Subject: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with climate predictions )
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 25 Oct 1996 17:11:03 GMT
Don McKenzie wrote:
>
> > I'll forbear (unless you ask) to post any of the dozens of case where
> > environmentalist scare tactics have claimed lives.
>
> OK, I'm asking. Na me a few *documented* cases "where environmentalist
> scare tactics have claimed lives."
>
I'm a bit swamped today, Don, so I'll only hit a few things that leap to
mind, instead of dragging out a a few thousand pages of reference
materials. False alarms such as red dye #2 and the infamous
mercury-in-fish scare (which evaporated when it was shown that fish caught
in the 1800s had as much or more mercury in them) don't normally kill
people, so I'll skip those as well. On to cases where radical
environmentalism kills.
An internal EPA study in the late 80's produced a report that chlorinated
drinking water could cause cancer, based on the reasoning that chlorine
_might_ convert to chloroform and chloroform is considered to be a
_possible_ albeit extremely weak carcinogen. The study was ignored by US
officials, but Peru was not quite so lucky. They stopped chlorinating
their water and quickly experienced a cholera epidemic. The human cost:
5000 dead, 600,000 wounded. This is documented in the November 28, 1991
issue of Nature.
The Alar scare ruined the economic future and hopes of a few thousand apple
farmers, but there were no direct deaths...unless you count a couple of
suicides, so I'll skip that and move on to malaria and DDT. In 1948, there
were 2.8 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, and approximately 27,000
deaths. Soon thereafter, Sri Lanka began using DDT to control mosquito
populations and by 1963 had reduced the malaria count down to an incredible
17 cases. However, in 1967, the US convinced Sri Lanka to suspend DDT use,
and by 1969, malarial incidence had quickly risen to 2.5 million per year.
Worldwide, of course, the same was true. The cessation of DDT caused a
tremendous rise in the disease at a point when expectations were that
malaria would quickly be eradicated. Soon after the worldwide ban, malaria
deaths reached an alltime high of 8.2 million per year.
An interesting comment on the environmentalists attitude towards this is
found in the book 'Toxic Terror', by radical environmentalist Elizabeth
Whelan. In a footnote, Chalres Wursta, chief scientist for the
Environmental Defense Fund, acknowledges the life-saving abilities of DDT,
but states this contributes to overpopulation and that the DDT ban is "as
good as way to get rid of them as any".
Of course, 8 million dead per year might be worth it, if DDT is harmful.
However, all research has proven to the contrary. (Jones, Pamela, 1989,
'Pesticides and Fod Safety', American Council on Science and Health, and
Jukes, Thomas H., 'Insecticides in Health, Agriculture, and Environment',
Naturwissenshaften, 1974) The highest level of DDT exposure due to
environmental persistence ever recorded was 0.065 milligrams/day. In one
study, human volunteers were fed 35 milligrams of DDT a day for over two
years. No harmful effects were noted.
I can also name many, many instances where such environmental
misinformation actually harms the environment it's claiming to help. A
couple of examples: the waste generated by coal-fired power plants
generates in the US alone several million tons of airborne pollution
annually, much of which is highly carcinogenic. The EPA estimates that as
many as 50,000 deaths annually can be attributed to this (I won't dispute
their figure for now, but I do think it's high.) Conversion to nuclear
power would eliminate this pollution, saves lives and money...except that
nuclear power plants are rarely feasible, due to stifling regulation and
inflated costs from legal challenges and construction delays.
Another: one of the largest consumers of electric power is commercial
refrigeration for food storage. The bulk of this could be eliminated by
irradiation. For those unfamiliar with the process, sealed food products
are exposed to gamma radiation, which kills all pathogens. The result is a
safer product that (as long as it stays sealed) doesn't require
refrigeration. This is the process used by most foodstuffs shipped on the
space shuttle. Irradiation could safe trillions of megawatt-hours of
electricity and reduce the annual death count from contaminated food--- but
every attempt to initiate commercial use results in outcries from
environmental organizations who claim that gamma rays somehow "stay in"
food. Of course, gamma rays are simply a more energetic form of light, and
many studies and human trials have proven the safety of the process, but
the superstition remains. So commercial refrigeration continues to
consume valuable resources.
I'll name one last example, though its cost has been mainly economic,
simply for the sheer stupidity of it. Crocidolite, commonly known as "blue
asbestos" was found to be carcinogenic _under_ conditions of heavy
exposure. So, based on a linear exposure model, exposure to asbestos was
banned. However, there are at least six types of asbestos. The type
known as chrysotile is the type commonly used in building insulation. The
EPA demands removal of chrysotile asbestos from buildings even though:
1) chrysotile is generally considered benign
2) the removal process typically causes airborne asbestos counts to
increase by up to 40,000X, and remain elevated for many years.
3) Far better methods (such as overcoating) would be safer and cheaper.
Oh, the example of sheer stupity I promised you? Near San Francisco there
exists 16 square miles of bare chrysotile-rich rock. Locals breath
chrysotile-rich air and drink chrysotile-laden water, and have been doing
so for generations, with no increased-incident of lung cancer (or any other
sort) Yet, due to EPA regulations, all chrysotile was removed from local
schools, even though the natural air outside contained asbestos counts many
hundreds of times higher than EPA-allowed levels.
-Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Crying cockles and mussels / alive, alive, oh!"
Subject: Re: Dangerous levels of smog in Mexico City
From: Bill Toman
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:16:54 -0400
Will Stewart wrote:
>
> CALSTART News Notes
> Mexico City Smog Reaches Danger Levels
> 10/18/96, Mexico City - Mexico City smog officials ordered 40 percent
> of the city's vehicles from the roads earlier this week when ozone
> levels rose 2.5 times above international health limits, report news
> sources. Schools were told to keep children inside, and drivers may
> now drive only three out of five work days. Large industries must cut
> production by 40 percent; high-polluting factories and a number of
> city gas stations have been closed. A study reports 70 percent of the
> city's smog comes from the city's 3.5 million motor vehicles, half of
> which still operate on leaded gasoline. The exhaust from these cars
> often gets trapped along with other noxious fumes in the bowl-shaped
> valley. The World Health Organization says one-hour exposure to ozone
> levels over 100 are dangerous to human health; this week ozone levels
> hit 256. Record ozone levels earlier this year also set the city's
> emergency program into action. (News Notes 1/25).
Hi Will,
I lived in Mexico City in 1994-1995. Imagine having a sore throat for 5
months out of the year. Winter is the worst, unlike LA (where I've also
lived) where summer is the worst. An amazing, bumbling bureaucratic
"fix" to the dual problem of too much traffic and too much auto
pollution was to require, based upon your license plate, that a car not
"circulate" one day of the week. The following market response
occurred:
1) The already terminally corrupt police force stopped all police
activities except for looking for cars driving on their rest day. This
was because there was a stiff fine for this infraction, there was no
denying that the car pulled over was barred from driving on this rest
day, and drivers were extremely quick to settle for a 50% cash discount
on the fine.
2) The income distribution in Mexico is so skewed, that anyone who
afford to own one car, could afford to own two. So people drove the
second (generally more polluting) car on the primary car's rest day.
So not only was traffic not reduced, but total air pollution increased
as a result of this policy.
The beneficiaries of this policy were car dealers and policemen, and the
losers were the public and the environment. Now that's government for
the people!
Bill Toman
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with climate predictions )
From: TL ADAMS
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:14:00 -0700
Mike Asher did Troll and spout falsehouds of omission and deception:
>
> Don McKenzie wrote:
> >
> False alarms such as red dye #2 and the infamous
> mercury-in-fish scare (which evaporated when it was shown that fish caught
> in the 1800s had as much or more mercury in them) don't normally kill
> people, so I'll skip those as well. On to cases where radical
> environmentalism kills.
Great Lakes Fishes had greatly elevated levels of Mercury.
>
> An internal EPA study in the late 80's produced a report that chlorinated
> drinking water could cause cancer, based on the reasoning that chlorine
> _might_ convert to chloroform and chloroform is considered to be a
> _possible_ albeit extremely weak carcinogen. The study was ignored by US
> officials, but Peru was not quite so lucky.
By-products of disinfection is a fairly serious concern amoung drinking
water
professionals. Any half-ass competent chemist can show the levels of
chloroform
and other chlorinated chemicals that occur in your drinking water.
There is also
epidemilogical data directly linking chlorinated water to increases in
liver
and pancreatic cancer. Many water suppliers have switched to the
European
Ozone treatment or to the chloroamine treatment system. The study was
not ignored
by US officals, just of doing a comparitive risk review no one was
foolish enough
to stop chlorination of drinking water.
>
> Of course, 8 million dead per year might be worth it, if DDT is harmful.
> However, all research has proven to the contrary. (Jones, Pamela, 1989,
> 'Pesticides and Fod Safety', American Council on Science and Health, and
> Jukes, Thomas H., 'Insecticides in Health, Agriculture, and Environment',
> Naturwissenshaften, 1974) The highest level of DDT exposure due to
> environmental persistence ever recorded was 0.065 milligrams/day. In one
> study, human volunteers were fed 35 milligrams of DDT a day for over two
> years. No harmful effects were noted.
So, if we completely removed all terminal chain predators from the
planet. If no
Osprey or Eagle, Vulture or Buzzard, this would not be a harmful
effect????
Damnation, you are a complete fool. DDT was on the verge of completely
destroying
every major ecosystem on the planet, but no harmful effects were noted.
When would
harmful effects be noted, when every bird on the planet was extinct,
would that be
a bad thing? This is so silly to be ludicrious, there are various and
effective
treatments for the controlling of malaria, ones that don't cause
environmental suicide.
> Conversion to nuclear
> power would eliminate this pollution, saves lives and money...except that
> nuclear power plants are rarely feasible, due to stifling regulation and
> inflated costs from legal challenges and construction delays.
If nuclear power plant had been built with appropriate care, as opposed
to
faked safety reports, substandard construction, concrete bubbles,
falsified welding
reports and this is the short list of complaints against a site like
Marble Hill.
And don't lie to the net about the cost of nuclear power. If industry
had to pay
for the full cost of the fuel and disposial, instead of being born of
the backs
of the tax payers, then no plant would have ever been construted.
Subject: Social planning & free markets (Was: Re: Alliance FTT beats the `bears'? (Was: Re: Alliance's) Financial Transaction Tax (was Poverty is alive) and well in NZ))
From: bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 18:18:02 GMT
On sci.environment and nz groups
Gary Elmes (gazza@iconz.co.nz) wrote:
: In article <54j4em$n5p@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) wrote:
: >And a corollary of what you say is to make something scarce in order to
: >change its value like housing when it is being produced more cheaply and
: >should be mopre available as Graham infers. Or oversupplied like labour
: >to devalue it. In other words the money is made the master rather than
: >the economic servant.
:
: Sorry, who is "making housing scarce"?
What is the economics which is making fewer people own their own houses?
It is a system where you charge what you can get. It is so strange that
the cost of carpeting a new house in New Zealand is equal to the cost of the
timber in it. In a wool producing country carpet should not be very dear.
: Who is "making labour oversupplied"? :
Possibly the drug lifestyle has changed technical ability leaving too
much unskilled labour available.
Then improved technology has reduced manpower needs in areas like
Telecom, and the wire people need other skilling.
: Did somebody pass a law saying nobody could build houses? Is the Government
: going around burning down every third house?
I thought it might be possible to have a society where the laws are not
so important, where people are pleased to do what they see is good for
the future thousands of years. Of course in the market conditions the
higher cost housing is still going. Something getting to 1/3 shortage of
housing in some areas might be occuring. TV watching, being done for lots
of time, has value. But getting out and doing things is needed for human
development, too. Some sort of management is needed to empower activity.
The city builds playgrounds. Why does it build the number it builds? I
invite you to look at my article on sci.environment about city space or
planning for some thoughts. The market alone is not sufficient from
future needs planning, I say. The market puts lots of ads on TV. How much
time is spent watching those repeated things? Thanks that some political
parties suggest fewer TV ads. That might be a problem for a number of
persons who know how not to watch them and use the ad time for other
things. That danger needs addressing, too. Metaphorical burning of
houses, the loss of future opportunity _is_ happening. And bridges are
being burnt.
:
: Are children being dragged out of the classes and forced into factories?
I have said that the classrooms should be made factories for a little of
the week. The product could just be singing for the geriatric market.
There is some constraint to be doing unsuitable work. The idea is to make
the ecomomy better by having jobs a little scarce therefore having people
the ones employed working harder. I wonder, though, about whether working
hard is really of value in itself. I remember warnings at exam time about
how stimulants make people work harder but may not improve the value of
the product. Your signature mentions Bernard Shaw. I am wondering what
he, and the other Fabian Socialists say about it. I suspect that the work
of Annie Besant forming the Match Makers Union and improving the
conditions of women was a start to a better Britain.
: : : [snip]
: >: My neighbour is free to pursue his health however he sees fit; I wish him
: >: well.
: >
: >Whether we are speaking of physical, emotional or intellectual fitness
: >the drive of employment usually is quite important in the equation.
:
: My neighbours "employ" themselves in all manner of gainful ways. Some do a job
: of paid work. Some look after their kids. Some stay at home and concetrate on
: turning their garden into a pride & joy.
:
: _You_ may have been indoctrinated into the old protestant work ethic. But
: please spare the rest of us.
Now we are talking the same language. Why does unemployment have such
a horror image? It needn't but what planning is needed if drug
dependence/gang sociology isn't to replace it?
:
: >You value your neighbours' health, then how do you propose to indicate
: >that value?
:
: To whom do I need to "indicate" the value of my neighbour's health?
:
: To you? Bugger off, it's nothing to do with you.
:
: To my neighbour? Perhaps, but that is a matter for me and my neighbour.
I have said that we should be poking our noses into the affairs of our
Brazilian neighbours from the forest/oxygen point of view. And perhaps
the Indian neighbours, unless lots more people are going to love being
Indians since they have not got to family planning like the Chinese.
You think you can keep your neighbours to yourself but I might be with
them on the bus. Then they are my neighbours, too. I hope that together
we travel in a non-polluted atmosphere. Or should each person be taking
his own respirator?
OK so you and your neighbours like loud rock music. There are limits on this
planet as to how far I can get from you. Everyone is my neighbour. And I
feel sad when I should be thinking of learning sign language to
communicate because people are being deafened.
: :
[snip]
: >That is interesting - people's wants affecting values. Just what I was
: >saying about the market increasing values of houses till they are
: >overvalued, or currency.
:
: If nobody wants something, then it is, ipso facto, valueless.
:
: Value is a function of wants and scarcity. If nobody wants it, or it ain't
: scarce, then it ain't valuable. to define value otherwise is to descend into
: mysticism.
:
Scarcity is related to space and time separation. Gold had tremendously
decreasing purchasing power as one travelled towards the gold mining areas
of previous century America. And what is not `valuable' now will be later
as resources are used. If current economics continue, even the
future scarcity of air could become a big money spinner for some. Do we
want that? Having to buy air? The carbon tax now has something to do with
it. Christchurch people have voluntarily saved water, so metered charging
has not had to be introduced. That is a saving in accounting, too.
I challenge your classing of future planning as mysticism.
: : [snip]
: >I have said before that keeping people tied up with playing around with
: >money could be a saving on the environment. A better answer is improved
: >time calculation and control in economics. Better brains than those
: >locked into the present by pot smoking are needed.
:
: Banks do not pay people to play silly buggers with their cash because they are
: keen to protect the environment!
What is the world's top corporation and is it starting to look at future
resource management? Perhaps it will start to draw your little banks into
line.
:
: Banks incur the costs of doing business on financial markets because it is
: necessary to provide their customers with the services that their customers
: are prepared to pay for.
:
: Do you seriously think that banks would incur these costs if it wasn't
: necessary to provide a level of service?
Futures to you mean insurance against goods whose planing/production is a
few months, perhaps. Some people have centuries in mind.
:
: +---------- gazza @ iconz.co.nz is Gary Elmes, Auckland, NZ --------+
: |"The reasonable man adapts himself to the World, the unreasonable one|
: |persists in trying to adapt the World to himself. Therefore all |
: |progress depends on unreasonable men." - George Bernard Shaw |
: +--------------- public PGP key available on request -----------------+
Brian Sandle. Followers may be led astray.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk (A. Whitworth)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:03:38 +0100 (BST)
In article <329c6c71.375418763@news.primenet.com>,
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:48:10 +0100 (BST), CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk
(A.
>Whitworth) wrote:
>
>>In article <326C078B.72D@easynet.co.uk>, "sdef!"
>> wrote:
>>>John Moore wrote:
>>
>>>> Clue: climatologists study global warming.
>>>
>>>So do ecologists...
>>>andy
>>
>>So do political scientists. Get interdisciplinary!!
>
>Politicial scientists?
>
>I doubt it.
>
>They may study the politics of global warming, or the
political impact
>of the issue, or the construction of political systems that
fit
>someone's idea of a solution to global warming.
But that is the whole bloody point!!!!!!
You can study the physical consequences all you like but
without some idea of the political forces that are maintaining
global warming - or the political forces that some say have
invented the whole idea of global warming - nothing will be
done about it one way or the other. As many have been at pains
to point out in this thread, the economy and the environment
are interlinked, and an economy is a political and social
arena as well as an economic one. Global warming is thus a
climatological, environmental, political, social, and
economical issue. No part of the web can be detached from the
others.
>
>But I have heard of no economists digging ice cores or
running global
>circulation models.
As a political scientist, I would not presume to do so. Nor,
however, would I assume the climatologist in Antarctica to be
as fully conversant as I with some of the political issues
surrounding the global warming debate. Interdisciplinarity is
valuable, and IMO it's about time groups stopped "claiming"
issues as their own and worked together. Mr. Moore's narrow-
mindedness may well be one of the reasons why there is so much
mutual suspicion and confusion in this debate.
>For that matter, a similar thing can be said for ecologists.
They may
>study the impact of global warming on environmental systems,
and they
>may detect ecological changes that must be weight when
looking for the
>(so far absent) signature of global warming.
Great! Long may they continue to do so!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bring a Mr. Potato Head and make it look
like someone you know"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: US Study shows how to eliminate Dioxin
From: jsmolen@bcm.tmc.edu (Jim Smolen)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:27:10 GMT
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>
>: - Monsanto workers exposed in 1949 to exposures of excess of 250,000X
>: allowed EPA levels have been continously monitored for four decades. No
>: longterm effects were noted.
>
>No details given.
>
>: - Residents of Seveso, Italy, who were dusted with dioxin due to a plant
>: explosion in 1976, received 20-100 billion times the EPA allowed levels.
>: Some developed a short-term skin rash, similar to acne. No fatalities,
>: elevated cancer levels, or long-term effects were recorded. (Joan Beck,
>: Chicago Tribune.)
>
>Was a proper study done, and published, or was this an uncritical
>passing on of something handed to the Chicago Tribune?
>
>(See _Toxic Sludge is Good for You_ by J Stauber and S Rampton for an
>in-depth study for how that's done).
>
>: Dioxin is certainly a dangerous group of chemicals--- to guinea pigs, who
>: for some reason are extremely sensitive. Hamsters, rats, pigs, and humans
>: on the other hand, are not. (Roger Letts, 1966. "Dioxin in the
>: environment: its effects on human heath." American Council on Science and
>: Heath report.)
>
>Is this really 1966 or should it have been 1996? Who funded the report?
>I don't have to ask if it was peer-reviewed because in this case it
>clearly wasn't.
Data of this sort have been available in the secondary scientific
litereature for years. Check out Bruce Ames' publications in Science
as well as an article in Scientific American approx 5 years ago on the
toxicity (or rather lack thereof in humans) of dioxins.
Subject: Re: MTBers Trashing One of the Last Virgin Forests in Iowa!
From: Mike Edgar
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:33:03 +0100
In article <54j28j$d3i@cronkite.cisco.com>, "Tien D. Do"
writes
>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
...NY, Boston (Family), Dallas and FW, Atlanta, Tulsa, Hawaii, Oregon,
San Fran', please don't ask me for all the dates, I only keep diaries
for 5 years. I have not included the rest of the world, as this would
exceed the 64k.
>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.
>
....... why not.. ?, you should be,.... it could happen anywhere that
business controls politicians, and despite your Freedom of Information
Act (something we do not have here). I assume you have heard of the
Global Village... ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Edgar "the line between human and nonhuman is, like all lines,
one that should be drawn in pencil, so that it can be moved to accommodate
moral evolution and the realization of moral reality." Prof. Gary L. Francione
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: M Sandberg
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:06:50 -0700
Doug Bebb wrote:
> David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> > 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.
Depends on what you call dangerous. If you count short term (10-100 year)
used uranium is more dangerous than the ore it came from. If you do not
reprocess the spent fuel and thus do throw away the plutonium then the
moment when the fuel goes less dangerous is 100s-1000s years, if you
reprocess the fuel and burn all the plutoniun the break even point goes
down to 10s-100s years, the lower limit applies if you send the other
transuranium stuff in to (Americum pPolonium etc) If you took the decay
products from the ore and sent them in to the breakeven point goes
even lower. If you want it to go even lower you could send in the most
troubblesome elements from the ash (the fission produckts) and transmute
them into shortlived products.
> > 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. :-)
> This is just plain wrong. While I forget the exact data on all of the
> vast array of nuclear by-products, I believe that the half-life of
> Cesium137 is about 16,000 years.
Wrong, Half life: 30.1 Y (source
(BTW
is a wery good source for nuclear data. It contains almost all nucleids
that have messaured data, halflife, cross section, production, decay mode,
and a lot more. I have not yet found any missprint or any absence of
data, lets hope there is no error.)
You might be thinking about Cs135, Half life: 2.3E+6 Y (Source
It was things like this I talked about above, if you separate a few
elements you can separate almost all the longlived radioactivity for
a small cost.
> The fact that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for this stuff
> to decay to background levels pales in comparison to the dangers
> posed by its toxicity.
Yes, but the tinme it takes for the original stuff to decay is even
longer. The important thing is not when the radioactivity reaches
background level (Which background? chalk or granite or oilk shale?)
but the time until the total danger of the mine spoil + spent fuel
( + other waste like activated metal) is less than the original ore.
You can chose your time somewhat by reprocessing, and I wold like to
see a pilot plant that extracted all isotopes with half life over
5-10 y in order to transmute them in a reactor, preferably a fast
breeder. It would be interesting to see what kind of cost that would
be, specially if it was a commercial service.
> Take radium226 or plutonium as examples. Both are poisonous if
> ingested.
Radium is not produced in a reactor, it is a decay product of uranium
and one of the worst problems in mining, and in pollution around
uranium bearing ground.
Plutonium if fuel and should be burnt. It is only the scare of
nuclear bomb making that have stopped all reprocessing of fuel
so that we at present can not burn it. The better they can make the
fuel elements, the less plutonium for the same energy out. At present
they must remove the fuel elements long before they have reached
the maximum possible burnout. Most of the plutonium produced are
usually burnt before end of use.
> The amount of a radioactive substance which is lethal when ingested is
> called its body-burden. A handful of radium226 comprises the
> body-burden to off about 100,000 people.
As said, one reason to burn the uranium to stop production of radium.
> Perhaps you can begin to understand why long-term storage of radioactive
> waste is a problem. Any plan to do this must provide protection against
> groundwater leaching for hundred of thousands of years.
Only if you store raw burnt fuel. If you reprocess it the timescale
is a lot less.
In general it is no big problem to store it for that timescale,
you have a lot of natural examples that it is easy. The most famous is
Okla mine in africa where they had a natural reactor that burnt up up
to half the U235. All the resulting nucleotides are still within a few
feet of the place where they were generated millions of years later.
This is despite the fact that there have been a constant flow of
groundwater. (When the water boiled the reactor went subctitical
and stopped, when flow of water coled the reactor again it went
critical and started again until to much U235 was burnt. There
was a constant flow of water, and still is.)
The big problem is proving that the burial system works and now
the anti nuclear power have generally given up on thet to and
point to the danger of somebody rwe-mining the area or using
the hot rock for geotermal production and thus breaking
containment.
> PS. The idea that terrorists might make atomic bombs seems a foolish
> worry.
> Why would they bother when all they have to do is to throw the stuff
> into
> the water reservoir.
Would not work. Much easier to throw some normal chemicals like mercury
or cadmium (or some LSD). Why bother bu the way when you probably could
buy one russian bomb for a lot less money than the cost of making one.
Of course the risk is you or the russian will be caught, but the risk
is small. There are rumors of more than a dozem bombs lost from
accounting and nobody nows whether they are scrapped or lost or illegally
sold. The guess that I have is they mislaid some and forgot that they
dismantled the other.
> Doug Bebb
The reason I answered at length is that these are a lot of errouneous
myths that are spread by the scaremongers and wery seldom contradicted.
SAG
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: nahay@pluto.njcc.com (John Nahay)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 18:18:49 GMT
Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: You're misunderstanding capitalism, of course. All the succesful
: socialists get stinking rich. They just do it with money they've taken,
: instead of money they've earned.
But, the capitalists have not "earned" it all their wealth by any means:
they've gotten it by decimating forests. If it were not for EarthFirsters
and environmentalists like Teddy Roosevelt, modern-day capitalists would
not even be alive. They would all be dead because there would not be a tree
left for them to cut down or they would be drinking plutonium-filled water.
I personally don't care whether the system is Capitalist or Communist.
But, it doesn't matter what environmentalists say on THAT issue, even if
they choose the wrong economic system. That still is no excuse for someone
wiping out entire ecosystems just for another shopping mall or Chernobyl.
(There may exist other excuses, but for all practical purposes in the real
world today, there are not.)
: > True. Lets start metricizing... How much are your childrens lives
: > worth to you? Assuming you set a dollar value on their lives, I
: > take it that you will agree to having them murdered for that price plus
: > one penny.
I DO agree with the anti-environmentalists that ALL decisions among various
objective functions require FINITE values for comparison. So, we do have to
put a FINITE value on either
1) life, or
2) quality of life: minimization of work, maximization of freedom,
minimization of pain.
: Bad tactic, there. Radiical environmentalists are rarely concerned with
: human life.
: I'll forbear (unless you ask) to post any of the dozens of case where
: environmentalist scare tactics have claimed lives. I'll simply post a
: couple comments from "respected" environmental leaders.
So, those environmentalists save more human lives in the long term.
And, it's not just saving lives: it is quality of life for humans and
animals in the future.
It is absolutely positively no different than any cop or military person
who harms or kills or imprisons someone for some greater benefit.
: (after being asked about reincarnation)
: "I would wish...to return as a killer virus to lower human population
: levels"
: - Prince Phillip, while leader of the World Wildlife Fund
:
: "I got the impression that, instead of going out to shoot birds, I should
: shoot the kids that shoot birds"
: - Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace
:
: "If environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations
: back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."
: - from the Earth First newsletter, ref. December 1989
: Yes, you radical environmentalists certainly do love life, don't you?
That's right. Just like you fanatical anti-environmentalists love life
and quality of life by
supporting the death penalty or prisons, going hunting or eating meat or
buying fur or
coats or going through some dumb religious ritual at church, which is money
you could be spending on helping the homeless or the poor.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Kathryn Ostertag
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:57:58 -0500
The Endangered Species Act has been a great help in saving many animals,
such as the peregrine falcon, the red wolf, the bald eagle, and the list
goes on and on. I hope that everyone here is going to be backing it, so
our children's children can enjoy the same species of animals and plants
that we have been able to enjoy.
--Scout
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 jhavok@lava.net wrote:
> brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>
> ->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.
>
> So where is the contradiction between the deeper purpose of the
> Endangered Species Act, and using it as a tool to save whole
> ecosystems?
>
> If the act was being used to ruin an industry out of maliciousness,
> then it would be hypocrisy.
>
> Get off it, Brashears. You're a fine one to point fingers.
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with climate predictions )
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:04:56 -0700
Mike Asher provides a more comprehensive list:
I'm a bit swamped today, Don, so I'll only hit a few things that leap
to
mind, instead of dragging out a a few thousand pages of reference
materials. False alarms such as red dye #2 and the infamous
mercury-in-fish scare (which evaporated when it was shown that fish
caught
in the 1800s had as much or more mercury in them) don't normally kill
people, so I'll skip those as well. On to cases where radical
environmentalism kills.
I reply:
Thanks for providing the references for the above research when you
find them...
He continues...
An internal EPA study in the late 80's produced a report that
chlorinated
drinking water could cause cancer, based on the reasoning that
chlorine
_might_ convert to chloroform and chloroform is considered to be a
_possible_ albeit extremely weak carcinogen. The study was ignored by
US
officials, but Peru was not quite so lucky. They stopped
chlorinating
their water and quickly experienced a cholera epidemic. The human
cost:
5000 dead, 600,000 wounded. This is documented in the November 28,
1991 issue of Nature.
I reply:
This is worth examining, thanks. Cholera is caused by polluted
drinking water if I recall, isn't it? I seem to recall that cholera
epidemics in London was one of the first socially useful applications
of statistical analysis. Do you know what economic system was in
place in Peru at the time?
more..
The Alar scare ruined the economic future and hopes of a few thousand
apple
farmers, but there were no direct deaths...unless you count a couple
of
suicides, so I'll skip that and move on to malaria and DDT.
I reply...
Yes, I heard Alar was a scare. Do you know where this originated and
who did the original research?
Mike continues...
In 1948, there
were 2.8 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, and approximately
27,000
deaths. Soon thereafter, Sri Lanka began using DDT to control
mosquito
populations and by 1963 had reduced the malaria count down to an
incredible
17 cases. However, in 1967, the US convinced Sri Lanka to suspend DDT
use,
and by 1969, malarial incidence had quickly risen to 2.5 million per
year.
I reply...
I addressed this earlier, and if DDT is indeed harmless I am mistaken.
This bears further looking into..
and more...
Worldwide, of course, the same was true. The cessation of DDT caused
a
tremendous rise in the disease at a point when expectations were that
malaria would quickly be eradicated. Soon after the worldwide ban,
malaria
deaths reached an alltime high of 8.2 million per year.
I reply:
So you're saying that eliminating the use of DDT actually >increased<
deaths from malaria? Is this due to the larger population?
He continues...
An interesting comment on the environmentalists attitude towards this
is
found in the book 'Toxic Terror', by radical environmentalist
Elizabeth
Whelan. In a footnote, Chalres Wursta, chief scientist for the
Environmental Defense Fund, acknowledges the life-saving abilities of
DDT,
but states this contributes to overpopulation and that the DDT ban is
"as
good as way to get rid of them as any".
I reply:
There have been a number of quotes of this type attributed to
environmental extremists, and indeed if everything is taken at face
value they are certainly irrational. I'm uncertain why people in such
obviously influential positions would make such statements publically
when the evident result would be to alienate the average contributor,
but not if the intent were to cash out to some monied interest, or
increase their book sales at the expense of the organization they
head...
Mike continues...
Of course, 8 million dead per year might be worth it, if DDT is
harmful.
However, all research has proven to the contrary. (Jones, Pamela,
1989,
'Pesticides and Fod Safety', American Council on Science and Health,
and
Jukes, Thomas H., 'Insecticides in Health, Agriculture, and
Environment',
Naturwissenshaften, 1974) The highest level of DDT exposure due to
environmental persistence ever recorded was 0.065 milligrams/day. In
one
study, human volunteers were fed 35 milligrams of DDT a day for over
two
years. No harmful effects were noted.
I reply:
Now, the above merits some research. Thanks for the references.
Mike continues:
I can also name many, many instances where such environmental
misinformation actually harms the environment it's claiming to help.
I reply:
Please do!
...and he does!
A
couple of examples: the waste generated by coal-fired power plants
generates in the US alone several million tons of airborne pollution
annually, much of which is highly carcinogenic. The EPA estimates
that as
many as 50,000 deaths annually can be attributed to this (I won't
dispute
their figure for now, but I do think it's high.) Conversion to
nuclear
power would eliminate this pollution, saves lives and money...except
that
nuclear power plants are rarely feasible, due to stifling regulation
and
inflated costs from legal challenges and construction delays.
I reply:
'
Stifling regulation', from my experience, arises primarily because
nuclear community habitually acts with complete disregard to anything
but profits unless constrained by enforced regulations. What is
referred to as 'stifling' is typically what reduces corporate profit
regardless of safety or environmental concerns.
Mike continues:
Another: one of the largest consumers of electric power is commercial
refrigeration for food storage. The bulk of this could be eliminated
by
irradiation. For those unfamiliar with the process, sealed food
products
are exposed to gamma radiation, which kills all pathogens. The result
is a
safer product that (as long as it stays sealed) doesn't require
refrigeration. This is the process used by most foodstuffs shipped
on the
space shuttle. Irradiation could safe trillions of megawatt-hours of
electricity and reduce the annual death count from contaminated
food--- but
every attempt to initiate commercial use results in outcries from
environmental organizations who claim that gamma rays somehow "stay
in"
food. Of course, gamma rays are simply a more energetic form of
light, and
many studies and human trials have proven the safety of the process,
but
the superstition remains. So commercial refrigeration continues to
consume valuable resources.
I reply:
I was under the impression that much of the opposition to irradiation
originated in the refridgeration and power communities. Am I wrong?
Mike says:
I'll name one last example, though its cost has been mainly economic,
simply for the sheer stupidity of it. Crocidolite, commonly known as
"blue
asbestos" was found to be carcinogenic _under_ conditions of heavy
exposure. So, based on a linear exposure model, exposure to asbestos
was
banned. However, there are at least six types of asbestos. The type
known as chrysotile is the type commonly used in building insulation.
The
EPA demands removal of chrysotile asbestos from buildings even though:
1) chrysotile is generally considered benign
2) the removal process typically causes airborne asbestos counts to
increase by up to 40,000X, and remain elevated for many years.
3) Far better methods (such as overcoating) would be safer and
cheaper.
I reply:
I would be interested in references, primarily to check the source of
these findings. Thanks.
....and more...
Oh, the example of sheer stupity I promised you? Near San Francisco
there
exists 16 square miles of bare chrysotile-rich rock. Locals breath
chrysotile-rich air and drink chrysotile-laden water, and have been
doing
so for generations, with no increased-incident of lung cancer (or any
other
sort) Yet, due to EPA regulations, all chrysotile was removed from
local
schools, even though the natural air outside contained asbestos counts
many
hundreds of times higher than EPA-allowed levels.
I reply:
Again references would be in order. Thanks again.
-Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Crying cockles and mussels / alive, alive, oh!"
Subject: Re: Bicycling vs. riding the bus
From: jim blair
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:00:14 -0700
Norman Castles wrote:
>
> Thought i might throw my two cents in. Studies have been done in sweden
> and by the EPA in victoria in an attempt to assign $ values to damage
> done by road transport..
Hi,
I would like to see some information on road damage as a function of
car/truck weight and number of wheels. From what little I have heard, a
few trucks do much more damage to a road than hundreds of cars. This
implies that while cars should pay more using the roads, trucks should
pay MUCH more.
Any one with info on this, email it to me and I may include it on my web
page. I plan to add another file to go with the "gas tax" one there now.
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu)
for a good time, call http://www.execpc.com/~jeblair/
Subject: Final version of story of 1000 dead stortoise in Sweeden
From: asalzberg@aol.com (ASalzberg)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 18:52:17 -0400
Here's the whole sorry story:
As announced previously, despite international calls for the confiscated
tortoises to be saved, Sweden went ahead and killed the entire
consignment of 1,000 animals. I leave reporting the facts to our
correspondent in Sweden, Melanie:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
The tortoises, as you probably know, are now dead. The authorities were
in
such a hurry to remove the "evidence" that they worked all Thursday
evening to
carry out the killings. The claim that they would use a "humane" method
of
gradually cooling off the tortoises until they went into hibernation and
then putting them in a freezer was obviously not so gradual. They must
have
started the procedure at the earliest last yesterday afternoon and this
morning at 7 a.m. the tortoises were dead. Which indicates to me that
they
went into the freezer almost directly. The situation is remarkable
because
Swedes do not normally work on Thusrday evening/night unless the
situation is
desperate. Do I smell a cover-up?
The affair was taken up on the morning news program by the independent TV
station, TV4 in a constructive Way. Jonas Wahlstrom, who owns the Skansen
Aquarium and is Sweden's best known reptile "expert", at least most seen
in
the media, was very critical of the way the tortoises were handled and
that
the authorities did not call in outside expertise in this case. Normally,
they rely on people like Jonas Wahlstrom for advice and help when tricky
cases come up. He was apparently not contacted for help in this case.
The program also pointed out that there was an offer to repatriate the
tortoises by the WWF and the Tortoise Trust, which was totally ignored.
In
addition SAS Cargo had offered to fly the tortoises back to Moscow at no
cost.
The spokesman for the Department of Agriculture defended the decision
with
yet another motivation "The Department of Agriculture applied for
dispensation for allowing the tortoises to enter Sweden from the European
Commission, but were denied permission late Wednesday evening. " The
Department of Agriculture means seriously that the only recourse, in
order
to fill the requirements of the CITES convention, was to kill the
endangered
tortoises. They also stated that it was important to stop the flow of
illegal import of tortoises and other reptiles and that if they allowed
these tortoises to be imported, more would surely follow. This was they
create a precedent for dealing with large quantities of reptiles without
clear documentation.
(Note: This is a change from their previous position that the animals
were all so "sick" that they could not be saved, and proves that this was
no more than a lie)
Such reasoning by a government authority in the west world is barbaric!
Is
there no legal recourse within the EU that can be taken against this
decision? I feel that the outcry internationally must be so loud that the
Swedish authorities will never dare to act in such a inhumane way in the
future. Unfortunately, this is not the first of some horrible decisions -
policy seems to be that if a living creature arrives in Sweden without
proper permission and documentation, the animal is killed, rather than
returned to the country of destination. (Had a case with healthy, prize
Pakestani horses donated by the Pakestani Army to the Watch Parade of the
Swedish Army, being killed on arrival to Sweden because they had not
arrranged quarantine facilities for them last year).
A private person has made a complaint to the police against the Customs
Department for cruelty to animals. I, as a private person, am considering
lodging an complaint with the Justice Department and requesting an
official
investigation into the actions of the Department of Agriculture.
Melanie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
e-mail addresses to the press:
Dagen Nyheter (one of the largest national papers):
anders.mellbourn@dn.se=
=20
Expressen (national paper): chefred@dn.se
Uppsala Nya Tidning (the local paper) Jorgen.Ullenhag@unt.se
Fax number to the local TV station TV4 : 46 18 56 44 40
As of right now, the Tortoise Trust is demanding:-
The resignation of the Swedish Minister for Agriculture
The sacking or resignation of the veterinarian responsible for the
killings, Karin Cerenius (FAX Number +0046 36 715114) Please feel free to
let her know what you think of her activities.
The sacking or resignation of veterinarian Ernst Mehnert of the
Department of Agriculture
A GUARANTEE from the Swedish government that nothing of this sort will
ever happen again and a more humane, intelligent approach to dealing
with wildlife issues.
We are calling for a world-wide boycott of Swedish goods, including Volvo
cars, and will continue this campaign until the above persons leave
government posts or employment. If you wish to actively support this
campaign, please e-mail me directly.
Please make your feelings known. We have to ensure that the next time
reptiles are confiscated in Sweden, they are given a fair chance.
In sorrow,
Andy C. Highfield
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictioRs
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 23:48:19 GMT
In article <54qiad$mf0@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
>charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>: In article <54o7sd$5bd@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>: tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>: >charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>: >
>: >: BTW, if you want to convince me that global warming is
>: real,
>: >: just show me three independent studies that give
evidence
>: of
>: >: a substantial increase in global average temperature.
>
>
> Done. Realize that regardless of the determination
of
>anthropogenic influence, global warming is currently taking
>place. Even if the current trend is entirely natural (which
is unlikely,
>given the definite human influences demonstrated, such as
>increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, sulphate
>aerosol shadowing, and ozone depletion), global warming
>might still constitute a problem, particularly if it might
>affect deep-water formation and ocean circulation.
>
>
>: >Hansen, J. and S. Lebedeff, 1988: Global Surface
>: Temperatures: Update
>: >Through 1987. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ v 15 pp 323 ff.
>: >
>: >Jones, P.D., 1994: Recent Warming in Global Temperature
>: Series.
>: >_Geophys. Res. Lett._, v 21, pp 1149 ff.
>: >
>: >Vinnikov, K.Ya., P.Ya. Groissman, and K.M. Liguna, 1990:
>: Empirical
>: >Data on Contemporary Global Climate Changes (Temperature
and
>: Precipitation).
>: >_J. Clim._ v 3, pp 662 ff.
>
>
>: How much of an upward trend? Also, how big is "normal"
>: variability? I hate to ask the same tired questions, but
>: they are in fact relevant to the statistical nature of
>: "proof".
>
> Classic debate tactic. When your question has
>been definitively answered, come up with more difficult
>questions and don't acknowledge the definitive answer!
> But in answer to these queries, look at the Hadley
Centre
>web site (I provided a link to a figure). That will
>give you some idea of the range and variability.
>
This is in fact not a classic debate tactic. The *ONLY* time
I have ever seen absolutely definite data was in college
while reading homework problems out of a text book. There is
noise in *every* measurement taken from nature, whether you
environmental types like it or not. The only way to know
reality from fiction is to take great care in data
collection, and to do a thorough statistical analysis of that
data. To imply otherwise is fool-hardy when your conclusions
will lead to big changes in public and economic policy.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: Population Control -this is lonnnnggggg
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 23:48:30 GMT
In article <327052DB.3E8C@ix.netcom.com>,
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>mfriesel@unemployed.physics said:
(BIG BIG BIG CUT)
>The chief electrical technician wouldn't talk to me for
weeks. Now, I
>figure out how many weeks I'm funded for, give myself some
room, and I
>can stay under budget, but right after these tests I heard a
rumor
>that I had gone over budget. I submitted a request for a
cost run,
>but it wasn't delivered, nor was there any response to my
next two
>requests so I never did see the cost runs.
You no doubt are smart enough to figure this one out. One or
two of your managers needed a scape goat. They found you,
pushed you out on a limb, and started "sawing" away. I
shouldn't mix my metaphors like that, but I have been in this
situation myself. Since I have learned to "read the writing
on the wall", I find this situation very objectionable, but
very little can be done about it, short of getting a resume
updated and calling up the "head-hunters".
Moral of the story? On your next job, keep your eyes open
and your ear to the ground. If you see any indication of the
same kind of situation, call head-hunters early, rather than
late, but do it discreetly! Remember - if you don't look out
for yourself, nobody will. This is a sad statement of life
in the business world of today, but it is the best advice
that I could give anyone.
When I was laid off I was
>told I had been written up for going some fairly large
amount over
>budget. Nothing I can say.
I've been there, too. If they don't have good data, they
find a way to make up the data to justify the decision!
Wayne also talked to me when I later
>applied to take the program computer, which had been in the
lab unused
>for two or three years, home to do some additional work.
Seems there
>was a guy in his group who was working on some out-of-date
machine who
>really needed it so I said ok, go ahead. Well, Wayne kept
it for
>himself and sent his whole group right down to the secretary
after me
>one at a time to hound me for some internal memory that I
knew nothing
>about, and none of them would listen to a word I said. The
guy
>immediately over the program manager is the department
manager who I
>talked about before, the guy with the ruler who left the
group leader
>position open for two years despite three PhD's who
volunteered to
>take the job, and who told me I had to see if anyone else
needed the
>computer before I took it home (ha).
There may be only one "saving grace" in this whole sordid
story. Managers like you describe eventually run enough
people off to be noticed. Once this happens, they are
eventually either fired, or stripped of most or all of their
influence over others. If you are a patient man, you will
find that justice eventually prevails (normally).
>
>Life at Battelle. The loss of income because of the economy
is bad,
>but people told me I hadn't seemed as happy for years as
when I heard
>I was laid off. I went to hear N.D. Mermin give both his
popular and
>his technical lectures at Reed College in Portland the other
day, and
>I'm going to see Joshua Bell (the violin virtuoso) play if
I'm still
>in Portland in the next few months. It's like coming back
from the
>dead.
Just remember two things. They can't kill you, and they
can't eat you. If you find a way to control your own
attitude, they can't even intimidate you.
Your story was very familiar. Hopefully, you have the guts
to come back from it. If you're into mythology, go to the
library and read the story of the Phoenix (this concept was
at least inspirational for me).
Have a nice day.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 23:48:40 GMT
In article <327010F7.6A23@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson wrote:
>Chris Nelson wrote:
>
>-> I agree with CharlieW that he should have the right to do
whatever he
>-> wants (within reason). He should be able to decide how
many kids he
>-> wants. However, kids are really expensive -- in food,
clothing,
>education,
>-> and the rest. If Charlie wants to have kids then he can
pay for the
>-> education system. I have no kids, why should I pay for
education?
>->
>-> But there is the problem. IF Charlie does not care
enough about his
>own
>-> kids to educate them, do we (society) punish THEM by not
educating
>them?
>-> If we do punish them in this way, then they grow up
(statistically
>speaking)
>-> to be unemployed and a further burden on society.
>
>This arguement won't work. You won't find a libertarian
that
>can carry a thought that far because it is biologically
impossible
>for their minds to span two paragraphs in one day.
>
>Jay
Congratulations Jay. You gave me quite a chuckle.
Unfortulately, your apparent "tunnel vision" apparently
prevents you from recognizing any validity in many of the
postings you comment on. At this point in my life, I have a
demonstrated "track record" of success, and I have
demonstrated several times that I can carry more than one
thought in my head at the same time, and I can look into the
future far enough (5-10 years) to predict important trends
that help keep me on the road to success. Apparently, my
goals, ambitions, and activities are contrary to many of your
goals, ambitions and activities. Nevertheless, if you would
take the time to pull your head out of your rear end long
enough to look around you, you might be surprised to find
that there are people out in the "real world" who are
competent to run their own lives without excessive
governmental or environmental activist interference.
Have a nice day.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 23:48:05 GMT
In article <54r0a9$75o@earth.njcc.com>,
nahay@pluto.njcc.com (John Nahay) wrote:
>Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
>: You're misunderstanding capitalism, of course. All the
succesful
>: socialists get stinking rich. They just do it with money
they've taken,
>: instead of money they've earned.
>
>But, the capitalists have not "earned" it all their wealth
by any means:
>they've gotten it by decimating forests. If it were not
for EarthFirsters
>and environmentalists like Teddy Roosevelt, modern-day
capitalists would
>not even be alive. They would all be dead because there
would not be a tree
>left for them to cut down or they would be drinking
plutonium-filled water.
Another fine example of extrapolation to the extreme!
(CUT)
>
>: > True. Lets start metricizing... How much are your
childrens lives
>: > worth to you? Assuming you set a dollar value on
their lives, I
>: > take it that you will agree to having them murdered for
that price plus
>: > one penny.
>
>I DO agree with the anti-environmentalists that ALL
decisions among various
>objective functions require FINITE values for comparison.
What is so damned anti-environmental about a cost-benefit
analysis? Oh, I forget. You watermelons are
anti-capitalist!
So, we do have to
>put a FINITE value on either
>1) life, or
>2) quality of life: minimization of work, maximization of
freedom,
>minimization of pain.
>
>
>: Bad tactic, there. Radiical environmentalists are rarely
concerned with
>: human life.
>: I'll forbear (unless you ask) to post any of the dozens of
case where
>: environmentalist scare tactics have claimed lives. I'll
simply post a
>: couple comments from "respected" environmental leaders.
>
>So, those environmentalists save more human lives in the
long term.
>And, it's not just saving lives: it is quality of life for
humans and
>animals in the future.
>It is absolutely positively no different than any cop or
military person
>who harms or kills or imprisons someone for some greater
benefit.
>
So the ends justifies the means! What a concept.
>
>: (after being asked about reincarnation)
>: "I would wish...to return as a killer virus to lower human
population
>: levels"
>: - Prince Phillip, while leader of the World Wildlife
Fund
>:
>: "I got the impression that, instead of going out to shoot
birds, I should
>: shoot the kids that shoot birds"
>: - Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace
>:
>: "If environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring
human populations
>: back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."
>: - from the Earth First newsletter, ref. December
1989
>
>: Yes, you radical environmentalists certainly do love life,
don't you?
>
>
>That's right. Just like you fanatical anti-environmentalists
love life
>and quality of life by
>supporting the death penalty or prisons, going hunting or
eating meat or
>buying fur or
>coats or going through some dumb religious ritual at church,
which is money
>you could be spending on helping the homeless or the poor.
You are apparently an aetheistic, animal loving, vegetarian
fool! How dare you try to impose your moral views on the
rest of us.
On a lighter subject, did you hear about the dyslexic,
agnostic insomniac? He lay awake all night wondering if
there really is a dog!
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with climate predictions )
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 01:59:53 GMT
Mark Friesel includes the following fragment.
Mike Asher
In a footnote, Chalres Wursta, chief scientist for the
Environmental Defense Fund, acknowledges the life-saving
abilities of DDT, but states this contributes to
overpopulation and that the DDT ban is "as good as way to
get rid of them as any".
Friesel's reply:
There have been a number of quotes of this type attributed
to environmental extremists, and indeed if everything is
taken at face value they are certainly irrational. I'm
uncertain why people in such obviously influential positions
would make such statements publically when the evident
result would be to alienate the average contributor, but not
if the intent were to cash out to some monied interest, or
increase their book sales at the expense of the organization
they head...
I can think of two other reasons:
(1) speaking to an audience that will react enthusiastically to such
statements, e.g. contribute work or money.
(2) shear exuberance.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Fossil madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: ug837@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Karl F. Johanson)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:52:50 GMT
In a previous article, af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) says:
>nr.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!hwfn!not-for-mail
>From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
>Newsgroups: sci.environment
>Subject: Re: Fossil madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
>Date: 24 Oct 1996 15:41:44 -0400
>Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada.
>Lines: 60
>Message-ID: <54ogpo$ked@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
>References: <54ctnl$erd@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
> <54gi0p$9de@newsy.ifm.liu.se>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>X-Newsreader: NewsWerthy 2.04 (unregistered)
>
>(Magnus Redin) wrote:
>: The main competitor with nuclear power is coal and to a lesser degreee
>: oil and gas.
>
> Actually the major competitor with the entire energy sector is
>, which is why the coal and gas industries hire themselves
>shills to sing the praises of excess consumption.
>
>
>(Magnus Redin) wrote:
>: But the coal and lots of the gas industry would be
>: massacred by a slightly improved nuclear technology and better general
>: understanding of nuclear technology easing the common scare.
>
> Perhaps this is why Fred Singer is associated with the coal industry.
>
>
>(Magnus Redin) wrote:
>: You could do our environment and future a favor by helping to replace
>: the worst technologies first.
>
> Yes, by all means we should remove fossil fuel powered plants first.
>Nuclear plants should be second in line.
I have a great deal of respect that you admitted that.
>(Magnus Redin) wrote:
>: You cant save to get power from nothing. There are margins to save
>: from in USA but there are lots of poor and developing countries that
>: need baseload power. And USA still have lots of coal powerplants.
>
> There are vast amounts that can be saved in the U.S. Homes can easily
>be built that require virtually heating systems.
I thought you believed that low level radiation was very dangerous.
Highly insulated homes tend to build up radon & it's daughters. As well
formaldahyde, which out gasses from particle board can accumulate in
homes. Energy effeciency solutions aren't all harmless.
>Inefficient
>incandescent lighting can be replaced with fluorescent lighting.
I'm not against florescent & compact flourescent lights (I use them
myself) but they aren't as good a solution as they are purported to be.
If it happens to be winter and you replace a 100 watt light bulb with a
27 watt compact flourescent you then need to get another 73 watts of heat
out of your furnace (or whatever heater you use) to keep the house at the
same temperature (then multiply that by all the bulbs you use). This, of
course, isn't a problem in warmer months. As well, he compact flourescent
bulb (because of the nature of the balast) can draw up to twice it's
rated 27 watts while only showing 27 watts on your home power meter. This
can also happen with some iron core electric motors. Power companies such
as BC Hydro have had to adjust their power estimates to account for
compact flourescents.
Compact flourescents produce more waste per bulb than incandescents &
they require more energy to manufacture. Some flourescent lights use PCBs
in their balasts.
>Solar
>can be used to replace existing fossil fuel powered plants.
The entire worlds production of solar voltaics is no where near enough to
close down a single 1,000 megawatt fossil fuel plant a year. And what
about the radioactive materials released from hard rock mining the
materials to make the solar voltaics. I might thinks it's insignificant
amounts but you seem quite concerned with low level radiation.
>
>(Magnus Redin) wrote:
>: Nuclear power has its place in such a future and it might be large and
>: very important if the technology continues to be developed. And when
>: something better is developed, nuclear or not, I will of course
>: support the new technology.
>
> Of course new nuclear technology should be developed. This is not the
>issue. When such technology is demonstrated and available, the situation
>can be re-evaluated. At this point, the nuclear industry is stagnant.
Is not.
>Their existing technology has proven to be less reliable and more
>dangerous than advertised. And the problem of waste disposal has not
>been solved anywhere in the world.
France delt with their spent fuel by making more fuel out of it.
--
Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada
-It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you're
wrong you're supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.
Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.