Subject: Call for Papers: SafeComp'97
From: bob@minster.york.ac.uk (Bob Fields)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 18:39:42 GMT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Papers
SAFECOMP'97
The 16th International Conference on
Computer Safety, Reliability and Security
University of York, UK
September 8th-10th, 1997
Sponsored by
European Workshop on Industrial Computer Systems Technical Committee 7
(EWICS TC 7)
SAFECOMP is an annual event reviewing the state of the art,
experiences and new trends in the areas of computer safety,
reliability and security. The conference focuses on critical computer
applications. It is intended to form a platform for technology
transfer between academia, industry and research institutions.
Papers are invited on all aspects of computer systems in which safety,
reliability and security are important. Industrial sectors include,
but are not restricted to, avionics, space industry, railway and road
transportation, process industry, automotive industry, and
research. Suggested topics are:
Safety Assessment
Safety Guidelines, Standards and Certification
Formal Methods and Models
Industrial Applications and Experience
Issues of Security
Computers and Environmental Safety
The Safety Case
Design for Safety
Management and Development
Human Factors
Sociological and Legal Aspects
Assuring Emerging Technologies
At SAFECOMP '97 there will be the opportunity to exhibit relevant
books, software tools and products and space will be provided for the
display of posters. Organisations wishing to have space at the
exhibition or display space for a poster should contact SAFECOMP'97 at
the address below.
Important Dates and Deadlines
February 1, 1997: Submission of papers
April 15, 1997: Notification of acceptance
June 15, 1997: Final copy of paper required
September 8-10, 1997: SAFECOMP'97
How to Submit a Paper
Send five copies of full papers, clearly showing the name and mailing
address, e-mail address, and fax number of the principal author to the
address below. Papers should not exceed 10 pages in length. All
submissions will be reviewed by members of the SAFECOMP International
Programme Committee. The final camera ready paper is required after
provisional acceptance by the International Programme Committee. Only
previously unpublished papers may be submitted.
The following declaration should be added to the submitted proposal:
"All necessary clearances for the publication of this paper
have been obtained. If accepted, the author will prepare the
final manuscript in time for the inclusion in the conference
proceedings and will present the paper at the conference."
For more information on the conference, the full call for papers, and
submission instructions visit our world wide web site at:
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/safecomp-97
or contact:
Ginny Wilson
SAFECOMP'97
Department of Computer Science Tel: + 44 1904 432782
University of York Fax: + 44 1904 432708
York, Y01 5DD, UK Email: safecomp-97@minster.york.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Fields. phone: +44 1904 433384
Dept. of Computer Science, fax: +44 1904 432767
University of York, email: bob@minster.york.ac.uk
York, Y01 5DD, UK http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~bob/bob.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 01:34:25 GMT
In article <326CF194.93C@ix.netcom.com>,
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>In my reply to Charliew I stated:
>
>>A capable government working for the good of the general
>public is
>>derilict >not< to enforce population limits if it is in the
>public
>>interest to do so.
>
>To which he replied:
>
>Thank you for making my point. You apparently have no
>problem in giving up all of your freedoms to some "higher"
>authority that tells you they are acting in your (or the
>public's) best interest. I do not happen to share your
faith
>in a benevolent bureaucratic federal or world government.
In
>fact, I insist on keeping the right to make my own decision
>regarding family size, what my family values will be, etc.
>
>To which I respond:
>
>The ultimate decision is always yours, as long as your
willing to pay
>the price. What you want to do is drive down the price so
you can
>benefit by forcing others to pay. Simple economics, eh?
Corporate
>executive material in the raw!
>
>Your rejection of authority which is acting in your best
interest is
(BIG CUT)
Apparently you just don't "get it". I have (in the U.S.) a
Constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. I take these words seriously, and I am
not about to let ANY government authority tell me how big my
family must be, or what my family values will be. I intend
to raise my children as conservatives, with conservative
morals and ethics, whether you or other liberals like it or
not. If laws are passed that make this illegal, I will still
pursue this policy, whether you or other liberals like it or
not. And by the way, there isn't a whole hell-of-a-lot you
can do about it, either.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 01:34:32 GMT
In article <326D2B52.31FC@ix.netcom.com>,
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
(big cut)
>
>Over the last decade the Republicans have acted as the tool
for
>implementing a set of policies resulting in the robbery of
>publically-held resources, the conversion of the U.S.
government into
>an investment tool for the wealthy, and the implimentation
of a policy
>of economic terrorism. The major corporations and their
wealthy
>stockholders are responsible for this, but the methods by
which the
>Republicans got the public to put them into power are a
fascinating
>study. I'd like to hear Republicans pursue the prosecution
of John
>Dow the way they pursue the prosecution of lower-class
criminals. I'd
>like to see them pursue and prosecute the Dow Chemical
Company and the
>pertinent but faceless government officials who permitted
Agent Orange
>to be used as a weed killer on public school grounds the way
they
>pursue the wealthy welfare mother they created. The
propaganda of
>Irving Crystal would do Goebbels proud, but even the best
propaganda
>doesn't work unless you have a public idiot enough fall for
it.
Ummm... you just broke the unwritten rule of debate on
usenet. You lost the argument by invoking the name of a well
known Nazi, implying that Mr. Crystal is also a Nazi. Too
bad. I was starting to enjoy your senseless ranting!
Ever
>notice how, once the Republicans took over Congress, all of
the
>political screaming and yelling in the newspapers sort
of...went away?
>
>These opinions, truth and mistakes, are my own.
>
>mfriesel@unemployed.physics
Oh, now I get it. A case of sour grapes. Your unemployment
is due to sinister Republican forces that can be vanquished
by becoming totally liberal. If you could quit "grinding
your axe" long enough to polish up your resume, I'm sure that
we would both be better off!
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 01:34:37 GMT
In article <326D33DB.1C34@cciwa.asn.au>,
Martin Taylor wrote:
>charliew wrote:
>> (snip)
>> Thank you for making my point. You apparently have no
>> problem in giving up all of your freedoms to some "higher"
>> authority that tells you they are acting in your (or the
>> public's) best interest. I do not happen to share your
faith
>> in a benevolent bureaucratic federal or world government.
In
>> fact, I insist on keeping the right to make my own
decision
>> regarding family size, what my family values will be, etc.
>> Does an individual have to recognise the societal
implications of
>individual decisions, when it is the society within which
the individual
>lives which determines the bounds of the decision? Does an
individual
>have the right to pollute? Does an individual have the
right to use
>unlimited resources, or to add a large number of
over-consumers?
Do environmentalists have the right to have any children at
all? If you guys strictly enforced your stipulated policies,
you would all immediately commit suicide! Obviously, your
apparent hypocrisy doesn't make your arguments more
convincing.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: MTBers Trashing One of the Last Virgin Forests in Iowa!
From: tddo@cisco.com (Tien D. Do)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 18:02:59 GMT
Mike Edgar wrote:
> .... and my eyes are always wide open. :-)
Your eyes are but your mind isn't.
This thread started by a Mike V, who lives in the Bay Area, California, USA,
he shows up at EBRPD meetings write letters voicing his concerns, but Mike
Edgar lives in the UK and probaly never been to the US and of course is
not a US resident, who gives dammed about what he thinks what happens here
in US local trails. If I have spare time and nothing to do, I can spend
the whole day debating a certain trails in Tibet or China should be opened.
And of course, I not critical about how UK goverment handle the Mad Cow
things.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: John Nahay
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:52:26 -0400
Give any one who messes with an animal activist or an environmentalist
the death penalty! Why should a meat-eater care: death is just another part
of life for them.
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, charliew wrote:
> In article <54hq3f$qhv@earth.njcc.com>,
> nahay@pluto.njcc.com (John Nahay) wrote:
> >John Moore (ozone@primenet.com) wrote:
> >: You are making my point well, even if you are missing it.
> The
> >: environmental movement has been pushing measures that
> would have
> >: drastic impact on the world economy. They are missing the
> fact that
> >: the logical outcome of these policies is a rebellion
> against those
> >: policies, as people become more desperate to survive
> rather than worry
> >: about the environment.
> >
> >But, what about all the "personal responsibility" crap we
> hear from
> >politicians these days? (I don't care what they call
> themselves.) And,
> >all the "law and order" crap from politicians?
> >I WILL feel sorry for imprisoning a libertarian who is a
> vegetarian and
> >recycles for failing once to put a tin can into a recyling
> bin. So, I
> >would defend such a person. Libertarians themselves do not
> want excessive
> >punishments.
> >But, I have NO sympathy for strong, law-and-order types: if
> they put
> >people in jail for idiotic things like prostitution or drug
> use, then I
> >say throw them in jail for violating extremely minimalist
> environmental
> >laws, like failing to recycle, or for eating animals.
>
>
> Question! What punishment would suffice if one of "them" ate
> an environmentalist rather than an animal?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===================================================================
>
> For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
> http://www.hamblin.com
>
>
Subject: Re: Bicycling vs. riding the bus
From: khead@uoguelph.ca (K. Head)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 18:38:50 GMT
(rec.animals.wildlife and rec.bikes.offroad removed)
Joshua_Putnam (josh@WOLFENET.COM) wrote:
[snip]
: I do not denounce motorists as
: irrational, greedy, or offensive. They are my friends and
: neighbors, after all, and the value of community far exceeds even
: the cost of an MVMA car.
Thanks for figuring all of this out, Josh...I've always wondered how much
it costs to run an old car. However, there are hidden costs which must be
added --- calculated to be over $8 billion per year in Ontario by
Pollution Probe. That's an extra $800 per person (car driver or not) per
year.
Also, regarding your final statement, I think you should add the
environment to the community and economic considerations you've correctly
identified.
Kevin.
.......................................................................
"No man ever stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in his
clothes; yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have
fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a
sound conscience." H. D. Thoreau
Subject: Re: Neutralizing Hydrocarbons
From: Sam McClintock
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:34:55 -0400
Regina M. Boyle wrote:
>
> Does anyone here have any thoughts on the recent study from Laurence
> Livermore commissioned by the California State Water Resources Control
> Board which concluded that the threat to human health and the environment
> from leaking petroleum undergroud storage tanks is much less than was
> previously thought?
Unless you happen to be a member of the immediate community impacted
by the problem. :<)
Problem: Many leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) do not pose
a threat to the community or environment. In many cases (not most),
any attempt to clean up the mess just seems to recirc groundwater
without accomplishing a whole bunch. In a lot of these cases it is
determined to just let the mess sit for a few decades and it will
"clean" itself up. In many cases this is probably the right call.
What I do not like is that (bigger problems):
a) this scenario is now used as the standard in a lot of cases
instead of the exception,
b) does nothing for homes or communities that have to bring in
water to drink because even though tests show the current level
of contamination is not toxic, the amount is still enough to
smell (impact is impact); also does not address property
value (irony - very folks who cry private propery needs and
foul on environmental regs are weakening UST rules, thus
making it hardest on the small private landowner).
c) not cleaning up the UST mess encourages a lack of reason,
responsibility AND defeats the common impact rule of pollution,
e.g. you can't claim credits in air pollution by excessive
dilution - it is recognized that at some point building the
stack so high will not substitute for control tech. Same
idea applies here. Regardless of toxicity, the company
spilling the mess has a responsibility to FIRST see if the
site can be properly remediated. If ALL ELSE fails, then the
solution of wait/monitor can be applied.
The toxicity is a factor, but so is pollution in general -
toxic or not. That singular concept should not be lost from
the discussion of USTs.
Sorry for the bandwagon.
Sam McClintock
sammcc@nando.net
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 05:41:30 GMT
"sdef!" wrote:
>For your information, weapons production is dependant on commercial
>power production, this is why the whole thing was foisted on us in the
>first place.
This is incorrect. The original Manhattan Project uranium was
separated at plants operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority -- a US
government created operation -- and the TVA has been the main source
of power for the weapons plants ever since.
The original source of plutonium was the Hanford Reservation, powered
by the Grand Coolee Dam -- a public work celebrated in the Communist
fok-song "Roll On Columbia." This, too, has remained in government
hands, and its major customer until recently has been weapons
production, modulo aluminum largely for military purposes.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: elmore@rastro.Colorado.EDU (ELMORE DANIEL JAMES)
Date: 23 Oct 96 06:33:43 GMT
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>(Magnus Redin) wrote:
>: We could run our economy on nuclear energy with near zero emissions
>: but that would require more of us to work with technicla stuff and
>: higher education. There would not be as much time for TV, computer
>: games, surfing on the net, etc. Horrible! Impossible! :-)
> We could indeed. And it will only require the construction of
>something on the order of 200,000 reactors that have todays average
>generating capacity.
> This is 400 times as many reactors than exist today,
Where are these figures coming from? As I understand it we have
something like 110 nuclear power plants in the US today, supplying us with
20% of our power. Thus it should only take another 440 plants to provide
us with all we currently need.
>meaning that
>every month an equivalent amount of waste will be produces as has been
>produced in the entire history of the nuclear industry so far.
By my calculation things only go up by an order of 5.
>Each
>month - given current accident rates - we can expect one Chornobyl, and
>one TMI, one Windscale and one Rocky Flats.
You are grossly oversimplifying. Chernobyl was grafite cooled
which made it a bitch to control and it had no containment dome. Only a
very few (and none of the newer ones) of American plants have these
characteristics, and none of the hypothitical new ones need to. In fact,
given deseign improvements, we should see the safety record go up. By your
way of thinking, we should be loosing nuclear subs left and right.
>Given the large number of
>sunken nuclear reactors we already have, we should expect several dozen
>of these each month as well.
What is a sunken nuclear reactor?
> Excuse me if I fail to support your fantasy. At a cost of around $400
>trillion, it seems most undesirable.
I think that it is you who has the fantasy.
Jim in Boulder
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: Martin Taylor
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:48:26 -0700
charliew wrote:
> Martin Taylor worte:
>>(SNIP) Does an individual have to recognise the societal
> implications of
> individual decisions, when it is the society within which
> the individual
> >lives which determines the bounds of the decision? Does an
> individual
> >have the right to pollute? Does an individual have the
> right to use
> >unlimited resources, or to add a large number of
> over-consumers?
> Charliew replied:
> Do environmentalists have the right to have any children at
> all? If you guys strictly enforced your stipulated policies,
> you would all immediately commit suicide! Obviously, your
> apparent hypocrisy doesn't make your arguments more
> convincing.
>
> ===================================================================
>
> For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
> http://www.hamblin.com
Your >over the top< reply does your point little credit; but I'll put it down to
necessary haste given the number of your postings. A couple of clarifications:
- I posed a number of questions, admittedly somewhat rhetorical, about any perceived
constraints to anarchical pursuit of personal gain. It seems from your replies to
other postings today that you don't see any, and that you believe that the US
Constitution provides all the legal support you need. I am surprised that the
founding fathers of your country saw no need impose some governance on individuals for
the benefit of the shared society.
-What defines an environmentalist? I doubt that any of those who know me, and employ
me, would classify me as an enemy of private industry (or life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness if that's the correct phrase). But I do believe that happiness
and a better life can be achieved by freely choosing and working towards a
lower-impact lifestyle, while making use of modern technology. To use a US
stereotype, somewhere between the plains indians and Buffalo Bill would be fine for
me.
- Yes I have the right to have children, three in fact. And the right to work as well
as I can to provide a good life for them. But those rights and others are not created
out of nothing. They are a product of a particular system of laws and customs that I
am lucky enough to have been born into. I believe that with these rights goes
reponsibility - don't you?
- I don't know which environmental creed advocates suicide, but that's your point
isn't it. However, I do make personal choices about the level of medical technology
which I am prepared to pursue in prolonging my life, and I support the rights of
others to make similar choices. I also choose not to donate to famine relief,
development funds, etc. where other societies have allowed themselves to over-exploit
their resources. I also do not support drought or flood payments to farmers in
Australia to continue non-sustainable farming practices, but I do support assistance
to get farmer numbers to sustainable levels. etc., etc.
- I have visited your web site and found it informative, as much about you as the
topics you comment on.
Keep up the entertainment - I love the jousting!
Regards, Martin
Subject: Re: URGENT CLIMATE ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: empty@colorado.edu (CU Student)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 08:08:44 GMT
In article <5402mk$ssn@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>, Philippe Pernstich wrote:
> URGENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
>
> WORLD-WIDE CAMPAIGN TO SEND DELUGE OF LETTERS AND E-MAILS TO NEW U.S.
> PRESIDENT
> AFTER NOVEMBER ELECTIONS
>
> Global warming is probably the gravest problem ever faced by humanity
> and,
> as the world's most powerful state and the biggest source of carbon
> dioxide
> emissions, the US will inevitably play the key role in determining how it
> is
> handled.
>
> Everyone who reads this can help to influence the way the United States
> reacts by sending the following message as soon as possible after the
> election result is known, by email, to President@whitehouse.gov with a
> copy
> to Vice.President@whitehouse.gov Alternatively, you can send letters by
> post
> to -
> The President of the United States, The Whitehouse, Washington D.C., USA
>
> Photocopy and email this letter to as many people as possible to make
> this
> the biggest ever blitz on the White House. Keep up the pressure to
> persuade
> the President to announce a campaign in his acceptance speech in January
> 1997.... [ect.]
What Bovi excrement.
Chill out, man!
Check out on the 'net.
NASA's global satellite temperature measurement have detected no net warming.
According to Robert C. Balling of Arizona State University in the book
, a little warming will likely be good for humanity.
.. besides, PResident Clinton eill probably be impeached by 1998; then
you'll have President AlGore to write your screeds to instead.
Orson Olson, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 05:03:53 GMT
mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) wrote:
>In article <54ij2g$g1s@news.inforamp.net>, dlj@inforamp.net (David
>Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>> mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) wrote:
>>
>> There are a dozen different things you can safely do with nuclear
>> waste, of which the most obvious is to put it down old uranium mines
>> where it came from in the first place.
>>
>Trouble with this is the nuclear waste has been transformed into much
>more dangerous substances than when originally mined.
>
Yeah, but the dzngerous stuff has half lives measured in terms from
seconds to two-digit years. One thing you can't deny: the total
amount of dangerous energy is less when it's been used once. :-)
Of course if you're leery about uranium mines, there are all those
holes out in Frenchman's Flats that were used for atom bomb tests.
None of them are going to suffer from having a few thousand tons of
"medical waste" dropped down the tube.
>> The only reason we have so much time and money being spent on the
>> question is that a whole lot of big construction and waste disposal
>> contractors see this business as a profitable business right now and a
>> potential goldmine over the long haul -- and the more worried they
>> keep people, the more they stand to make on the deal.
>>
>Although this may be partially true, it is not "the only reason." It has
>been the environmental movement that has primarily blown the whistle
>and environmentalists are not in it for the money, as demonstrated by
>the forest activists who put their asses on the line for no monetary gain.
But there is no big money to be made in forest conservation -- and no
big money, legislation, and bureaucracy coming to their support. In
nuclear power, by contrast, there are huge gains to be apportioned,
and the garbage people would like to take as much of the pie as they
can. Hence we see that they have lobbied like crazy, even unto
supporting crazed acidhead enviros no doubt, with the result of great
success: extremely high priced disposal methods, and endless delays,
all of which require more and more construction contracts for storage
of the few thousand cubic metres of crud already in existence...
-dlj.
>--
>Don McKenzie, Los Angeles, CA
>"Liberal: 1. Favorable to progress or reform..."
> Random House unabridged dictionary
Subject: Re: Please post any DATA from research on SECOND HAND SMOKE DANGERS.
From: empty@colorado.edu (CU Student)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 07:57:20 GMT
In article <32711cae.20591126@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, prupp@ix.netcom.com
(Rob) wrote:
>
> >Tim R. Benson wrote in article
> ><3260AB3B.FF6@iastate.edu>...
> >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME DATA ON SECOND HAND SMOKING OR SMOKING EFFECTS
> >> PERIOD.
> >
> >Please stop shouting we are not deaf.
> >
> > THERE IS ALOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IT CAUSES
> >> CANCER. THANK YOU! PLEASE POST REPLY
> >
> >This is only a minor fraction of research available.....
> >Look the rest up on your own.....
> >
> >ETS (Environmental tobacco smoke): The Problem
> >
> >As even a brief glance at the research will confirm, ETS is a public health
> >challenge of staggering proportions. It is estimated that 330 Canadians die
> >every year from lung cancer caused by exposure to ETS. The total number of
> >ETS-related deaths among otherwise healthy non-smokers in Canada is
> >currently estimated to range from 3,000 to 3,500 annually. Though this
> >figure clearly underscores the threat ETS poses to public health, it does
> >not convey the full extent of illness and disability resulting from ETS and
> >thus furnishes only an initial and partial description of the overall
> >health hazards of ETS. [3]
> >......etc.
Actually, in my intensive review of the ETS literature, one repeatedly
finds associations with ETS and some alleged harm, but the connection is
almost invariably weak. Those who state otherwise generally have some
political agenda
at stake, such as the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Evidence indicates that when EPA scientists failed to produce a
politically satisfactory report indicting ETS, the summary reviewers were
proded; when that failed, they were simply circumvented. (For
documentation, including correspondence from EPA scientists, see the
quarterly journal , 1994 and 1995 for details.)
These data (i.e., the EPAs), from a meta-analysis, failed to meet the
demands of statistical significance. Critics pointed out that a
preconceived conclusion
was employed, and evidence gathered to fit it; that ordinary tests of
statistical significance were evaded; that studies reaching contrary
conclusions were conveniently eliminated from the data set; etc. A sorry
story of political science prostituted for the sake of bureacratic
largese.
The end result is that ETS may well add fractionally to the bachground
of all lung cancers, but that risks of developing cancer from second hand
smoke are very very small.
How can I say this, depite all of the above? Because the largest scale
studies of never-ever smokers and lung cancer indicate that somethings
nonetheless going on with ETS and lung cancer, particularly with women.
Women have long been suspected of being especially vulnerable to smoking
related cancers; they also tend to develop more aggressive cancers, having
markedly higher rates of mortality than men. Whether hormonally related or
genetic, no one yet knows.
At any rate, the public heath problem seems to be what to do with those
who are vulnerable, since some are, and especially women, but at very low
rates for ETS compared to smokers ( of whom 1 in 3 will die of smoking
related causes)?
This was faced by Boulder, Colorado in 1995, which adopted, and later
voted on a smoking ban in most public spaces -- the sole exception being
bars, which may permit smoking if, and only if, equally smoke free
facilities, run by the same establishment are available.
This I found rediculously draconian, and continue to think so in the
year since. A sensible policy would require indoor air-cleaners of
appropriate volume, regular maintainence, and a posted public warning to
women, since they are uniquely vulnerable to ETS. THIS IS THe MAXIMUM
EFFORT I WOULD ACCEPT.
Accordingly, even as a lifetime nonsmoker, because of the smoking ban,
I've avoided patronizing businesses in Fascist Boulder -- for no matter
what the voters say,friendly (or not), Fascism it is!
If interest in this thread continues, I'll be happy to post a
bibliography of my findings.
Orson Olson, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder
Subject: RainForest Proj Directors & Volunteers-AFRICA/BRAZIL
From: crw@loop.com (crw)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 08:42:06 GMT
RE: Open Positions: Project Directors & Volunteers
Hi,
We would be especially grateful for any help in posting or announcing to
students, faculty and others our open application for Project Directors and
Volunteer positions in Operation Crossroads' Summer '97 Program. We will
operate in 20 countries -- in Africa and South America.
Information and applications are available by sending an E-Mail request to
the addresses below.
We anticipate around 25 projects and a need for 250 volunteers.
Thank you.
Best regards,
LaVerne & Cecil
crw@loop.com
Tel: 212-870-2106
_____________________________________________________________________
Rainforest, Ecology and the Environement: Africa & Brazil
B r a z i l i a n R a i n F o r e s t P r o j e c t s
<< B A H I A >>
One of the sites under consideration is the Mata Atlantica (Coastal Forest)
area in the Southern Cone of the State of Bahia. This is a place where local
poor communities are struggling to gain access to land via articulated
political effort. There are over a dozen officially recognized Land Reform
Settlemnts in this region, and the former landless peasants are willing now
to promote efforts to save the remnants of this unique patch of rich,
bio-diverse forest, as well as to secure their access to land by changing
the situation of Land Tenure in that area.
We have been recently contacted by leaders of these communities seeking help
with the various projects they deem vital. These projects will include
programs concerning Reforestation, Youth Development, Education and
Training, as well as Ecological Projects.
[Dr. Edmundo Freitas Lopes-Researcher/Project Developer]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[I N T'L S T U D I E S] [W O R K-T R A V E L] [I N T E R N S H I P S]
PROJECTS / RESEARCH / AREAS OF FOCUS
Ecology & Environment..Conservatiion..Traditional Medicine..Oral
History..Primary Care..Archaeology..Community Dev..Reforestation..Media
Distance Learning..Art..Ethnomusicology..Public Health..Construction
Wildlife..Humanities..Computer Literacy..Agriculture/Farming
Teaching/Tutoring..Business Dev..African/Brazilian Language Study
Youth Programs..Recreation..Traditional Religion..Anthropology
C O U N T R I E S: Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Eritrea, Ivory Coast,
Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Brazil
(in South America). Additional countries & projects to be announced
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C E L E B R A T I N G C U L T U R E A N D H I S T O R Y
___________________________________________________________________
GLOBAL VOLUNTEERS : A f r i c a & B r a z i l
* This year's theme: "Africa & Brazil, marching into the 21st Century"
Summer 1997
Living/Working/Traveling
Internships/Field Work/Group Projects
Independent Study
The Forgotten Human Face
H o w t o g e t V o l u n t e e r I n f o b y E - M a i l :
1] include your full street address, in case our
equipment malfunctions
2] E-Mail your request to <> addresses:
=> "Brochure\Application" <=
=> "Summer Prog: Africa\Brazil" <=
Include " --V O L U N T E E R-- " in the SUBJECT field
...or contact our office directly
by letter or phone
A L L A R E W E L C O M E
......................................................................
Project D I R E C T O R S / Group L E A D E R S go thru a separate
application process with earlier deadlines (min. age, 26 - with
relevant expertise, experience directing group projects, living
and/or travel experience in Africa or similar setting), experience
leading multi-racial/multi-ethnic work projects or groups
To receive the application and job description, snail mail us,
or send an E-Mail request to :
"Proj Dir\Info" ,
"Proj Dir\Packet"
1) with a brief description of your interests & background
[send us your snail mail address, phone & E-Mail]
2) include " --L E A D E R-- " in the SUBJECT field
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-Since 1957, 10,000 Crossroads participants (students, professionals,
persons with skills, persons of goodwill..and others) representing
over 500 universities, colleges, organizations, etc., have come
together to work for a better world
-Students usually arrange with their schools to receive credit for their
summer experience (typically 7 to 15 units)
-Cited by President Kennedy for providing the example that "inspired" the
creation of the Peace Corps, and on which the Peace Corps was
modeled
APPLICATION DEADLINE: Due now & during the coming weeks->cut off has not
yet been announced
Late applications **WILL** be accepted
but only as space and time permit
=> It's important to submit the application ASAP & to
reserve a place
Crossroads assists Volunteers in raising funds
for their travel/living expenses
PROGRAM DATES: End of June/early July through mid-August
(approx dates)
ORIENTATION: There will be a several-day Orientation in New
York prior to leaving. The program starts from
& ends in New York
-This is an INTENSE living, work and learning experience at the grassroots
level in Africa & Brazil where some of the modern conveniences taken
for granted in Western countries, will not be present
-Crossroads Volunteers go to Africa & Brazil NOT to impose their own
Western values, but to seek comprehension of counterpart
values; they are challenged to adjust to local ways of doing many
things
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O P E R A T I O N C R O S S R O A D S A F R I C A , I n c .
475 Riverside Dr., N.Y., N.Y. 10115-0050, Suite 831
212-870-2106 OFFICE / 212-870-2055 FAX / oca@igc.apc.org
...a non-profit org: IRS 501(c)(3)
Dr. James H. Robinson, Founder
LaVerne Brown - Executive Offices
Cecil R. Washington, Jr. - Project Consultant
______________
N O T E :
Any help in sharing, forwarding or posting this information would be
welcome!
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: Rod Adams
Date: 23 Oct 1996 08:26:17 GMT
mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) wrote:
>[snip]
>attribution unclear
>
>> "NUCLEAR POWER is safe, clean and cost competitive and widely
>> misunderstood."
>
>Former Gov. Jerry Brown had it right when he remarked {paraphrased}
>
>Nuclear power might be OK but we won't build any more in California
>until we *know* what to do with the radioactive waste. Well, it's been
>quite a few years and we still don't know what to do with the waste, which
>is unrelentingly piling up in every state with nuclear reactors.
>
>--
>Don McKenzie, Los Angeles, CA
>
>"Liberal: 1. Favorable to progress or reform..."
> Random House unabridged dictionary
Mr. McKenzie, have you ever actually seen a nuclear waste pile?
Since you are from Southern California, I can assume that you have
seen, quite visibly, the waste ditrius from competitive sources of
energy.
I find it very amusing when people ask me what to do with nuclear
waste. After I tell them exactly what is being done with it now,
(put into carefully monitored containers) and tell them what I plan
to do with it (recycle it into new fuel) they are still unsatisfied.
Then I ask them, "What do you do with the waste from your car?"
Of course, the answer that they usually have is that there is no
waste, which is the same answer that most power plant operators come
up with. Those people (most of us fall into this category) that
operate combustion powered equipment simply ignore the exhaust pipe
that spreads out the deadly waste products of combustion for all to
share.
Do you quarrel with my use of the word "deadly" to describe combustion
waste? It kills hundreds of people every year who find themselves
in poorly ventilated spaces with combustion exhaust products. On the
other hand, nuclear waste, though potentially deadly, has never killed
anyone in the United States. The difference is that the quantity is
small, it is easy to handle, and it can be completely contained at a
relatively economical cost.
Rod Adams
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: john@potter.ak.planet.gen.nz (John Potter)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 21:04:27 NZT
In <54jsn1$7j4_002@pm1-85.hal-pc.org> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>
>Apparently you just don't "get it". I have (in the U.S.) a
>Constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness. I take these words seriously, and I am
>not about to let ANY government authority tell me how big my
>family must be, or what my family values will be. I intend
>to raise my children as conservatives, with conservative
>morals and ethics, whether you or other liberals like it or
>not. If laws are passed that make this illegal, I will still
>pursue this policy, whether you or other liberals like it or
>not. And by the way, there isn't a whole hell-of-a-lot you
>can do about it, either.
>
OK, Charlie, go for it. Since it is now clear that you have no respect for
opinions other than your own, especially when they come from
environmentalists, why bother writing to an environmental newsgroup?
John Potter
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:18:10 GMT
jhavok@lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote for all to see:
>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>
>->jhavok@lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote for all to see:
>
>->>The Endangered Species Act has been used as a tool to slow
>->>out-of-control industry.
>
>->Now you lose me. I had thought that the Endangered Species Act was
>->intended to protect endangered species, now you appear to be saying
>->that you, at least, think it is really to slow down "out-of-control
>->industry"?
>
>Any hacker is realizes that purpose and usage are two different
>things...
>
Oh of course! Not being a hacker (my programming days ended in about
1975, as a matter of fact), I still understand, and was only trying to
quietly point out the hypocrisy of the backers of the Endangered
Species Act.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Regards, Harold
----
"American politics is being held hostage by big money interests. ...
[C]liques of $100,000 donors buy access to Congress and the White
House. ...We believe it's long past time to clean up Washington."
--Bill Clinton (Putting People First, p. 45)
"The Democratic National Committee is offering to sell private
dinners with President Clinton ...and other forms of exclusive access
to senior officials to party donors willing to pony up $100,000
or more."
--Los Angeles Times, 7/7/95
Subject: Re: Please post any DATA from research on SECOND HAND SMOKE DANGERS.
From: "Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:09:24 -0600
CU Student wrote:
> Evidence indicates that when EPA scientists failed to produce a
> politically satisfactory report indicting ETS, the summary reviewers were
> proded; when that failed, they were simply circumvented. (For
> documentation, including correspondence from EPA scientists, see the
> quarterly journal , 1994 and 1995 for details.)
> These data (i.e., the EPAs), from a meta-analysis, failed to meet the
> demands of statistical significance. Critics pointed out that a
> preconceived conclusion
> was employed, and evidence gathered to fit it; that ordinary tests of
> statistical significance were evaded; that studies reaching contrary
> conclusions were conveniently eliminated from the data set; etc. A sorry
> Orson Olson, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder
the last is a serious allegation. do you have any evidence?
people interested in the truth seriously consider results of valid meta-studies because they
increase n, the ability to detect associations (tho it is critical to compare the different
methodologies). even better, they allow more matching of data to test different hypothesis
& subhypothesis & 2-ry hypothesis, the better to show valid associations.
do you have any evidence that epa's metastudy was flawed (you're the one who apparently
read the critique, in what sounds like a political journal).
Subject: Re: Bicycling vs. riding the bus
From: Rich Petty
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:43:42 -0600
Here in SLC, Utah, we have Bike racks installed on
all of our busses. Cool eh?jim blair wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Remember back in the 1970's when high gas prices resulted in talk of
> commuter trains which would have flat cars with bike racks? Bike to the
> nearest station, and get on with your bike, to go from suburbs into town.
> This was being seriously suggested for Chicago.
>
> But then we were "saved" by the return of cheap gas!
>
> PS See "PRICE and POLLUTION" on my web page.
> --
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu)
> for a good time, call http://www.execpc.com/~jeblair/
--
---- _o
_o o_. _\<. _o 0/
_\<. |>0 O 'O 0\/<. V\_
O 'O O /TTTTTT\ 0 0./\o o|-<
<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>
Subject: Cr(VI)
From: ABrent
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:53:13 -0700
Hi,
A major concern thats coming up all over the show, is the impact of
Cr(VI) on the health of communities. The problem is, to do a multi
pathway RA you need to know the toxicity of a substance through
different intakes, e.g. inhalation, indigestion and dermal. We know
Cr(VI) is more toxic than the other Cr's, but we can't find any
published articles on the pathways. Anyone know about this?
E-mail me if you can: abrent@csir.co.za
Alan
Subject: Nation's Largest IAQ Conference Issues Call for Papers
From: iaqpubs@aol.com (IAQ Pubs)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 11:11:16 -0400
Indoor Environment '97 Announces
A Call for Papers
Chevy Chase, MD - IAQ Publications, Inc. is accepting papers for
presentation at the Indoor Environment '97 Conference and Exhibition,
slated for April 7-9, 1997 at the Hyatt Regency Baltimore on the Inner
Harbor in Baltimore, MD.
Papers on all aspects of indoor air quality are encouraged. The
conference's technical sessions will be organized into the following
tracks:
* Programs, Research & Standards
* Evaluation, Remediation & Prevention
* Healthy Building Management
Presenters are requested to submit a one page abstract by November 8. A
cover page should include the general topic and title of the paper, as
well as the name, company, address, and phone and fax numbers of the
person who will be presenting.
Indoor Environment '97 brings together the entire indoor air
community...from industry experts to political leaders....everyone
involved in shaping the future of the indoor environment marketplace.
More than 1,000 representatives of industry, government, public health,
research, medicine, law, safety and health, will meet and discuss issues
critical to indoor air quality.
Over 75 exhibitors will showcase the latest indoor air detection and
mitigation products, services and technologies at the Indoor Environment
'97 Exposition.
Indoor Environment '97 co-sponsors include the American Industrial Hygiene
Association, the National Institute of Building Sciences, the
Environmental Information Association, the U.S. Green Building Council,
Envirosense Consortium, the Association of Physical Plant Administrators,
the Clean Air Device Manufacturers Association, the American Association
of Radon Scientists, and the Total Indoor Environmental Quality Coalition.
Those interested in attending, presenting, or exhibiting at Indoor
Environment '97 should contact IAQ Publications, Inc. at: 2 Wisconsin
Circle, Suite 430 ; Chevy Chase, MD 20815 ;tel. (301) 913-0115 ;fax (301)
913-0119; E-mail: IAQpubs@aol.com.
###
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictioRs
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:34:09 GMT
Leonard Evens wrote for all to see:
>John McCarthy wrote:
>>
>> Suppose I believe the infamous sentence from the IPCC report about a
>> "significant signal". I still don't favor costly action now.
>The issue of whether or not a signal has been detected does not have a
>lot to do with whether or not one favors action now. The signal
>detection issue is a technical one in time series analysis.
I understand this to ba an admission that Leonard is conceding that
John is correct in his point.
>The
>reasons for deciding action is desirable are that even simple physical
>models suggest that unrestrained growth in greenhouse gas concentrations
>will result in significant climate change.
You say even "simple physical models" in a fashion which leads me to
believe that you consider the use of a "simple model" to be convincing
evidence. I, on the other hand, am very suspicious when I see someone
appeal to "simple models", since an axiom of such is that much is left
out of such a model.
>I happen to believe on the
>basis of what I know that such change is more likely to be malign for
>our species than benign, but the point is that if we wait to find out,
>because of the time lags involved, we will be stuck with the
>consequences of our actions for quite a while.
Here we get back to the same kind of sales we see, but in a more
sophisticated context. The is a dressed up threat, of "do what I
think is best for us, or you will suffer!"
In addition, the effect cannot be measured, we resort to "simple
models", so how do you know what the lag time is?
>I think that even if
>one thinks that the probability of malign significant effects is less
>than 1/2, say only 1/4, the expected loss is large enough to start
>taking moderate measures now.
The expected loss is not expected by everyone, but only some.
>These should be measures which have
>positive aspects as things in themselves. For example, moving away
>from them internal combustion engine will solve a lot of pollution
>problems.
Here, we get into the problem of replacement. What do you want to use
that makes less CO2? And how would your government force people to
"move away" from IC engines?
>As we get further knowledge, we can relax if we learn that
>significant climate change is either very unlikely or likely to occur
>very slowly, or we can take more serious measures if the opposite
>becomes clear. I don't see how on the basis of what we now know
>scientifically, one can rationally argue for no response at all.
Sure, you see these everday, they simply interfer with your faith, and
hence you ignore their validity.
In any case, if WRI is correct, and if oil production will peak in
2004 (they are not, probably), then we need not worry so much. As
soon as the price of oil and gas rise, IC use will drop as the market
replaces it with something less expensive.
In the meantime, this is the same old car salesman, telling us he
knows what we need, and "simple models" show us what will happen if we
do not buy this right now it will be too late!
Regards, Harold
----
"[I will] end the unlimited `soft' money contributions that are
funneled through national, state, and local parties to presidential
candidates."
--Bill Clinton (Putting People First, p. 46)
"[Clinton's] appearance at [a] Democratic National Committee dinner
was picketed by Common Cause. The group is upset that Clinton's
performance in pushing campaign reform has not matched his rhetoric
and that his party has outraised the GOP in the large `soft money'
donations he promised to end."
--The Washington Post, 6/24/94
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: Bill Toman
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:58:20 -0400
Jay Hanson wrote:
>
> Bill Toman wrote:
>
> > Actually, Jay, so far your URL's have not been pointed to places like
> > the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the
> > Advancement of Science, a major university or, for that matter, the
>
> This tells me that you haven't looked at my web pages
> (I have 55 of them). Perhaps you don't have web access?
> If so, plaese say so, I will email my references to you.
>
> > BTW, Make mine an Ali'i :-)
>
> Make it a double!
>
> Jay
When I find time to read 50 or so web pages, I put it in the queue.
BTW, here's a short news item about future energy...it's name is
gas-fired electricity.
Middle East oil kings turn to gas
DUBAI, The Reuters European Business Report via Individual Inc. : Middle
East oil exporters are adding another string to their bow by developing
their gas reserves to meet Asian power demand in the next century.
Gas, previously flared across the Middle East as a waste product, is now
a high value commodity that could emerge as one of the financial
foundations for many of the region's energy-dependent states.
Exporting gas trapped under the desert sands or shallow waters of the
Gulf is being realised through multi-billion-dollar liquefied natural
gas (LNG) projects and cross-border pipeline projects with the help of
foreign backing.
The investments are being made to take advantage of forecasts of surging
power generation demand for gas, particularly in South Korea and other
thirsty Asian gas importers.
``Asia will continue to be the world's primary demand centre,'' Nelson
said.
A flood of LNG and pipeline projects from Iran to Yemen are based on the
abundant gas reserves held in the region, second only to those in
Russia.
Iran's reserves are independently assessed at 742 trillion cubic feet,
giving the Islamic republic a staggering reserve to production ratio of
595 years.
Qatar, which has the largest non-associated gas field outside the former
Soviet Union, has a reserve production rate of 525 years.
The sultanate of Oman -- until now a medium-sized oil producer -- will
take its major step into the gas export business on Wednesday when it
signs a 25-year LNG supply deal with South Korea's Korea Gas Corp.
Qatar will start to reap the rewards of its first joint venture gas
project with foreign firms when its Qatargas LNG project sends its first
tanker to Japan in December.
Iran, sitting on the world's second largest reserves of gas behind
Russia, is eyeing laying gas pipelines to Europe after signing a $23
billion supply deal with Turkey in August and is reviving plans for its
own LNG project.
snip..
Bill Toman