Newsgroup sci.environment 107292

Directory

af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> 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.
Efficiency can only compete with new power production if there is a
large volume of power production and use to begin with. Its more
usefull in stagnant economies then growing ones, growing economies
needs both new production and better efficiency.
>(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.
Sorry, I dont know who Fred Singer is.
>(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.
Only if the life cycle enviromental load analysis for other power
sources show that they harm our environment less then nuclear power.
And yes it is very good to replace old technology with newer better
technology. 
>(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.
> Inefficient incandescent lighting can be replaced with fluorescent
> lighting. Solar can be used to replace existing fossil fuel powered
> plants.
Then get your finger out of your arse and do it!
(Dont know if that saying translated well to english...)
>(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.
It isent stagnant in all countries and it has recieved a large ammount
of political hinderence to become stagnant out of non technical and
dubious enviromental reasons, at least in Sweden.
> Their existing technology has proven to be less reliable and more
> dangerous than advertised.
And it has been improving, take another look at it.
> And the problem of waste disposal has not been solved anywhere in
> the world.
The Swedish solution is quite neat but I have written about it before
and you should remember it. 
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

I stated in response to Mike Asher:
     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...
John McCarthy added:
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.
To which I reply:
Man, an audience who will react favorably to a suggestion that 
thousands or millions should die...it can't be a very big audience and 
I doubt that such an appeal would be taken well by the majority of 
Greens, Liberals, or anyone else -even right wingers if the shoe were 
on the other foot. It would serve best to alienate.  The people who 
are supposed to pay this penalty haven't been set up by extensive 
public propaganda, like the Jews in 15th century Spain or NAZI 
Germany, the Communists according to American cold warriors, 
Capitalists by Communists, Liberals by the Republicans, and the like.  
Without such preparation I hope some semblance of reason will still 
tend to prevail.
From shear exuberance maybe.  It's easy enough to get carried away but 
this still seems extreme.  It would just go to show that the jackel 
and the lion both hunt the same prey.

John Nahay  wrote:
> 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.
> 
Actually, I've never bought a fur coat, hunted meat, or gone to church.  I
do confess I don't spend every penny I have helping the poor; some I used
to buy the computer I now post this message with.  By the way, how are you
posting *your* messages?
As far as being an 'anti-environmentalist', I believe in having the purest
possible air and water, preservation of wilderness areas for present and
future use, and the use of cleaner, more efficient technologies to reduce
pollution.   I _don't_ believe that the world would be a better place
without people, or that science is evil.  This, of course,  makes me a
radical anti-environmentalist by today's standards.
> 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.
See one of my many prior posts documenting the many deaths and reduction of
quality-of-life attributable to environmentalism gone wild.
> It is absolutely positively no different than any cop or military person 
> who harms or kills or imprisons someone for some greater benefit.
You think environmentalists have the right to kill for a "greater good"? 
Sir, you make my points better than I do.
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society"
                           - David Brower, Friends of the Earth

af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Magnus Redin acknowledges that McCarthies proposal to supply all of
> the worlds energy with nuclear power is a public works program that
> will take 100 years.
Each reactor completed will earn money from the power sold, this is no
"public works program", it makes money and it is good four our future.
I like it since it is good for the long term future and also good for
our econome wich benefits everybody including myself. 
> What he avoids mentioning is that nuclear reactors have an
> operational lifetime around 50 years, so he would need to complete
> construction of around 3,000 reactors per year - 8.2 per day.
Today nuclear powerplants can be used for about 50 year and its the
same thing with transformers, fossil powerplants, hydro generators,
manny buildings, sewer lines, etc. There are all kinds of
infrastructure that has to be replaced continously since it wears out.
You can improve the overall economy by constructing them so they are
easy to maintain to get a longer service life and easy to dismante and
recycle. This also makes the enviromental impact even smaller.
> Assuming a per reactor cost of 3 billion (current costs), the cost
> would be 9 trillion per year.  25 times the U.S. military budget.
What is the global cost for building todays power stations? Add it up
and it will be a staggering ammount of money, clearly we can not affor
it, or houses, or cars, or...
> I agree with Mr. Redin that current reactor designs are out of the
> question for future use. But unlike Mr. Redin and other nuclear
> zealots, I recommend that some working prototypes be constructed and
> tested before they become the fundamental component of the greatest
> public works program in the history of mankind.
Its no problem to build a couple of hundred more of the modern designs
used today, perhaps even a thousand. A small part of the massive
income can finace the R&D; of new designs that would give a better
return of investment whith smaller fuel and waste disposal costs
allowing more units to be built, more revenue to be generated and more
fossil power to be outcompeted and obsoleted.
> Design, construction and testing will take around 75 years.
Are you proposing design by comitee or lawyers?
5-10 years for the first sub scale prototype Rubbia reactors
is plenty of time. Then five more for the first full scale prototypes
and about 3-6 years for each new commercial generation should be
enough. Why should it take two or three times as long as it took to
develop earler generations of reactors, accelerators and reprocessing
methods?
And if you are right we better start right now with a set of reserach
projects. 
> Obviously it would be most prudent to reduce energy consumption and
> move as much as possible to renewable energy resources during that
> time.
The most prudent is to reduce energy consumption AND build more hydro
powerplants AND build more nuclear powerplants AND replace old
uneficcient fossil powerplants with more modern types AND build more
wind powerplants AND invest in R&D.;
> As for this "Rubbia" reactor. I assume you are referring to the
> scheme to initiate a fission reaction by using a proton accelerator
> to bombard Thorium 232.
That is right and the same idea can be used to get rid of long lived
transuranic elements like plutonium in todays waste while producing
energy.
> Do you have a working prototype for this type of reactor? If you
> live long enough to ever see such a prototype, give me a call. Until
> then, lets simply recognize that the nuclear industry savior you are
> apparently referring to is at this time, nothing more than a
> fantasy.
I tell about it to show that there are large opportunities to further
develop the nuclear power technology. Its good and can get much
better. Isent that worth pursuing?
> I am amused that you think your position is so weak that you must
> resort to referring to fantasy.
Not fantasy, physics and innovative use of accelerator technology
developed for other uses. This is thought out by people much more
knowledged then myself.
>Magnus Redin wrote:
>: That is plain silly. Nobody will ever build a reactor of chernobyl
>: type, that accident has nothing to do with future nuclear power.
> Why not?  They are completely safe when operated properly.
I strongly prefer designs that can handle improper operation withouth
hurting their surroundings.
> Incompetence is incompetence. The military is not endowed with a
> special form of incompetence. We can expect a civilian program that
> is 25 times larger to suffer from the same problems. Consider the
> incompetence seen in the Oil industry.
Its much easier for the military to hide incompetense. And if we do
worry we can write laws forcing the nuclear industry to have all
security related information publically available for everybody to
check. 
>Magnus Redin wrote:
>: If all of them had such I would assume there would be about one that
>: sinks every year.
> I am quite sure you only want to scare people. :-(
*laugh* Nice argument!
Compare the damage it would do to the environment if we had a large
number of nuclear powered ships and about one sunk each year and the
reactor had to be rettrieved with the enviromental damage done by
large ships sinking today. I am quite sure it would be much smaller.
Anyway its less important then getting good powerplants built for
electricity and heating.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

> What is so damned anti-environmental about a cost-benefit 
> analysis?  Oh, I forget.  You watermelons are 
> anti-capitalist!
So, who says that a cost-benefit analysis IS anti-environmental?
It just seems that those anti-environemntalists are just not mentally 
capable of doing the math or modelling correctly to calculate the total 
consequences of their actions.
> So the ends justifies the means!  What a concept.
> You are apparently an aetheistic, animal loving, vegetarian 
> fool!  How dare you try to impose your moral views on the 
> rest of us.
And, how dare you impose your moral views on someone like people who wish 
to have sex with children, or prostitutes.  
Then you have absolutely no right to complain about people doing 
absolutely ANYTHING they want.  I would let EVERYONE out of prison 
because of people like you.
So, now you OPPOSE cost-benefit analysis?  Is that what you're saying?
You make no sense at all now.  Of course, mentally inferior people like
non-vegetarians are not mentally capable of understanding the fact that 
optimizing via cost-benefit analysis is just trying to get "positives to 
outweigh negatives among all options", where the "means justifying the 
ends" is just "any negatives, no matter how enormous (like you murdering
and eating innocent vegetarian cows ) is justified if there is a positive"
(like your taste buds).
You are just a subhuman moron, since you can't stand a chance against any 
of the arguments that scientists make about the effects of environmental 
and economic impacts.

 Yet our government is blatantly supporting this horrendous pollution
>>of our drinking water as well as runoff into the bays and harbors of 
the
>>long island area.  If anyone knows of any means to stop this disaster,
>>please by all means attempt to investigate further.
>>
>>My email address (don't reply to this one) is hammet@ix.netcom.com
>>
>
>Maybe you'd better ask Senator D'Amato.
>	Stewart Rowe srowe@tso.cin.ix.net
My community asked D'Amato's help with unjust aircraft routing by
the FAA with JFK Airport and his office REFUSED to help us!
So don't bother. He is probably taking money from the polluters.
Bill Mulcahy

                         POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP
                                    in
                           ECOSYSTEM DIAGNOSTICS
                                 with the
        Tri-Council Eco-Research Chair Program in Ecosystem Health
                           University of Guelph
Applications are invited for a Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Ecosystem
Diagnostics with the Tri- Council Eco-Research Chair Program in Ecosystem
Health at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.  The Chair
Program is sponsored by the three National Research Councils of Canada, in
partnership with federal and provincial agencies. 
The Chair Program fosters an integrative approach to assessing changes in
environment through an Ecosystem Health perspective.  Its goals are to
integrate the socioeconomic, biophysical and human health dimensions of
environmental change within an evolving framework for assessment and
management of the environment.  The Chair Program seeks to develop
transdisciplinary research, integrating the social, natural and health
sciences.  The candidate will be expected to develop an innovative
research program which draws upon methodologies in the health sciences in
application to evaluating ecosystem transformations.  The research group
comprises the Chairholder, three post-doctoral fellows and a farming
systems scientist and several graduate students. 
Potential areas of research include:
    Human health implications of environmental change
    Application of diagnostic protocols from health sciences to ecosystem
    assessment
    Human health costs of environmental change
Education and experience in classification and diagnosis of disease is
pertinent. Salary: $30,000 per year. 
Letters of application, with a curriculum vitae and names and addresses of
three referees, should be sent by November 15, 1996 to: 
          David J. Rapport
          Tri-Council Eco-Research Chair in Ecosystem Health
          Room 205, Blackwood Hall
          University of Guelph
          Guelph, Ontario  Canada  N1G 2W1
          fax: (519) 763-4686
          email: drapport@envsci.uoguelph.ca

John Nahay (nahay@pluto.njcc.com) wrote:
: And, how dare you impose your moral views on someone like people who wish 
: to have sex with children, or prostitutes.  
Just so no one gets the wrong idea: I fully support legalization of 
prostitution and consentual adult sex and pornography.  I think that sex 
with children should be illegal, but, maybe, at most, with a 6 month prison 
sentence. That's the most I'd impose my moral views on someone on that 
matter.  But, meat-eating in this modern day (modern = ever since 
agriculture was invented so we don't have to kill animals for food) 
deserves a much bigger prison sentence.

charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
: It's also a funny old world in which sheep like you believe 
: every "global warming" warning they hear, even though no hard 
: evidence exists to verify these assertions.
I will actually agree with you on this point.  Seems like there exist
pseudo-environmentalists (i.e. those who are NOT actually members of 
Greenpeace or EarthFirst and do NOT actually do any of the hard 
environmental work) who think that every bad drought or hurricane, or 
snowy (or not snowy) winter, is the cause of humans.
However, I have the feeling that the person to whom you were responding 
DOES know of many specific cases of negative environmental events caused 
largely by humans.  e.g. increase in skin cancer in Australia due to the
ozone hole getting larger around the South Pole.

>If anyone is interested in reading about how America's airline
>>industry (with the enthusiastic help of the Clinton Administration)
>>is polluting cities which unfortunately have airports,
>>check out the Natural Resouces Defense Council's web 
>>page at:
>>
>> http://www.nrdc.org    
>>
>Please tell me how the Clinton administration differs from the Bush, 
Reagan,
>Carter, ... administrations in this respect.
>	Stewart Rowe srowe@tso.cin.ix.net
Having dealt with them all I can say without hesitation that the
Clinton Administration is the WORST of them all. The very first thing
Clinton did when he became president was form a National Airlines 
Commission to "help our ailing airline industy." They worked on
ways of INCREASING AIR TRAFFIC over city communities that are
already heavily impacted.
In the case of NY City airports they continued the protection of
wealthy, polically connected communities while dumping the
increase on minority, poor and politically weak areas.
It is true that there is little difference of either party when it comes
to noise and other aircraft pollution. However, there is something
REALLY rotten about the Clinton Administration. 
I think the American people are going to finally get wise to him in
his second term, which I hope will be short.
Bill Mulcahy, voting for Nader

Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: Capitalism is an economic system based on the concepts of private
: property rights, and emphasizing private, as opposed to public
: decision making.  Interestingly enough, the concept of private
: property rights for the masses is a fairly new concept in world
: history, and even now many cultures have a poorly developed systems
: for the protection of property rights.
Careful about the private decision bit.  A handful of industrial
captains and their PR reps ends up in something I don't believe Mr Locke
had in mind.
By what means do you propose we defend our rights against private
interests whose sphere of action is not bound by our Constitution?
I think you've got the wrong enemy.
: I would object based on my own needs and desires.  Communities of 3000
: or less who consume only what they produce will ineviatably not
: produce things I, or others may like.  Communities of 3000 or less
: would lose economies of scale provided by specialization.  
No problems, as long as the larger entities are held accountable.  BTW,
this "3000 community" limit has no place in the US Green platform.
Germany has a special infatuation with the mediaeval village that does
not carry over to other countries.
[rest deleted]
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

In article <54r08q$jov@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) wrote:
>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.
Why not?
Should producers of wool sell it to local carpet manufacturers at a lower 
price than they can get by exporting it? I don't think many farmers will take 
you up on that.
[snip]
>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. 
We have just come through a period where jobs were "a little scarce"; was it 
fun for you?
[snip]
>: _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?
Why the rush to plan, control, dictate?
All that is needed is a bit of lateral thinking about how to separate income 
from total dependence on wage-labour; together with a change in the focus in 
the education system, away from training people for work and towards educating 
them for life.
The value of wage labour to production is inevitably going to fall in the 
future, as machines become able to do more & more. If we maintain dependence 
on wage-labour as the primary source of income, then we risk going back 400 
years to the time when the great majority slaved for a subsistence income.
I have posted here a number of times about using a "social wage" to avoid this 
trap. It seems to me to be the best way of avoiding the difficulties of the 
transition away from a wage-oriented economy, without giving way to massive 
State intervention.
[snip]
>: 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.
I have not defined future planning as mysticism. I haven't even mentioned 
future planning, so it is absurd for you to draw that inference!
The basic definition of value being defined by scarcity and utility still 
stands when you take an inter-temporal viewpoint.
If something is abundant now, but is going to become scarce within our time 
horizon, then we will start to treat it as scarce.
>: : [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 are not in the business of resource management, they are in the business 
of money management.
Given that they are in an almost pure information industry, however, banks are 
probably among the most environmentally friendly commercial organisations 
around.
>: 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.
Some people are avoiding answering the question...
+---------- 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 -----------------+

MINNEAPOLIS, Oct. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- This December when the snow has 
begun to fly and tracking wildlife is at its best, 18 people will
 embark on the adventure of a lifetime:  six days in the Minnesota 
wilderness with world-renowned tracker Dr. James Halfpenny. "Tracking
 with a Pro" is a new program being offered by the International Wolf 
Center in Ely, Minn., from December 7-13, 1996.  Registration for the
 program will continue through November 8. 
Halfpenny has spent the past 30 years teaching the story that tracks 
tell. His book, A Field Guide to Mammal Tracking in North America, 
teaches how to go beyond the static evidence of a track to identify 
gaits and read in wolf trails the ecological stories of movement,
 hunting, territories, denning, etc. The program will reflect this
 philosophy, featuring classroom lessons on canid evolution and 
taxonomy and field trips into the wilderness to put lessons into
 practice.  Participants will also be privy to Halfpenny's first-hand 
observations of the wolves in his front yard, Yellowstone National Park.
"The Halfpenny program is about learning to be a detective, putting 
together a story from the evidence animals leave behind," says Janice 
Templeton, the Center's program coordinator.  "It's the wilderness 
version of the game 'Clue.'" 
Halfpenny has been involved in research and teaching at the University 
of Colorado-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, as an 
instructor at the National Outdoor Leadership School, and as director 
of the Mountain Research Station.  He lives just outside Yellowstone 
National Park in Gardiner, Mont. 
Under Templeton's guidance, the International Wolf Center teaches
 thousands of visitors each year about the wolf.  In just a few years,
 the Center's teaching tools have expanded from the 6,000-square-foot 
Wolves and Humans exhibit and resident pack of four wolves to encompass 
a growing list of programs offered on and off-site. 
In February, Templeton will take a group of up to 25 participants to 
the world's largest outdoor classroom for a seven-day romance with the 
Wolves of Yellowstone.  Led by Halfpenny, the group will experience 
days filled with skiing, learning, tracking and watching wildlife,
 especially the recently reintroduced Yellowstone wolves.  "Nowhere 
in the world have wolves been as visible as in Yellowstone," says 
Halfpenny.  "On my trips to other locations, maybe 5% of the time we 
spot wolves.  In Yellowstone during the winter, it's 95%.  There's no 
guarantee, but the odds are good." 
Evenings will be spent in rustic cabins in the Lamar Valley in the 
northeast corner of the park.  The group will cook, relax and learn 
in preparation for the days of field study.  The stay will begin with 
a two-night hotel stay in Gardiner, with introductions and winter
 safety being the theme, and end with a "civilized" evening in Chico
 Hot Springs. 
"Yellowstone is North America's Serengeti in the winter.  It's a great 
time to visit because the large mammals like elk and buffalo move to 
the valleys where they can be easily seen.  The lucky few who visit
 then almost have their own private park," commented Halfpenny. 
For more information or to register for these International Wolf Center
 programs, call 800-ELY-WOLF. 
SOURCE  International Wolf Center   
CO:  International Wolf Center 
ST:  Minnesota 
IN: 
SU: 
10/24/96 10:15 EDT http://www.prnewswire.com

In article <54ria6$kc@cobra.Minn.Net>, Johnny 
 wrote:
>Please!  Natural gas is a ridiculous answer to our problems! 
>havent we learned anything from the folly of depending on 
>nonrenewable resources for the majority of our energy needs? 
What lesson has occurred to teach us something?
 What 
>will happen when natural gas runs out? 
Gee, Johnny.  What will happen when the sun burns out?
 We'll be in the same boat 
>we're in now!
And pray tell, exactly what boat is that?
  How about looking into renewable resource fuels like 
>alcohol?  Not only does distilling (corn, radishes, 
potatoes, 
>etc.)create a very clean burning fuel, but the leftover pulp 
can be 
>sold back to farmers for feed for their livestock!
What about all of the liquid waste that is produced in this 
process?  What about all of the energy that is used in 
obtaining alcohol for fuel uses?  What about the fact that 
alcohol is partially oxygenated, meaning that you get fewer 
miles per gallon when you use it?
  Yes I agree, 
>alcohol isnt the best alternative at this moment (it still 
is 
>better than gasoline) but with some developement and support 
it can 
>grow and become an incredible product.
>
In your opinion, it is better than gasoline.  A good, long, 
objective engineering evaluation of alcohol implies that it 
is not nearly as good as you think it is.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <3271548E.6983@facstaff.wisc.edu>,
jim blair   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..
>
>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.
On the other hand, it's the trucks that bring people who live
in the cities their food.  (I'm going to completely ignore the
rail vs. truck issue here.)  If you made trucks pay substantially
more for using the roads, the cost would come out of the pockets
of everyone (rich and poor alike, they all eat about as much food).
Many countries, as a matter of fact, realize the necessity of
trucks and as a result have substantially lower
taxes on diesel fuel than on gasoline.  You obviously feel
differently and, I presume, boycott all food items transported
by truck?
Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca)

Hi folks: I'm interested in studying the soils in Hong Kong. Can anyone
out there refer any reference on this topic? My uncertainties are as
follows:
1)Is there any soil in Hong Kong (given that landfilled is non-soil)?
2)Is HK using FAO's classification or ...?
Ok, i would like to know the soil type, soil classification and
pedogenesis of HK soils (if any). 
Any lead is greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! :)
-- 
  ____           _  __                  _          
 / ___| ___   __| |/ _|_ __ ___ _   _  | |    ___  
| |  _ / _ \ / _` | |_| '__/ _ \ | | | | |   / _ \ 
| |_| | (_) | (_| |  _| | |  __/ |_| | | |__| (_) |
 \____|\___/ \__,_|_| |_|  \___|\__, | |_____\___/ 
                                |___/
  *************************************************************************
  *									  *
  * 	Department of Renewable Resources			          *
  *            University of Alberta, Canada.				  *	
  *								          *
  *  Area of Concentration: Land Reclamation & Remediation                *
  *  E-mail:glo@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca 					  *
  * 									  *
  *************************************************************************

After my computer-campfire story, charliew let me know that...
'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".'
To which I reply...
First, you seem unaware of the way the Republicans trashed physics.  
You probably think about Space Station, SDI, SSC, and think..'nahhh'.  
But if you look back you'll find two things: 1. These were management 
projects which greatly reduced funding available for independent 
research - most of the money which was taken from research, e.g. the 
NSF, went into management, 2. The best technique for eliminating 
seperate institutions is to put them all in one basket, then drop the 
basket.  I'd been sending out resumes for years, but at the same time 
Physics Today was printing their '650,000 scientists and engineers 
needed by 1995' hooshwa it was clear that the field was packed and 
positions were going away.
Second, though, I had some good times out there when I had been hooked 
up with a good 'outside' man (Phil Hutton).  He had programs with 
problems, I solved his problems and we both benefitted.
charliew continues...
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.
I reply:
The problem is really far beyond my ability to deal with.  It's not 
even a question of ethics.  Just like at Battelle, I can either try to 
play the political game, become a manager, etc. and if I lose the game 
end up with nothing, or I can work, learn, do my best, and if I'm 
dropped in the political game I still have something that I value.  
The last program I was on at Battelle, the department's chief 
scientist mentioned during a group meeting that I was the only one 
getting anything done and they ought to hand the whole program over to 
me.  I was handling the theoretical development (I found a pleasing 
solution that I liked) and encoding it into an analysis program. I 
caught the guy in the lab engaging in some bad procedure and I 
mentioned it, but the lab was in charge of someone else so I don't 
know what else was going on.  The measuring system had flutter that 
interfered with the measurements but this was allocated to a third 
person and I wasn't allowed to work on it.  I tried to get them to 
publish since spring of '95, and in January I just gave up and 
published without the lab data - which was questionable anyway.  It's 
in the April issue of Reviews of Scientific Instruments.
I continue to gripe...
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.
charliew says...
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!
(deleting my stuff)
charliew says...
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).
I reply:
Well, I'm really not interested in revenge or anything like that:
'All I want is a lab somewhere,
Far away from the cold night air,
With Feynmann's memoirs there,
Oh Wooooouldn't it be loverly?'
....and continue...and then charliew says:
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.
To which I reply:
Thanks, but I get my inspiration from things like 'Feynmann's Lost 
Lecture', and working with people who might be sharper than me.  The 
root of my problem may have been that I had and have no respect for 
Battelle management (not that I don't like a number of them). None of 
them support research as far as I can tell, although Knotek may have 
been ok if kept under control.  The Battelle board of directors fell 
for the Reaganomics centralized planning approach, though, and upper 
level management allowed the formation of little closed kingdoms 
regardless of the manager's assigned responsibilities.  According to 
Bill Hitt, the Battelle management trainer, 'Managers are born, not 
made.  PhD's are a dime a dozen.'  I used to think he was wrong, but 
later I decided he was half right.  But 50% is still and 'F'.
Except for technical issues where there really can't be compromise but 
there should be cooperation, I return favors for favors just like 
you'd think anyone would.  In the closed kingdom management system, 
however, there is a boss with money, and his serfs.  After that the 
doors are pretty well shut.  They may ask foreigners for favors but 
return nothing - void no_global_variables(*enter_favor){} you know?

Don Staples wrote:
the strong survive, and you will also, if you turn away from the jerks
behind you and concentrate on the future.
To which I reply:
Thanks for the thought.  I didn't write all of this stuff for 
sympathy, I wrote it because I'm in the habit of communicating 
observations and I'm also in the habit of addressing the most 
interesting problem I'm aware of.  Although it is definitely a problem 
that needs a solution, I'm sort of value-neutral, if you know what I 
mean.
I hesitate to call even the worst of them 'jerks', but I do interpret 
their actions as somewhat jerk-like.  When you and your company are 
out of sync, though, even real attempts at doing you favors tend to 
backfire.

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
[...]
: 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".
This does loads for credibility.  Elizabeth Whelan is not an
environmentalist at all, but a captain of corporate disinformation in
the PR industry.  She heads the American Council of Science and Health,
which is one of the industry front groups masquerading as an "objective,
independent" scientific institute.  The ACSH really gets around.  The
way in which such groups "plant" news stories is documented in the
reference I cited in the dioxin thread (I am posting from alt.activism
in case that thread is not in your newsgroup).
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >  Communities of 3000 or less 
: > I have no problem with in general.  What are the objections?
: Here's one: freedom.  What about those of us who don't want to live in a
: 3000-member commune?
Freedom.  How about the right to know the details of the stages our food
goes through before it reaches our plates?  And to choose our own
sources, thank you very much, from which to gain our knowledge?
People like your friends in the PR industry don't think we should have
that right, which is why they try to stop exposes of corporate abuses
from reaching wide audience.
: Here's another: small communities barred from economic intercourse would
: have a standard of living approximating medieval europe.  Most of the world
: population would die, of course, in such a scenario.   Far from being
: considered a problem to the plan, the mass-starvation of several billion
: people is considered the main selling point.
Who is going to bar them?  All we Greens want is accountability and
access to the process by which decisions which affect our lives are
taken.  And the right to informed choice.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

In article <32712D98.16F2@west.darkside.com>, TL ADAMS
 wrote:
> Mike Asher did Troll and spout falsehouds of omission and deception:
> > 
> > Don McKenzie  wrote:
No I didn't.  Wrong attribution. 
> >   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.
-- 
Don McKenzie, Los Angeles, CA
"Liberal: 1. Favorable to progress or reform..."  
      Random House unabridged dictionary  

October 25, 1996
Dear Bill Toman:
Well done, the below lyrics are clearly describing the kind of things that 
have made America great.  Now we all benefit according to our individual 
effort.
Roll On Bill Toman Roll On!
Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Toman  wrote:
     "Roll On, Columbia, Roll On"
     In the early 1940s, the federal Bonneville Power Administration
produced a movie encouraging rural residents in the Pacific Northwest to
electrify their homes and farms with the power being generated by the
newly-built Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams on the Columbia River. As
part of the project, BPA hired folksinger Woody Guthrie at $270 for 30
days to write songs for the movie.
     Guthrie wrote 26 songs, the most popular of which was "Roll On,
Columbia, Roll On", an ode to the harnessing of Washington's mightiest
river. It was approved as the official Washington state folk song by the
Legislature in 1987.
ROLL ON COLUMBIA
  by Woody Guthrie
  tune Good Night Irene
  Roll on, Columbia, roll on
  Roll on, Columbia, roll on
  Your power is turning our darkness to dawn
  So roll on, Columbia, roll on
Green Douglas firs where the waters cut through
Down her wild mountains and canyons she flew
Canadian Northwest to the oceans so blue
Roll on Columbia, roll on
Other great rivers add power to you
Yakima, Snake, and the Klickitat, too
Sandy Willamette and Hood River too
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
Tom Jefferson's vision would not let him rest
An empire he saw in the Pacific Northwest
Sent Lewis and Clark and they did the rest
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
It's there on your banks that we fought many a fight
Sheridan's boys in the blockhouse that night
They saw us in death but never in flight
So roll on Columbia, roll on
At Bonneville now there are ships in the locks
The waters have risen and cleared all the rocks
Shiploads of plenty will steam past the docks
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
And on up the river is Grand Coulee Dam
The mightiest thing ever built by a man
To run the great factories and water the land
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
These mighty men labored by day and by night
Matching their strength 'gainst the river's wild flight
Through rapids and falls, they won the hard fight
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
----------------------------------------------------------

October 25, 1996
Dear Bill Toman:
Well done, the below lyrics are clearly describing the kind of things that 
have made America great.  Now we all benefit according to our individual 
effort.
Roll On Bill Toman,
Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Toman  wrote:
     "Roll On, Columbia, Roll On"
     In the early 1940s, the federal Bonneville Power Administration
produced a movie encouraging rural residents in the Pacific Northwest to
electrify their homes and farms with the power being generated by the
newly-built Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams on the Columbia River. As
part of the project, BPA hired folksinger Woody Guthrie at $270 for 30
days to write songs for the movie.
     Guthrie wrote 26 songs, the most popular of which was "Roll On,
Columbia, Roll On", an ode to the harnessing of Washington's mightiest
river. It was approved as the official Washington state folk song by the
Legislature in 1987.
ROLL ON COLUMBIA
  by Woody Guthrie
  tune Good Night Irene
  Roll on, Columbia, roll on
  Roll on, Columbia, roll on
  Your power is turning our darkness to dawn
  So roll on, Columbia, roll on
Green Douglas firs where the waters cut through
Down her wild mountains and canyons she flew
Canadian Northwest to the oceans so blue
Roll on Columbia, roll on
Other great rivers add power to you
Yakima, Snake, and the Klickitat, too
Sandy Willamette and Hood River too
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
Tom Jefferson's vision would not let him rest
An empire he saw in the Pacific Northwest
Sent Lewis and Clark and they did the rest
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
It's there on your banks that we fought many a fight
Sheridan's boys in the blockhouse that night
They saw us in death but never in flight
So roll on Columbia, roll on
At Bonneville now there are ships in the locks
The waters have risen and cleared all the rocks
Shiploads of plenty will steam past the docks
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
And on up the river is Grand Coulee Dam
The mightiest thing ever built by a man
To run the great factories and water the land
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
These mighty men labored by day and by night
Matching their strength 'gainst the river's wild flight
Through rapids and falls, they won the hard fight
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <32712ACE.7009@hydro.on.ca>, dan.evens@hydro.on.ca wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I really can't speak to the situation for the industry in any
> country other than in Canada.  But, in Canada, the nuclear
> industry is required by law to pay for the entire fuel cycle
> from raw fresh ore coming out of the ground to spent fuel
> safely in a repository. The industry also contributes to
> the research programs into this disposal.  The total costs
> for this disposal are a few percent (5 percent?) of the
> total costs of the electricity produced.
> 
If it's only 5 percent, why does the Ontario government plan to place
disposal costs on the backs of taxpayers when it privatizes Ontario Hydro?
Could it be that no corporation in its right mind would take OH for free
if it had to pay all the long-term costs of disposal? And they foresee
mighty big liability problems in the future.
Come to me and tell me that my tax dollars (yes, I live in ON) aren't
going to be spent in perpetuity to clean up nuclear power's problems while
corporations make billions off the sale of power to Ontarians (and
others), and then maybe I'll consider the privatization of OH a good
thing.
And as long as radiation half lives are in the thousands of years, I'll
always believe it prudent to find other more sustainable methods of
generating power, including wind and solar.
-- 
Jeff Johnston
President, Canadian Organic Growers
Check out COG's web page at http://www.gks.com/cog

Anyone have any used weather data acquisition hardware?
A friend gave me his old 8088 clone. was about to trash it
but thought I might set it up to gather weather data.
Suggestions? email me at
krsystem@qadas.com
-- 
Dick Reese
Bailey, CO 80421 
Located at 105° 28' 57" W , 39° 28' 08" N, Elevation 8670'
Phone: (303) 838-5509  FAX/Phone: (303) 838-1427

Mark  wrote:
>October 25, 1996
>Dear Bill Toman:
>Well done, the below lyrics are clearly describing the kind of things that 
>have made America great.  Now we all benefit according to our individual 
>effort.
Uh, Mark, 
Roll On Columbia, before it became the state song of Washington, was a
"folk" song written by a great American communist in celebration of a
great American socialist development project, the Grand Coolee Dam.
Individual effort gets you bugger all; you can't even kill a saber
toothed tiger without the help of clever Ugg The Spearmaker, or maybe
your stupid brother-in-law to distract it while you chuck a rock.  We
all get by with a little help from our friends.
                                   -dlj.
>Roll On Bill Toman Roll On!
>Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!  
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill Toman  wrote:
>     "Roll On, Columbia, Roll On"
>     In the early 1940s, the federal Bonneville Power Administration
>produced a movie encouraging rural residents in the Pacific Northwest to
>electrify their homes and farms with the power being generated by the
>newly-built Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams on the Columbia River. As
>part of the project, BPA hired folksinger Woody Guthrie at $270 for 30
>days to write songs for the movie.
>     Guthrie wrote 26 songs, the most popular of which was "Roll On,
>Columbia, Roll On", an ode to the harnessing of Washington's mightiest
>river. It was approved as the official Washington state folk song by the
>Legislature in 1987.
>ROLL ON COLUMBIA
>  by Woody Guthrie
>  tune Good Night Irene
>  Roll on, Columbia, roll on
>  Roll on, Columbia, roll on
>  Your power is turning our darkness to dawn
>  So roll on, Columbia, roll on
>Green Douglas firs where the waters cut through
>Down her wild mountains and canyons she flew
>Canadian Northwest to the oceans so blue
>Roll on Columbia, roll on
>Other great rivers add power to you
>Yakima, Snake, and the Klickitat, too
>Sandy Willamette and Hood River too
>So roll on, Columbia, roll on
>Tom Jefferson's vision would not let him rest
>An empire he saw in the Pacific Northwest
>Sent Lewis and Clark and they did the rest
>So roll on, Columbia, roll on
>It's there on your banks that we fought many a fight
>Sheridan's boys in the blockhouse that night
>They saw us in death but never in flight
>So roll on Columbia, roll on
>At Bonneville now there are ships in the locks
>The waters have risen and cleared all the rocks
>Shiploads of plenty will steam past the docks
>So roll on, Columbia, roll on
>And on up the river is Grand Coulee Dam
>The mightiest thing ever built by a man
>To run the great factories and water the land
>So roll on, Columbia, roll on
>These mighty men labored by day and by night
>Matching their strength 'gainst the river's wild flight
>Through rapids and falls, they won the hard fight
>So roll on, Columbia, roll on
>----------------------------------------------------------

The newsgroup 
uk.environment.conservation
is now active. You will find copies of this group's charter and (so
far rather sketchy) FAQ at
http://www.garrison.co.uk/naturenet/uechome.html
Matthew Chatfield
naturenet
http://www.garrison.co.uk/naturenet
Visit us and comment please!

John Moran  wrote in article
<542941$287o@news.goodnet.com>...
> life of the coke or anodes when used for the Hall Al smelting process.
> Therefore, it;s desireable to start with crude with Ni & V levels that
are
> as low as possible.
> 
> Roger W. Faulkner (rfaulkner@interramp.com) wrote:
> : I read some time ago that some venezuelan crudes have relatively high
> : concentrations of vanadium & nickel. It is more than 100 ppm in the
> : crude, and can be as high as 1% by weigt in residual asphalts.
> : 
> : I wonder if these concentrations should be a matter of concern? In
> : particular, some gas turbines use residual oil as fuel (especially in
> : the winter when natural gas is in short supply), and these turbines are
> : often in urban areas.
1.  Aluminum smelters??
2.  Nickel and vanadium are found in all crude oils to one extent or
another.  The crude oils are processed through refineries, with the nickel
and vanadium being deposited on either the
hydrodesulfurization/demetallation catalysts or in the catalytic cracker. 
The presence of nickel on the catalytic cracking catalyst is detrimental
due to the formation of coke and hydrogen, which decreases throughput to
the cat cracker.  Vanadium tends to also decrease catalyst life, but by a
different mechanism.
Nickel and vanadium in crudes will not be found in any products going
through the refinery with the possible exception of some bunker fuels,
which are extremely heavy materials.
-- 
John S. Roberts

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> : 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".
> 
> This does loads for credibility.  Elizabeth Whelan is not an
> environmentalist at all, but a captain of corporate disinformation in
> the PR industry.  She heads the American Council of Science and Health,
> which is one of the industry front groups masquerading as an "objective,
> independent" scientific institute.
Of course, you're right, Bruce, except that I don't agree with your
evaluation of the ACSH.   I meant to ascribe the tag 'radical
environmentalist' to Charles Wursta (whose name I also misspelled in my
zeal).
However, you didn't reply to the idea behind the post itself.  Quibbling
with my choice of labels (especially in this case) looks to be picking
flaws.   Might I suggest we argue ideas instead?
-Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"I came, I saw, she conquered." 
(the original translation seems to have been somewhat garbled)

I am working on TOC analyzys in any kind of water.
I would like to exchange information and ideas with
anyone interested in Total Organic Carbon analysys both in
lab and on line.
Maurizio Chioetto
chio001@pn.itnet.it

charliew wrote:
> >I usually think of world capitalism as: a
> one-dollar-one-vote system
> >that contains a few relatively insignificant political
> subdivisions.
> >
> >Jay
> 
> Don't tell me that you are naive enough to think that
> socialism or communism will cure all the ills that are rooted
> in human nature!  Gee whiz.  If ignorance is bliss, what is
> stupidity?
Don't tell me that you actually believe that is what I said? 
If you are a typical Joe Sixpack -- and I assume you are
-- then you are reminding us over-and-over that democracy
has no absolutely chance. In other words, you remind us that
humanity is simply not rational enough to make democracy work.
See, for example, Ornstein:
"Since the mind evolved to select a few signals and then
 dream up a semblance, whatever enters our consciousness is
 overemphasized. It does not matter how the information
 enters, whether via a television program, a newspaper story,
 a friend's conversation, a strong emotional reaction, a
 memory—all is overemphasized. We ignore other, more
 compelling evidence, overemphasizing and overgeneralizing
 from the information close at hand to produce a rough-and-
 ready realty."
My entire phlisophy is available online. If you aren't
rational enough to want to learn what it says, just go
throw beer cans at stop signs till the big man with the
iron face tells you what to do next.
Have a nice day,
Jay  --  http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/

I am interested in any information about ecosystem restoration or active 
management used to maintain natural areas. I'd like to know how, why, and 
where intervention such as prescribed fires, alien species removal, 
wildlife relocation or culling, hydrology and water drainage alterations, 
and any other active techniques of management have been used to repair or 
maintain natural conditions. I'm looking for any examples or comments 
about this topic.  
-Tim Heiberger----
SRFQ11B@prodigy.com

dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>So far the two or three people who have tried to steal stuff for
>purposes of blackmail have tended to die of radiation burns.  There
>will no doubt be many horrible occurances in the future of nuclear
>power.  Some, no doubt, may kill as many people as that molasses tank
>that collapsed in Cincinatti in the last century.  Somebody should
>have told them to keep that particular million barrels of molasses
>underground for "hundreds of thousands of years."
I do hope your knowledge of nuclear issues is better than your
history, you got *both* the location and date wrong :-)
From the sci.chem FAQ...
31.7  Did molasses really kill 21 people in Boston? 
From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993
Subject: Molasses Accident
 [excerpt from the Book of Lists #3 (Wallace et alia)]
  THE GREAT BOSTON MOLASSES FLOOD
  "On Jan. 15, 1919, the workers and residents of Boston's North End, mostly 
  Irish and Italian, were out enjoying the noontime sun of an unseasonably 
  warm day. Suddenly, with only a low rumble of warning, the huge cast-iron 
  tank of the Purity Distilling Company burst open and a great wave of raw 
  black molasses, two stories high, poured down Commercial Street and oozed 
  into the adjacent waterfront area. Neither pedestrians nor horse-drawn 
  wagons could outrun it. Two million gallons of molasses, originally 
  destined for rum, engulfed scores of persons - 21 men, women, and children 
  died of drowning or suffocation, while another 150 were injured. Buildings 
  crumbled, and an elevated train track collapsed. Those horses not
  completely swallowed up were so trapped in the goo they had to be shot by 
  the police. Sightseers who came to see the chaos couldn't help but walk in 
  the molasses. On their way home they spread the sticky substance throughout 
  the city. Boston smelled of molasses for a week, and the harbor ran brown 
  until summer."
  From this we see 21 people were killed, the half life was fairly short for 
  the contaminants. Long term effects were probably negligible.
       Bruce Hamilton

In my prior post on comments made by Charles Wurster, then chief scientist
for the Environmental Defense Fund and proponent for the banning of DDT,
I'd like to add another comment of his:
"It doesn't make a lot of difference, because the organophospate acts
locallly and only kills farm workers, and most of those are Mexicans and
Negros."
     - Congressional testimony, House Committee on Agriculture, 92nd
Congress, 1st session

Bryn Mawr College
The Department of Geology seeks a 1997-1998 leave replacement in
environmental geology and sedimentology to teach two courses per semester
and to participate in a concentration in Environmental Science with
anthropology and biology.  Courses include environmental geology or earth
systems science, selected undergraduate offerings in sedimentology,
oceanography, geophysics, or geohydrology, possibly a graduate course in
some aspect of sedimentary geology, and the directing of undergraduate
research projects. The candidate must have a Ph.D.
Bryn Mawr College is a selective liberal arts college located west of
Philadelphia. The department is well-equipped for teaching, research, and
computing. To learn more about the department, visit our web site at
http://www.brynmawr.edu/Adm/academic/geology.html
Applications, including three references and complete vita, should be sent
to Wm. A. Crawford, Chairman, Department of Geology, Bryn Mawr College, 101
N. Merion Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010. Email: wcrawfor@brynmawr.edu
Bryn Mawr College is an Equal
Opportunity affirmative action employer. The College particularly wishes to
encourage applications from individuals interested in joining a
multicultural and international academic community.  Minority candidates
and women are especially encouraged to apply.  Deadline for applications:
January 20, 1997
---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=-
Mark J. Johnsson                             mjohnsso@brynmawr.edu
Department of Geology                            Phone: (610)526-5110
Bryn Mawr College                                  Fax: (610)526-5086
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010                                      
---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=-

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.
> > 
Yes, the concern started there, but the scare came from concerns over tuna.
 Even today, the belief that heavy metal pollution has affected tuna
persists.  You might already be aware of this, but tuna are not indigenous
to the Great Lakes.   As an aside, I will note that heavy-metal levels in
enclosed bodies of water have descended greatly and was one of the first
true successes of the environmental movement.
> > 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.
Your second point first:  there are no completely effective methods of
controlling malaria.  Prophylactics such as chloroquine and fansidar are
expensive, only partially effective, and (from someone who's taken them)
often cause terrible side-effects.   I stand on the conclusion: 8 million
annual malarial deaths are primarily attributable to the DDT ban.
Your first point that DDT affects bird populations is an oft-repeated
falsehood as well.  During the years of heaviest DDT usage (from 1941 to
1971) annual bird population counts conducted by the Audobon Society showed
increasing population for every single common bird species:  8X increase
for blackbirds, 131X for grackles, 21X increase for cowbirds, and a 12
percent increase in robins.  The increase in robin populations is
interesting, because the Environmental Defense Fund, who testified in the
1971 DDT hearing, claimed that robins were 'doomed' by DDT and-- even if
the ban was implemented-- likely faced extinction.
After this information was released, environmentalists moved their focus to
'birds of prey': the osprey, bald eagle, and especially the peregrine
falcon, all who had populations that were undoubtable declining.   However,
Dr. Joseph Hickey, who also testified at the 1971 hearing, showed that
peregrine levels had showed a consistent decline since 1890, far outdating
the use of DDT, and that hawks, for instance, had increased over 1200% from
1957 to 1967.
The specific agent claimed by environmentalists for declining populations
was shell-thinning.  This is a common phenomenon among birds, caused by
stress, diet, disease, and temperature variations.  As thin shells were
being noted in several bird species, it seemed to be easy to blame this on
DDT.  But all studies attempting to link shell-thinning to DDT were
unsuccessful and one (embarassing) study done to link shell-thinning to
declining bird populations determined that a moderate degree of
shell-thinning actually increased hatching and survival rates.
One of the most ridiculous statements about DDT was made by the
environmental guru Paul Ehrlich (I've posted some of his other blunders
here before) who claimed that DDT would kill all the algae in the ocean,
and thus deprive the earth of 40% of its oxygen.
The problem with DDT is that primarily that it is easy to detect, and tests
will show its presence down to levels of less than 1 part per trillion.  
Thus, even though DDT is rapidly destroyed in the environment (having a
"half-life" of approximately 16 days when in water), vanishingly-small
quantities can be found years later.  The worldwide ban on EPA is truly one
of the great tragedies of modern history.
-Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"I drank what?"
                              - Socrates

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
>: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>: >  Communities of 3000 or less 
>: > I have no problem with in general.  What are the objections?
>
>: Here's one: freedom.  What about those of us who don't want to live in a
>: 3000-member commune?
>
>Freedom.  How about the right to know the details of the stages our food
>goes through before it reaches our plates?  
It sounds to me like you are changing the subject. But to address the
question anyway, you can do this now in the US.  In a large city you
can buy Kosher food, it's your choice.  In smaller towns you buy food
from organic markets, and we have Kosher food in the markets in south
Mississippi.  I gather these are not available where you are, so I
suggest you move to where these alternatives are present, or just
admit it does not mean enough to you to go to the bother of moving.
>And to choose our own
>sources, thank you very much, from which to gain our knowledge?
How do you think you can do differently than now?  People hav always
had to depend on others for information concerning matters which did
not occur in their immediate vicinity.  How would you make this
different?  DO you not have choices available?
>People like your friends in the PR industry don't think we should have
>that right, which is why they try to stop exposes of corporate abuses
>from reaching wide audience.
The PR industry "stop exposes of corporate abuses"?  Like, as in what,
dude?  The media here delights in exposing any corporate misconduct
they can, as well they should.  They seem less interested in reporting
government abuses, but the news gets out.  I am sorry to hear from you
that your media are less aggressive.
>: Here's another: small communities barred from economic intercourse would
>: have a standard of living approximating medieval europe.  Most of the world
>: population would die, of course, in such a scenario.   Far from being
>: considered a problem to the plan, the mass-starvation of several billion
>: people is considered the main selling point.
>
>Who is going to bar them?  All we Greens want is accountability and
>access to the process by which decisions which affect our lives are
>taken.  And the right to informed choice.
In what?  Everything you have mentioned that you wish to know is
avaliable now, at least in the US.  I urge you to stay where you are,
and work to reform your government, making it more like Mississippi
(since we now have what you say you want).
Good luck!
Regards, Harold
----
"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions.  Trade loves 
moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.  
....  Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high 
idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their 
own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein.  Hence it makes them 
inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
	---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3, 
	ch. 21 (1840).

Bruce Scott includes:
     Freedom.  How about the right to know the details of the
     stages our food goes through before it reaches our plates?
     And to choose our own sources, thank you very much, from
     which to gain our knowledge?
Scott is bluffing.  Enormously more information about the food
industry is available to him than he cares to look at.  He should tour
a sausage factory and tell us about it.
-- 
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.

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>
>: Capitalism is an economic system based on the concepts of private
>: property rights, and emphasizing private, as opposed to public
>: decision making.  Interestingly enough, the concept of private
>: property rights for the masses is a fairly new concept in world
>: history, and even now many cultures have a poorly developed systems
>: for the protection of property rights.
>
>Careful about the private decision bit.  A handful of industrial
>captains and their PR reps ends up in something I don't believe Mr Locke
>had in mind.
I will let you know when I am parroting Locke, I was giving you a
working definition.  As for the concentration of power, I think that
is the best function of the government, promoting competition in the
private sector.  
If you fear power, you should fear a central government.  A private
business with revenues over a billion dollars are pretty rare, but
this amount is spent by our governmental apparatus every 3 hours.
That's where the real power is.
>By what means do you propose we defend our rights against private
>interests whose sphere of action is not bound by our Constitution?
I know nothing of your constitution (I note you are not posting from
the US), if you are referring to the US constitution how do you want
private interests bound?  
The US constitution assumes, correctly I believe, that the most
serious threat to individual liberty derives from the government, and
hence is concerned with the restriction of government activities.  
>I think you've got the wrong enemy.
I have an enemy?  Where, where is this enemy!?  
Hold on, I will go back to the original posting and see if you have
deleted any talk about an enemy.  You have cut out so much, without
leaving any snip or edit marks, that I am not sure....  
Nope, don't find any talk of enemies.  DO you have some in mind?  If
so, let me know, I like to keep them in sight, so to speak.
>: I would object based on my own needs and desires.  Communities of 3000
>: or less who consume only what they produce will ineviatably not
>: produce things I, or others may like.  Communities of 3000 or less
>: would lose economies of scale provided by specialization.  
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"But I am deeply convinced that any permanent, regular, administrative 
system whose aim will be to provide for the needs of the poor will breed 
more miseries than it can cure, will deprave the population that it wants
to help and comfort, will in time reduce the rich to being no more than 
the tenant-farmers of the poor, will dry up the source of savings, will 
stop the accumulation of capital, will retard the development of trade, 
will benumb human industry and activity"
          --Alexis de Tocqueville, Memoir on Pauperism , 1835

In article <54rjk3$6r0_003@pm0-61.hal-pc.org>, charliew  writes
>In article <54qiad$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.
>
But not as foolhardy as pouring 6GT/year of C into the atmosphere.
-- 
Nick Eyre