no bark).  I make no comments nor
imply any about any elevated risk that this imposes.  A majority of the
local citizens where concerned about these projects.  This being a
democracy, when a majority is concerns action is taken.
Damn, my shoulder hurts,. been cutting wood for winter most of the
weekend
before the rains get here.

jhavok@lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote for all to see:
>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>
>->I have looked at the global average temperature charts, and observed
>->that the great majority of the temperature rise to which you refer
>->occurred prior to the 194o's.  I am amused that you dismiss this as
>->"unusually warm", since it occurred prior to the greenhouse gas
>->introductions by human activity.
>
>Interesting claim... there was no petrochemical burning going on
>before the '40s? 
Very little.  How many coal or oil fired plants prior to the last half
century, compared to now?  How many automoblies?
There has been an approximate 0.56 deg C warming since 1610.  Almost
half of that may be explained by simply variations in solar
irradiance.  It may be that CO2 from human activity is contributing to
the approx one quarter degree not explained in this way, but there are
probably other contributors as well.
I don't think we can say that yet.
Regards, Harold
-------
"It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are not to be 
approached without some humor and some bewilderment."
	---Freeman Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe", pt. 1, ch. 1 (1979).

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
to see:
>Dan Evens  wrote:
>
>>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>>> tell that to the people living in the lowlands when the ocean levels
>>> rise or the people who have their homes wiped out by severe weather
>>> that is predicted to increase with global warming. We are beginning to
>>> see the increased severity of storms presently.
>
>>Scientific American, October 1996 has an article starting on pg. 34
>>that says that storms in the North Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and
>>the Caribbean Sea have decreased in frequency and intensity since
>>since WWII. The perceived increase is due to increased population
>>density such that any given storm has a higher chance of doing
>>significant damage to humans and their property.
>
>I haven't seen the article but thanks for the cite. I would dispute it
>howerever, just by looking at this past summer's hurricanes. 
This past summer?  This is October, summer is past.  I thought there
were about the average number of hurricanes.  Now the year before last
was exceptional, but it was not a record.  The record was in 1930
something.
Regards, Harold
-------
"A good cause can become bad if we fight for it with means that
are indiscriminatingly murderous.  A bad cause can become good 
if enough people fight for it in a spirit of comradeship and 
self-sacrifice.  In the end it is how you fight, as much as 
why you fight, that makes your cause good or bad."
	---Freeman Dyson, "Distrubing the Universe, pt. 1, ch. 4 (1979).

J&D; ELECTRIC INC.
PO BOX 61 
31 WEST BROAD ST.
HOPEWELL, NJ 08525
TEL. (609)466-0044
FAX.(609)466-8491
Dear Friends:
	The Following request came in to J&D; Electric from an associate 
and I would appreciate your support.
	Craig Sherwoow is a 17 year old boy suffering from terminal 
cancer. His greatest wish is to enter the Guinness Book of World Records 
as the person who has collected the most business cards. (A little moor 
difficult than it appears, since only one card per company is allowed).
	May I ask you to send your business card to Craig at the address 
shown below, and then pass this request on to ten (10) of your business 
associates. As I’m sure you recognize time is of the essence. Your 
kindness is appreciated. 
Send business cards to:
Mr. Craig Sherwood
Make a Wish Foundation
Atlanta, GA 30356
Sincerely,
Jim Cooper 

In article <53aubg$gvr@news.rl.af.mil>,
Jim Van Damme  wrote:
}If your car  A/C was a sealed 12 volt unit, it would help. It could be all-copper tubing with no 
}hoses, and be rigidly held in place, and put in any handy out of the way spot. Electric cars are 
}going to need them, so why doesn't somebody get to work on them ??????
An electric car with enough power to run an A/C unit?  ROTFL!
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." 

Jim Van Damme wrote:
> 
> If your car  A/C was a sealed 12 volt unit, it would help. It could be all-copper tubing with no
> hoses, and be rigidly held in place, and put in any handy out of the way spot. Electric cars are
> going to need them, so why doesn't somebody get to work on them ??????
Do any electric cars have air conditioners???
I would have thought the battery drain would have been excessive.

The SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, LAUSANNE
has the following open position:
Professor position in the Institute of Environmental Engineering
The Department of Rural Engineering is seeking an outstanding person to 
establish a strong research and teaching program in the technology of 
waste treatment and the rehabilitation of landfills and contaminated 
sites. Areas of special interest include system of collection, sorting, 
storage and treatment of solid, liquid municipal and industrial waste as 
well as soil remediation. The candidate should also show a commitment to 
waste management and the interactions between waste technology, human 
health and the biosphere in general. 
The candidate should show a distinct ability to conduct and lead 
important research projects.  He should provide excellent leadership, 
exhibit a marked interest in multidisciplinary research and engage in 
fruitful collaborative projects with private industry.  A strong 
motivation to teach, as well as proven pedagogical abilities are 
required in order to guide students and young scientists in their 
growth. 
Women candidates are especially encouraged to apply. Deadline for 
applications : August 20, 1996. Position available from beginning 1997 
or upon agreement. The application forms can be obtained by writing at:  
Présidence de l¹Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne CE-Ecublens,  
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

The SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, LAUSANNE
has the following open position:
Professor position in the Institute of Environmental Engineering
The Department of Rural Engineering is seeking an outstanding person to 
establish a strong research and teaching program in the technology of 
waste treatment and the rehabilitation of landfills and contaminated 
sites. Areas of special interest include system of collection, sorting, 
storage and treatment of solid, liquid municipal and industrial waste as 
well as soil remediation. The candidate should also show a commitment to 
waste management and the interactions between waste technology, human 
health and the biosphere in general. 
The candidate should show a distinct ability to conduct and lead 
important research projects.  He should provide excellent leadership, 
exhibit a marked interest in multidisciplinary research and engage in 
fruitful collaborative projects with private industry.  A strong 
motivation to teach, as well as proven pedagogical abilities are 
required in order to guide students and young scientists in their 
growth. 
Women candidates are especially encouraged to apply. Deadline for 
applications : August 20, 1996. Position available from beginning 1997 
or upon agreement. The application forms can be obtained by writing at:  
Présidence de l¹Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne CE-Ecublens,  
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

The SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, LAUSANNE
has the following open position:
Professor position in the Institute of Environmental Engineering
The Department of Rural Engineering is seeking an outstanding person to 
establish a strong research and teaching program in the technology of 
waste treatment and the rehabilitation of landfills and contaminated 
sites. Areas of special interest include system of collection, sorting, 
storage and treatment of solid, liquid municipal and industrial waste as 
well as soil remediation. The candidate should also show a commitment to 
waste management and the interactions between waste technology, human 
health and the biosphere in general. 
The candidate should show a distinct ability to conduct and lead 
important research projects.  He should provide excellent leadership, 
exhibit a marked interest in multidisciplinary research and engage in 
fruitful collaborative projects with private industry.  A strong 
motivation to teach, as well as proven pedagogical abilities are 
required in order to guide students and young scientists in their 
growth. 
Women candidates are especially encouraged to apply. Deadline for 
applications : August 20, 1996. Position available from beginning 1997 
or upon agreement. The application forms can be obtained by writing at:  
Présidence de l¹Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne CE-Ecublens,  
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

The SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, LAUSANNE
has the following open position:
Professor position in the Institute of Environmental Engineering
The Department of Rural Engineering is seeking an outstanding person to 
establish a strong research and teaching program in the technology of 
waste treatment and the rehabilitation of landfills and contaminated 
sites. Areas of special interest include system of collection, sorting, 
storage and treatment of solid, liquid municipal and industrial waste as 
well as soil remediation. The candidate should also show a commitment to 
waste management and the interactions between waste technology, human 
health and the biosphere in general. 
The candidate should show a distinct ability to conduct and lead 
important research projects.  He should provide excellent leadership, 
exhibit a marked interest in multidisciplinary research and engage in 
fruitful collaborative projects with private industry.  A strong 
motivation to teach, as well as proven pedagogical abilities are 
required in order to guide students and young scientists in their 
growth. 
Women candidates are especially encouraged to apply. Deadline for 
applications : August 20, 1996. Position available from beginning 1997 
or upon agreement. The application forms can be obtained by writing at:  
Présidence de l¹Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne CE-Ecublens,  
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Don Libby (dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: > snip
: > The volcano is part of a fissure system that has produce VEI > 6
: > events in historical times. Hope it doesn't keep going.snip
: > 
: > Steinnsnip
: 
: 
: Is there an Atlantic "ring of fire"?  I'm just wondering if 
: there is a connection between current activity in Iceland and 
: Mont Serrat in the Carribean?  Anybody know if movement of 
: the American Plate is responsible for activity on its edges 
: at the Carribean and Eurasian plates simultaneously?
	There shouldn't be.  Even when volcanoes are on the 
same island (Big Island of Hawaii), the activity of one doesn't
affect the activity of the other.
	There isn't an Atlantic "Ring of Fire", but there is 
an "Arc of Fire".  It's the Antilles arc (Greater and Lesser 
Antilles), including Montserrat.  Iceland is mid-ocean 
ridge volcanism (spreading center).
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

maybe if they did just what you say, then the subsidies that encourage
the abandoment of the cities would end and the road warriors/commuters
would stop traveling absurd distances daily. 
djlong@magic.mv.com (David Long) wrote:
>synergy@MCS.COM (synergy) wrote:
>
>>I prefer that you pay for the full cost of your usage of it.  Since I don't
>>use or receive any significant benefit from transit scams, I shouldn't
>>have to pay for them.  In fact, buses do little but slow down my commute
>>as they clog up the roads while carrying very few passengers.
>
>If you live in a major city, imagine how bad the traffic jams would be
>if, for example, commuter rail just stopped.
>
>In NY it was a nightmare when there was a transit strike.
>In Boston, you'd be flooding the already overcrowded highways with
>over 50,000 more cars.
>As I recall, you're in the Chicago area.  Can you imagine what would
>happen if Metra shutdown?
>

I am doing some research for an article concerning the influence of the
outcome of the american elections on the environement.  If you have any
thoughts, please contact me.
Dominique Forget
Forget@biopro.polymtl.ca

Environmental Scientist: The Department of Life, Earth, and Environmental
Sciences invites applications for a tenure track faculty position at the
assistant professor level in environmental sciences, beginning in January
1997.  The position requires a terminal degree in environmental sciences
or closely related field with a strong commitment to excellence in
teaching. The successful candidate will be expected to teach at all
academic levels and will be primarily responsible for undergraduate and
graduate courses in environmental geology, environment and man, research
methods in environmental sciences, meteorology, geomorphology, and
possibly share some responsibility for an introductory course.  Additional
responsibilities will be to maintain an active research program in
environmental science compatible with the mission of the department and
the environment of the Texas Panhandle and involve both graduate and
undergraduate students.  To apply, send or fax a curriculum vita,
including a statement of teaching and research interests, transcript, and
three letters of recommendation to Dr. Gerald Schultz, West Texas A&M;
University, WTAMU Box 808, Canyon, TX  79016, fax # (806)656-2928. 
Applications will be accepted through Nov. 15, with evaluation of
applicants beginning  Oct. 15, 1996.  An equal opportunity employer.

On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 23:35:29 GMT, mws@wt.net (MWSmith) wrote:
>
>No suggestions.
>You pretty much covered anyone who has ever posted anything to any
>news group on the 'net..
>Mike Smith
>
>
>If you want to vote for:
>
>A sloppy, socialistic, World-Class Liar;
>Vote for Bill Clinton
>
>A middle of the road Republican;
>Vote for Bob Dole
>
>Irregardless, do vote on November 5.
   I'm not going to take advice from someone who uses non-words like
Irregardless.  That's very cromulent of you.
Tom Steegmann
steegman@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us
netheaven.com/~steegman
Marge, weaseling is what seperates us from the animals, except 
of course, the weasel!
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US.  E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.

In article <3255AC33.6A65@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman  says:
>
>Blaine D. Bauer wrote:
>> 
>> I respect Vandeman's level of effort, its just too bad its so misguided.
>> If he was going to that effort to eliminate real wildlife-destroying
>> activities - pollution, suburb expansion and deforestation, perhaps the
>> environment would benefit.
>
>I do that also. You are making a false assumption.
Perhaps. If you didn't avoid factual evidence so much we might know what you're
doing. Call it trivial pursuit, but last weekend I read your web page rantings 
(the ones that have to do with pure habitat & mountain biking) and over 200 of 
your postings (many that just repeat what you've written on the web page). What
have you actually DONE other than alienate people?
>
> Animals don't roll over and die just because
>> they see us. The die because their habitat is GONE.
>
>Habitat that is overrun with humans is no longer desirable by many species,
>and so is effectively GONE, as far as they are concerned. Isn't that OBVIOUS?
I agree that my neighborhood has been overrun with humans. I an most others
don't agree that our parks (with a few exceptions) are overrun with humans. 
Most of the time I go to our nearby parks I see, at most, two or three people 
in the course of a couple of hours. I have a hard time believing that wildlife 
sanctuaries are overrun, but I'm not a biologist so I've never actually been 
to one. I've just seen hundreds (perhaps thousands) of acres where no one ever 
goes, and wonder why you call those "overrun".
>
> Now compare
>> Vandeman's effort to that of the Portland United Mountain Pedallers
>> (PUMP), a group to which I belong. We have been in court and successfully
>> convinced the Portland city council to deny building rights to an
>> area next to Forest Park, BECAUSE mountain bikers use that area. So rather
>> than have an area that is completely deforested and built over, we have
>> an area that is 99% natural with the exception of a few small trails
>> that are open to hikers, bikers and animals. We did more tangible
>> work in one afternoon than Vandeman has apparently done in 8 years.
>
>There's nothing wrong with preventing development, but trails ARE development.
>You practice something that LOOKS like environmentalism (to the ignorant), but
>is actually mostly selfish. Protect some habitat purely for the wildlife, and
>THEN ask to be cheered. I would cheer you myself.
Of course you realize that most people don't agree with you. Your web page
is littered with recollections of park rangers and major organizations (i.e. Sierra
Club) that haven't agreed with you. Even your REFERENCES don't agree with you 
(I'll get the specific quote if you wish).  Just because have extremist views doesn't
make you Gandhi.What I'm saying is that SOME progress (what we've made) is better
than no progress at all (what you've made). Failure for the right reasons is still
failure. Your "work" appears to me to be a successive string of failures, simply
because you see everything as one extreme or another.
Blaine Bauer                 Any opinions expressed do not necessarily
Beaverton, Oregon (USA)      reflect the opinions of Intel Corporation

Will Stewart  writes:
>DaveHatunen wrote:

>> If someone says EVs don't pollute,
>You haven't heard it from persons in the know.  As you well know, EVs
>are considered Zero point emissions vehicles.
Way to gloss over that one. "persons in the know"? Doesn't sound TOO elitest,
does it?
Chris

Gulliver Films announces a new website featuring info and many gifs
about Australia's wildlife and ecosystems.  Schools, students and
researches may use the photos and text, without copyright restrictions,
for non commercial purposes. 
Smaller gifs link to quite large pictures.
see: http://www.uq.edu.au/gulliver/

Thomas Steegmann corrected:
>    I'm not going to take advice from someone who uses non-words like
> Irregardless.  That's very cromulent of you.
So, by extension, would you ever vote for someone who refers to himself
in the third person.  "Bob Dole says Bob Dole does not believe in that".
:)

In article <32593166.24CF@west.darkside.com>, adams_t@nosapp.nr.state.ky.us says...
>
>Byron Bodo wrote:
> Are they?  Got a source?  I have yet to see any analysis, let alone
>> a convincing one, that shows this.
>
>The only source that I'm going by is the "draft" EPA report on dioxin.
>There where several references that I did not follow-up on.  I have
>seen these numbers used as a reason not to use controls for a pulp
>paper plant, as the predicted release of dio/fur would be much less than
>a 100 acrea fire.  I have little professional reason to follow-up on
>forest fire numbers, I've never had a client that needed help in getting
>a permit for a forest fire.  As pro environmentalist as that dioxin
>paper was, I tend to believe that the numbers would be conservative.  I
>was shocked at how slanted the draft was, which might be why its not
>been finalised in 18 months (?)
>>
Five years ago, I got roped into doing the stats on contaminants in 
Northern Ontario fish (lake trout) for people doing sport fish consumption
guidelines.  There were no detectable PCDD/F TEQs in fish, except in fish 
taken from waters downstream of paper mills. There have been some
other analyses of northern Canadian biota that show only negligible
PCDD/Fs.  So where does all the forest fire dioxin/furan go, if it's
created in the first place?
Looking at the various numbers cooked up for forest fires, all I see
are indirect inferences based on old total PCDD data from certain
kinds of controlled burns.  I have yet to find a report from someone
that went out and systematically measured PCDD/Fs in soils, sediments, and
biota from areas where forest fires have occurred sometime in the
recent, say 1-25 year, past. Until I see some hard direct evidence, I'll 
remain skeptical about the significance of forest fires as major PCDD/F 
sources.
-bb

In article 7432@glerl.noaa.gov, Brent Lofgren  writes:
-cut-
>Stronger warming trends at higher latitudes are a well-established feature
>of GCM simulations of greenhouse warming.  Look in the 1992 IPCC report at
>figures 5.2 through 5.4.
I think you mean the 1990 report...
>The greatest warming occurs in the high latitudes of the winter hemisphere. 
...in which case figs 5.2 and 5.4 need to be interpreted with caution because they
are *equilibrium* results, ie 2*CO2-control. Figure B4 from the 1992 report gives
a more uptodate picture (temperature changes are much smaller, especially in the
southern hemisphere).
>The main reason for this is temperature-ice feedback (ice cools the
...still true
>surface and atmosphere by reflecting sunlight).  This feedback may or may
>not be adequately simulated in present models.
...this is one area that (as far as I know) is felt to be reasonably OK in current
models
>It has been noted recently (I believe in sci.geo.meteorology) that
>larger temperature changes at high
>latitudes may not be as statistically significant, because of the
>greater variability there.
...its certainly true in the models. Temperature changes in the tropics are the most
significant (measured as change divided by s.d.). Other variables (mslp, for example)
are different.
---
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself 

Jay Hanson  writes:
> For example, A forest, which is initially contributing to our life
> support, ceases to do so once it is cleared and covered with
> concrete. This occurs all the time on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Thus,
> private property is obviously NOT the solution to our survival
> problem.
Now why should people owning forests wish to cover them with concrete?
And why should states owning forests wish to cover them with concrete?
I know a lot of people owning and caring about forests, about half of
the forests in Sweden are private property. I have also noted that the
state and state owned companies has not hesitated for a moment to
build things replacing forests ore much worse use and by law enforce
on others ways to run the foirests that hurt their ability to sustain
a diverse biotope. If you have one large responsible state you have
only one institution that have to go nuts to make a mess of
EVERYTHING.
> Hardin's solution to the Tragedy was "Mutual coercion, mutually
> agreed upon." In other words, government regulations.
And how do wee keep the government sane, wise as Jesus and smarter
then Einstein?
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

Mr.Jav wrote:
> 
> > Some prophet. For all I know he's a corporate plant designed to make
> > envionmentalists look like fools. Are you sure he's not working for the
> > paper companies? Maybe for Exxon or Dow? It's almost too possible to be
> > funny, huh?
> 
> Thank you sooo much for bringing up this point.  It really made my day!!
>  From now on, I will just imagine this to be true.  Whether it is or
> not (for this is how the extreme sinistra make their argument this
> poitical season), I will at least smile and not feel the need to
> respond.
This has to be true since Vandeman himself hasn't responded and called
us all liars again.  According to some of his own experiments with
mailing list spams, a lack of response must support an agreeing
position.
Rob
-- 
email:                           |"You can't take life too seriously,
rhorvati@ae0119.pd8.ford.com     | you don't get out alive." Buggs Bunny

In article <32587410.2CB3@pond.com>, mudboy@pond.com wrote:
->And yes, you're right, Vandeman IS a festering boil on the anus of
->society.  Luckily, he has his head so firmly planted between his cheeks
->that he doesn't know what the REAL issue is
"A festering boil on the anus of society, with his head firmly planted 
between his cheeks..." I'm still trying to picture this one - recursive
anuses, maybe ? Odd pictures come to mind:)
Ob.Mikey.comment: I actually think the idea of creating bio-preserves off-limits
to *all* human activity is a pretty cool one - although Mikey certainly
didn't invent it and there are a few areas that come close at this point.
It would be nice to know that certain areas exist untouched by man.
The catch, of course, is that it would be hard to keep such areas closed
from the inevitable adventure-seekers who think "closed to everyone" means
"everyone
but them." Such is life, I guess.
- Nick
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Wilde                            
wilde@cs.colorado.edu                    

JD & the Bear (jdadams@inreach.com) wrote:
: On 6 Oct 1996 10:23:35 GMT, jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B.
: Halpern) wrote:
: 
: >The real issue is which organic chlorine molecules live long enough in
: >the troposphere, to eventually, by normal circulation, reach the
: >stratosphere.  CFCs do a real good job of this.  Inorganic chlorides
: >are all soluble and get washed out of the troposphere by rain.  
: >Methylchloride (of which there are some natural sources) is sort
: >of in between, and some of it gets up to the stratosphere intact.
: >(See the FAQ for how much of a role it plays, remember to count
: >the Cl atoms on each molecule, ie CH3Cl will be half as effective
: >as CH2Cl2, etc.)
: 
: Interesting discussion.  A bit like I argued in college.  It is still
: my assertion that R12 cannot be responsible for the ozone change in
: our upper atmosphere, for 2 simple reasons:
: 
: 1. R12 is heavy, and when released, sinks to the ground.  And,..
Didn't pay much attention in class did you?  It is regularily 
pointed out here that this is totally irrelevant.  The atmosphere
is well mixed by winds.  Molecules do not begin to separate
out by mass until you get above about 100 km, well above
the stratosphere.  (See the ozone FAQ, or any elementary
book on atmospheric chemistry, such as RW Wayne, Atmospheric 
Chemistry for pointers to ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS and THEORETICAL
descriptions of this).  OTOH, if this were so, why is not
all the CO2 in the atmosphere right near ground level, followed
by the Argon, oxygen and nitrogen, in that order.
: 2. Bacteria in the soil just love the stuff, and consume it with
:    pleasure.
:
Nope, bacterial destruction does very little to destroy CFCs.  There
has been work on this to, although I would have to be at home in the
US to reach out and find the references, but we discussed this
red herring in sci.environment about a year ago.  What bacteria
do go after to some extent is CH3Cl, although even there, the
effect of bacterial destruction is relatively small (measureable
but small).
Josh Halpern

Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
: 
: >Dodge Boy (DodgeBoy@howellautomotive.com) wrote:
: 
: [edited]
: 
: >Cl2 (the molecule) absorbs light below 400 nm and breaks apart into
: >two Cl atoms.  400nm is deep blue and there is lots of light at the
: >surface between 400 and 300 nm (that's UV A).  Any Cl2 emitted at the
: >surface will quickly break down into Cl atoms, near the surface.  
: 
: >The fate of these Cl atoms is eventually to react with any
: >hydrocarbon and form HCl.  Cl2 emitted at the surface will
: >NEVER reach the stratosphere.
: 
: There goes Joshua again, trying to pretend to scientific knowledge he
: does not possess.  Molecular chlorine does not breakdown into Cl atoms
: in the atmosphere.  In addition, atomic chlorine is highly reactive,
: and would not "eventually" react, it would immediately react with
: almost anything around.
:
Harold my child, I was doing photochemistry of small molecules
while you were sucking on your thumb,  any Cl2 exposed to
light below 400 nm will photodissociate.  It#s a hell of
a good source of Cl atoms.  What happens to the Cl atoms
afterwards depends on what they hit.  
: Molecular chlorine is soluble in water, and reacts readily with
: atmospheric moisture to form HCl.
Another fate.  Guess I missed that one., but it still depends on the
solubility and the relative humidity and time of day as to
what the fate of the Cl2 is.  
Shows the difference between wet and gas phase chemists.
Josh Halpern

Byron Bodo wrote:
>   So where does all the forest fire dioxin/furan go, if it's
> created in the first place?
> 
> Looking at the various numbers cooked up for forest fires, all I see
> are indirect inferences based on old total PCDD data from certain
> kinds of controlled burns.  I have yet to find a report from someone
> that went out and systematically measured PCDD/Fs in soils, sediments, and
> biota from areas where forest fires have occurred sometime in the
> recent, say 1-25 year, past. Until I see some hard direct evidence, > I'll
> remain skeptical about the significance of forest fires as major PCDD/F
> sources.
If I were an environmentalist, I wouldn't want a semi-natural source
like
forest fires being the largest single source of dioxin.  It would seem
to
be an industiral side point (our emissions small in comparison).
I concur, that estimating has to be suspect.  Would a high moisture
softwood fire produce anything at all like a dry hardwood forest fire
like we would have here.  Would they compare at all to the widspread
Amazon area fires.  I wouldn't bet my license on it.
It would seem that by measuring the dioxin in a pm10 grab sample in an
ambient air sample after a large area fire, like the California fires,
you could get a fair estimation.  But, like I said, its not an area that 
concerns me much.  No money in helping with those permit for a forest
fire.  Contrary to Rush limberger, the EPA does not require a permit
before your volcano can blow.  Area source, not a point source. 
Huh, what detection level were you looking at in fish fat?  I would have
expected getting a detection on almost all samples.  I know everything 
caught out of the Ohio has detectable levels, not enough to issue an
advisery but detectable. Because of Fecal Coliform, heavy metals, and
PCB's we do have warnings.

In article <531n99$6s4_007@pm1-81.hal-pc.org>,
charliew  wrote:
>And pray tell, what disastrous situation are we presently in?
One where 25% of the world's mammal species are on the recently
released IUCN 1996 Red List.
Andrew Taylor

Dear readers,
I'm looking for some answers about the above subject
(Wind-emission vs air-'stripping'-emission in waste water basin)
I'm doing a measurement above a waste water basin (400 sq meters and 4
meters high) The waste water is mixed with air "bubbles", with a compressor
(500 cubic meters per hour).
The measurements concerns the amount of stripped solvents, like toluene and
dichloromethane. I've placed a 'hood' over a big bubbled area, that
contains enough air for my sample-pump (ca 5 liter/min). The assumption is
made that the concentration of solvents in the airbubbles are the same in
the whole basin.
The measurement is done with a FT-IR spectrometer.
The concentration of solvents in the water before and after the basin are
being monitored with a gaschromatograph with purge and trap.
The scope of the measurement, is to what degree;
1 is the decay of the solvents, (biological decay)
2 is the emission (and wind emission) 
Now I like to know what the contribution of the wind will be on the total
solvent emission by an average wind speed of 5 meters/second.
Because the wind emission is difficult to measure, is this higher than the
emission of the stripping by air? Or is it predictable low?
Richard Ritsma

In article <5397gi$6r0_002@pm3-129.hal-pc.org>,
charliew  wrote:
>In article <537vn9$t8a@sun3.uni-essen.de>,
>
>No problem.  You should now be ready to "stick your neck out 
>a bit".  If the predictions are "good", it shouldn't be too 
>difficult to make a prediction about the next 10 or 20 years, 
>write this prediction down somewhere, and wait for the 
>results.  If the models are as good as you say, they will be 
>verified by future data.  Or, are you wanting to take action 
>before this verification is forthcoming?
  Ignore the fact that people have already made hindcast runs.
  What would you accept as a predicted variable, and what
degree of precision would you require before you agreed that
the prediction was successful?
  For example: 
  Variable:  Average global surface temperature as measured by the
thermometer network for the year 2010.
  Precision of agreement: 0.01 C (or whatever it is you like).
  Of course, in making the requirement of a prediction, rather than
retrodiction or hindcast, you also are requiring that the people
conducting the runs have a perfect knowledge of future solar
variability, the future of greenhouse gas releases, and the future
volcanic emissions among many other things.
-- 
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences 

On Mon, 07 Oct 1996 12:37:23 -0700, TL ADAMS
 wrote:
>Thomas Steegmann corrected:
>
>>    I'm not going to take advice from someone who uses non-words like
>> Irregardless.  That's very cromulent of you.
>
>So, by extension, would you ever vote for someone who refers to himself
>in the third person.  "Bob Dole says Bob Dole does not believe in that".
>
>:)
   Tom Steegmann will reply to you by saying that Tom Steegmann
wouldn't vote for Bob Dole if he came to Tom Steegmann's house and did
Tom Steegmann's laundry for Tom Steegmann.  It also makes Tom
Steegmann very uncomfortable when 'the others' refer to 'themselves'
in the third person.  It is as if Bob Dole is not actually in the body
that you see on TV, but rather is just a brain floating in a
laboratory somewhere in Shawnee Mission, Kansas.  The thing you see on
TV is a complex bio-mechanical body substitute built and programmed by
newt gingrich and his minions.  Tom Steegmann eagerly awaits your
reply.  Tom Steegmann says have a nice day.
Tom Steegmann
steegman@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us
netheaven.com/~steegman
Marge, weaseling is what seperates us from the animals, except 
of course, the weasel!
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US.  E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.

**************************************************************************************************************
First Annual Conference on Applied Concurrent Engineering
        November 5-7, 1996
        Red Lion Hotel, Seattle Airport
        Seattle, WA
**************************************************************************************************************
For complete up-to-date information  visit our Web-site: 
http://www.ecrc.ctc.com/ace96/ace96a.htm
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW
ACE96 is the major forum for international industry, government, and
academia to exchange experiences on the application of information
technologies and business practices in concurrent engineering.
ACE96 promotes the tools, technologies, and methodologies that U.S.
businesses and manufacturers need to compete globally.  The focus is on
industrial applications of concurrent engineering using innovative
business practices, electronic collaboration tools, life-cycle design,
and virtual prototyping.
CONFERENCE TOPICS
*  Integrated Product & Process Design 
*  Environmentally Conscious Design & Manufacturing 
*  Collaborative/Distributed Design 
*  Concurrent Engineering in Quality Function Deployment (QFD) 
*  Concurrent Engineering in Customer-Driven Design 
*  Education in Concurrent Engineering
HOTEL INFORMATION
The Red Lion Hotel, at the Seattle Airport is the host hotel for the
First Annual Applied Concurrent Engineering Conference.  The following
rates plus, applicable state and city taxes are offered:
Corporate       Single  $125.00
                Double  $135.00
Government      Single  $74.77
                Double  $86.00
These rates are also available three days prior and three days after the
listed meeting dates.  The hotel accepts most major credit cards.  For
reservations, contact the Red Lion Seattle Airport (1-800-RED-LION) and
request the group rate for Concurrent Technologies Corporation/ACE96.
In addition to the discounted rates the Red Lion Hotel offers
complimentary parking to overnight guests and discounted parking for
meeting attendees.  Guests with Meeting validations pay $5 for 12 hours
of parking; Banquet validations  pay $2; Restaurant or Lounge
validations receive 3 hours of complimentary parking.  The hotel also
has a swimming pool, exercise room, and spa.
REGISTRATION
Pre-registration (by October 14, 1996) $375
Registration (after October 14, 1996) $475
Primary Author Registration $250 (speakers only; one per paper)
Full registration includes admission to ACE96 (November 5-7), banquet
ticket, coffee breaks, and one copy of proceedings.
For more information, e-mail: borenish@ctc.com, or call
(800)  282-4392 ext. 6521
Mark L. Hartman
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
4312 Kitsap Way, Suite 104, Bremerton, WA  98312
Phone (800) 478-3933
Fax   (360) 478-0225
hartman@ctc.com