Newsgroup sci.environment 107675

Directory

masher@tusc.net writes
> Do you mean Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring"?   As far as I know,
> Ms. Carson did not have a doctorate, her highest degree was a Masters.
  That's true.
  I wonder what classes she taught at U. of Maryland and John Hopkins U.?
  I'm not sure if she was editor-in-chief of the US Fish aand Wildlife
  Service before or after her teaching. Not bad for a masters.
Dave Pettingill
isobar@igc.org

Nick Eyre  wrote for all to see:
>In article <54uh6m$6r0_002@pm8-133.hal-pc.org>, charliew pc.org> writes
[edited]
>>If you already know the answer you are looking for, why waste 
>>everyone's time, effort, money, and energy, trying to 
>>properly do the science?  
>
>Another basic error.  Just because the science is imperfect, does not
>mean we cannot make reasonable judgements about what action is wise.
>All decisions are made under uncertainty.
If I may intrude, I don't believe that is what he is trying to say.  I
think he was saying that you appear to already have your mind made up.
I think he is correct.
I think your reply to him is also correct, but not the question he
addressed.
>>You obviously are intelligent 
>>enough to have determined before-hand that 6GT/year of carbon 
>>is too much to dump into the atmosphere.  
>
>Not its not a "beforehand" decision it is based on the very extensive
>evidence and the conventional wisdom of taking precautionary action.
The difficulty comes in the uncertainty of the data, and thus the
conclusions you appear to have drawn.  Your level of certainty in your
conclusions is not supported, in my opinion, by the level of the
certainty in the data.
Some of the proposed remedies are the economic and social equivalent
of jumping off a cliff.  If the only reason for the action is because
someone believes there may be a mad rhino approaching, but have no
evidence, it is wise to hesitate, and demand more evidence.
I think it would be more productive if those who champion these
changes in economic and social conditions spend their time searching
for the proof, at least those qualified to do so.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
----
"Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end
of government should enslave the less number that would be free?
More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number
compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their
liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their
baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves.
They who seek nothing but their own liberty, have always
the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the 
voices never so numerous that oppose it."
	---John Milton, English Poet (1608 - 1674)

Flue dust immediately available for environmental remediation,
agricultural, and road building projects.  30,000 + tons available
from midwestern USA location with railroad spur.  
If interested please e-mail thcg@mailzone.com for more information.

While debating the usage of DTT, Mark Friesel claimed that there was a 
vaccine against Malaria, and that the vaccine should be used [instead].
I checked with a physician who had a tour in Thailand, studying 
tropical diseases.  She said that there is no effective vaccine against 
Malaria.  People keep trying to find one, but there are (?my ignorance 
here) too many possible antigens on the surface of the organism.  She 
said that the best way to deal with it is prevention, but that that is 
expensive (e.g., mosquito netting) in those countries.
Steinn clarified that he was not claiming that a vaccine existed; 
rather, that a primary source of funding for research had been the U.S. 
Army.
snark

Floridans for Systainable Population are sponsoring a symposium - workshop
on "Forging Florida's Future" on Friday and Saturday November 15/16 at the
Bush Science Center Audirorium, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida. For
more information, FAX (904) 677-3949, or write FSP, 1400 Moravia Ave.,
Holly Hill, FL 32117

In article <32755752.15F6@ilhawaii.net>,
Jay Hanson   wrote:
>In the 1950s, M. King Hubbert (geologist) developed a method for
>projecting future oil production.  Hubbert predicted then that
>U.S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter.
[snip]
>Hubbert's predictions proved to be remarkably accurate.  In the
>case of the coterminous 48 states (the "lower-48" states in
>oil-industry language), production began its decline in 1970.
>[See: http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/gifs/oil_f4-5.html ]
I note that Alaska did not become a state until 1959, so Mr. Hubbert's 
prediction is, so far, correct, modulo not realizing that Alaska would 
become a state.
>Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
snark

Dave Pettingill wrote:
> 
> masher@tusc.net writes
> 
> > Do you mean Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring"?   As far as I know,
> > Ms. Carson did not have a doctorate, her highest degree was a Masters.
Oops, really??
Oh, well the mind plays tricks on us.
I was probally refering to one of the many honourary degrees that had
been bestowed to her ( grin).

Bruce Scott TOK:
> 
> Allowing oneself to be put on the spot of having to respond to the
> statements of such groups is like allowing Scientology to demand that
> medical critics address the nonsense of the "reactive mind" in terms of
> the definitions in _Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health_.
> 
> You are subtly being demanded to accept the terms of a debate by the
> instigator, thereby also accepting his or her values.  I'll not do that,
> thank you very much.
> 
This is standard response #3 to avoiding critical thought and preserving
your beliefs: "I know I'm right so don't waste my time."
Standard response #1: Name-calling is the most common tactic I've
experienced here.  
Response #2: Refusal to acknowledge and #4, Subject Change also show up
with regularity.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

In article <32751928.6F3@ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>H Brashears decides to make a contribution and writes:
>'I guess I must be the first to tell you, there is no such thing as a
>malaria caccine.  There are some new antimalarial drugs which have
>replaced quinine as the treatment of choice, but no vaccine.
>Malaria is caused by a blood parasite, carried by a mosquito, called
>the Plasmodium parasite.  I think vaccines, the way we normally mean
>the word, anyway, are only possible against viruses or bacteria, not
>whole organisms like a parasite
>Who told you there was a vaccine, anyway?'
>I reply:
>No one.  I posted an assumption I wasn't at all sure of, knowing in 
>this case I would likely be corrected if it was wrong.  Thank you for 
>doing so.
For someone who is often complaining about the demise of science, and 
for someone who is posting to a sci group, you seem, to me, to be a bit 
blithe about this.
This method of posting that you follow would seem to have a least 2 
dangers:
(1) Someone might think that you know what you're talking about,  
miss the correction, and for a long time be misinformed.
(2) Regular readers will start taking everything that you say as 
misinformed, unwarrented assumptions.
While I think that it is good, and in the vein of science, to question 
things, I greatly appreciate it when a poster will qualify a claim, if 
he has a high degree of uncertainty.  In this case, I was fairly sure 
that no such vaccine existed, but your positive assertion led me to 
waste time chasing down proof.  If I had known that it was your wont to 
post dubious assumptions as known facts, I shouldn't have bothered; I'd 
only do so in a case where I was very unsure of the facts.
I find it useful in clarifying my own knowledge and positions when 
someone such as Michael Tobis or Jan Schloerer posts a claim that I 
hadn't previously considered, or contradicts one of my assumptions.  It 
is not particularly useful to spend time correcting people who toss out 
assumptions that they aren't "at all sure of" as facts.
At least you acknowledged your error.  I'm still waiting for Len Evens 
to comment on his [mis]use of "the fallacy of the Truncated Top."
snark

Mike-
There have been some appaarently reasonable contradictions to claims 
you made about the effects of DDT, about the asbestos problem you 
mentioned, and about Sri Lanka malaria deaths which I'd enjoy hearing 
your response to.  Thanks in advance, and if you can't find the posts, 
I've saved them so just let me know.
maf

Will Mengarini wrote:
> 
> TL ADAMS  writes:
> 
> >Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >> Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
> >> unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal
> 
> >Yuri, enjoyed your tag line so much that I thought I would
> >quote one of my favorites:
> >  How can we contemplate eternity, when we don't know what to do
> >  with ourselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
> >    --I. Asimov.  (Or maybe he stole it from someone else)
> 
> "Teach us to sit still."
>       --T.S. Eliot in /Ash Wednesday/
> 
>                    Will Mengarini  
> 
> "A movement which is confined to philosophers & honest men can never
>  exercise any real political influence; there are too few of them.
>  Until a movement shows itself capable of spreading among brigands,
>  it can never hope for a political majority."
>       --George Bernard Shaw, /Man & Superman/, p81
It never ceases, about the time I am ready to give up on these news 
groups I find that there is intelligence out there.

In <32762A0A.53@facstaff.wisc.edu> jim blair  writes:
>In any rational transport system, goods would be loaded into truck sized
>containers at seaport docks or points of origin and transported by rail for
>the long distances to rail heads near the final destination, then removed
>to be pulled by tractors over city streets for the final few miles to the
>final distribution point.  This would be both cheaper and safer than the
>current politically (not economically) directed system.     
Indeed, living near the Port of Seattle it's amazing to see how
many goods are shipped via container trains despite the huge
subsidies for road transportation.  The railways are even
re-opening routes that had been abandoned since existing
container routes are at or above capacity.  When I get stuck at a
train crossing downtown, I try to remind myself that waiting for
one 100 car train is a lot quicker than trying to make it through
city streets choked with 100 or more double semis.
It's too bad there isn't something similar for personal
automobiles, too -- drive onto a car carrier in Seattle, drive
off in Los Angeles the next morning.  You know riding on a train
has to be more fuel and manpower efficient than driving at 65+
mph down I-5, but the way things work these days driving is much
cheaper than shipping the car.
--
 Josh@WolfeNet.com  is  Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
                       "My other bike is a car."                   
Used & classic bike parts for sale: finger Joshua_Putnam@WolfeNet.com for list.

snark@swcp.com wrote:
> 
> While debating the usage of DTT, Mark Friesel claimed that there was a
> vaccine against Malaria, and that the vaccine should be used [instead].
As of my last reserve tour of duty, no vaccine existed.  I am not sure
that
a vaccine can exist, considering that malaria is a protazoa.  U.S.
Military
personnel are give treatment doses of one on the Quinone dervitatives.
Side effects
are common.  Manageable under garrison conditions, a true problem under
rapid
deployement/mobile operations.
From a government management perspective, the best (opinion) option is
to manage the
breeding sites of the vector.  The vectors don't travel that far, 300
yards, but
our military health guidance was set at 800 yards.  Removal of stagnant
water close
to a base was always the primary defense.  With proper public health
type measures,
Military Pers. could be withdrawn from Quin Derv. treatment, as long as
they
were in a garrison condition.  The vectors need stagnant water, proper
agricultural
management
Sorry, I don't know what the current preventative treatment regiment
is.  It has
changed so much over the years.
Malaria is an interesting disease.  I've read that it is a rather "new"
disease, not
being of great extension until Neo. man began large scale agriculture in
tropical
Africa, 8000 or so years ago.
Did you know that hetrozeg. sickle cell anemia is a survival trait in
tropical Africa.
Homo. sickle cell is almost always fatal, but the hetro is much more
resistant to
malaria than a normal blood cell.  They genetics are then such that 1/4
die from sickle cell, 1/4 die from malaria and 1/2 have the chance to
survive.  Evolution is cruel.
There are at least 4 other Eryth ..., red blood cell abnormallities that
are 
"responses" to malaria.

Bruce Scott TOK:
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, he has sufficiently self-destructed before
> people who knew their way around the issues in the DDT thread that I can
> safely leave his broadsides to others.
> 
Bruce, why not break your habit and debate instead of snipe?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"The mess is unbelievable...trash, discarded flyers, plastic bottles, cans,
and worse are everywhere...no one seems to care."
     - Eyewitness account of the Earth Summit  at Rio.

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> 
> nobody here has even considered that other newer and safer pesticidesv
> were available at the time DTT wa baned.Or the fact that the target
> insects were already building resistance to DDT at the time it was
> banned. It would be intresting to compare the expiration of the patent
> on DDT with the start of the ban on DDT.
You raise a very good point.  Too often many people in the environmental
movement take the position that anyone opposing radicalism must be 'in
cahoots' with the evil corporations
But in the case of DDT, a cheaply sold and widely produced chemical that
was patented in 1939, insecticide producers benefitted, not suffered from
the ban.   This is also true in the case of CFCs, as non-patented freon
must be replaced with expensive, patented substitutes (of which Dupont has
already patented several.)
-- 
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
Poor Mr. Potter, T-crosser, I-Dotter /
He had to cross T's, and he had to dot I's /
in an I-and-T factory /
out in Van Nuys.
    - Dr. Seuss

[Posted to sci.environment]
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>Rod Adams  wrote:
>: Do you quarrel with my use of the word "deadly" to describe combustion
>: waste?  It kills hundreds of people every year who find themselves
>: in poorly ventilated spaces with combustion exhaust products. On the
>: other hand, nuclear waste, though potentially deadly, has never killed
>: anyone in the United States.  The difference is that the quantity is
>: small, it is easy to handle, and it can be completely contained at a
>: relatively economical cost.
>
>  How much has been spent on the Yucca Mountain disposal facility so
>far?  What fraction of the existing waste stockpile will it contain when
>completed?
How much do you think it would cost to sequester and store the same
fraction of the total combustion waste products which the US has
produced over the same period which it has been generating nuclear
waste? I would bet that it would cost many orders of magnitude more
per kW than the cost of nuclear fuel disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@mi.net              |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Posted to sci.environment]
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(David Lloyd-Jones) 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.
>
>  If the uranium that was dug up in these mines were placed back down
>into them in some manner that restricted the flow of ground water in the
>same manner as the existing rock, DLJ would be correct.
>
>  Unfortunately, the waste he is considering disposing is many times
>more radioactive after it has spent time in a reactor core, and the
>waste is no longer the uranium that was dug out of the ground.  Further,
>no method is offered for preventing the intrusion of ground water into
>the waste, and its subsequent return to the surface.
Please refer to my post in the "Fossil Madness (Extremely Safe Nuclear
Power)" thread, made on October 25. You also recieved it by e-mail. In
it, I describe both re-processing to burn actinides and, if you just
want to throw fuel away, a justification for underground storage. I
find it interesting that you so carefully select your replies.
>  This has been explained to DLJ several times now.  What are we to
>conclude?  Is he incapable of learning?  Or perhaps his position doesn't
>change because ignorance best serves his brand of conservative politics?
The case for underground storage has been made to SN already, as well.
What are we to conclude? Is he incapable of applying information
provided in another thread to this one? Or perhaps he hopes that, if
he ignores my post, no one will notice? Or perhaps he is just waiting
to brand my politics (about which he has no idea)?
>  I don't personally think DLJ is as much of a moron as he appears.  I
>therefore suspect his desire to perpetuate ignorance is primarily a
>desire on his part to promote his conservative political policies.
Up until recently, I didn't personally think that SN was as much of a
moron as he appears. However, I am beginning to re-think that
position.
>: The only reason we have so much time and money being spent on the
>: question is that a whole lot of big construction and waste disposal
>: contractors see this business as a profitable business right now and a
>: potential goldmine over the long haul -- and the more worried they
>: keep people, the more they stand to make on the deal.
>
>  Conservative loonies like DLJ see a conspiracy behind every tree.
... as opposed to just plain loonies like SN, who can't even see the
trees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@mi.net              |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nahay  wrote:
>You had better not mess with anyone who tries to rape you. Because, that 
>is YOUR own fault. YOU caused it. And, I encourage ANY jury never to 
>convict ANYONE who rapes you, because you LOVE it.  If you didn't want 
>it, then they would not DO it. 
>You LOVE animal activists throwing your ass in jail.  Because, then you 
>can get to hang out with guys who will rape you.
>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.
>Then, you would NEVER send anyone to jail, for ANYthing.  So, you would 
>NEVER do ANY harm, legal or otherwise, to an animal rights acitivst, 
>since you are so PRO-human.
>God, you are a worthless piece of trash.  
>ANYone who thinks that we are suppose to love pieces of shit like that 
>had BETTER love anyone who robs them or rapes them before they tell 
>others to love.
I am new to sci.energy but I am shocked.  I have never seen such
mean-spirited language in all my life.  Eating meat is worse than
raping a 5 year old child?  You are a sick man.  Wishing rape on
people as a punishment for not agreeing with you.  Feeling that others
with opposing views are "worthless pieces of shit" is the beginning of
dehumanization which allows atrocities to be committed.  I hope you
have reconsidered what you have said and retract it.  If after
reflection you still feel the same, then God help us if you ever
achieve any sort of power in our society.

Micheal Tobis states, among other things:
>I prefer to start with evidence and reach conclusions. I believe the
>same is true of McCarthy. We tend to align with opposite sides on >many issues because we do not share priorities, default assumptions >or ideas about the burden of proof.
To which I reply -
Your opinion of McCarthy seems to ignore in particular some his rather 
inflammatory accusations and his fake or ridiculous 'bets'.  In my 
opinion his political inclinations are representative of a set of 
notions that he is no longer able to question.  Proof is not an issue 
in his case, and if the weight of evidence contradicts him he is no 
more able to change his position than Mt. Hood can dance a jig.
As you note there is a distinct difference between an approach which 
bases conclusions on the weight of evidence, and an approach where the 
holder of an a priori conclusion ignores all evidence except that 
which can be hacked to fit.  The danger to all of us is that what 
begins as the former ends as the latter, that conclusions reached 
according to what we perceived as the weight of evidence and 
justifiable at one time or under the original circumstances (if not 
sufficiently incisive to be true), are no longer valid.  A very 
extreme example would be a case where a soldier, surviving an ambush 
in Korea where he was shot in his sleep, later falls asleep on a bus 
in St. Paul.  Being suddenly bumped and awakened, he takes his gun and 
shoots a passenger.  No one, perhaps not even the soldier, would be 
aware of the clear line of cause and effect leading to the incident on 
the bus.  The soldier, neither insane nor a criminal, has 
none-the-less shot a passenger on a bus because he was bumped.
Frankly, I would like to think I'm mistaken in my assessment of 
McCarthy, but I really don't know if he is capable of more than 
shallow and incomplete argument inevitably leading to a very small set 
of predicatble conclusions.  I do have trouble maintaining a dislike 
for him, much as I like to nurse grudges.

sofia@sofia.fta-berlin.de (Juergen Lipinski) wrote:
>Hallo,
>
>does anybody know the date, phthalates were produced the first time, the 
>company who developed them and actual data for the the total amount of 
>emission.
>
>Thanks
>
>Juergen Lipinski
US Pat. 2,508,911 (1950)
US Pat. 2,628,249 (1953)
Brit. Pat. 747,260 (1956)
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 02:50:26 GMT, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>nobody here has even considered that other newer and safer pesticidesv
>were available at the time DTT wa baned.Or the fact that the target
>insects were already building resistance to DDT at the time it was
>banned. It would be intresting to compare the expiration of the patent
>on DDT with the start of the ban on DDT.
Oh... so you think those countries were just dumb to let their people
die of malaria after DDT was banned?
I don't believe there is any pesticide as effective, safe and
inexpensive for the control of maliaria vectors.

In article <553k37$b46@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz>, BOULL@AgResearch.cri.nz (Lawrence Boul) says:
>
[snip]
>
>Hypothetically I can acknowledge that hiking etc disturbs wildlife.  
>Undoubtedly more active recreation does have an impact. The beneficial effect 
>of this however, is individuals who have a genuine care and affection for the 
>great outdoors.
You need to remember to whom you're replying. Mike Vandeman doesn't believe
that people need to care about the great outdoors; that somehow they'll just
stay out of it and protect it for no apparent reason. 
>Get real and wake up to human nature guys. You don't have to like it, but 
>ignoring it won't make it go away.
He himself has said that he has an appreciation for nature because of 
the time he has spent in it...and he has spent the rest of his time 
trying to keep people out. Go figure!
Blaine Bauer                 Any opinions expressed do not necessarily
Beaverton, Oregon (USA)      reflect the opinions of Intel Corporation

ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING ASSOCIATION LECTURE SERIES 
"CURRENT AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY TRENDS IN ILLINOIS"
The Illinois environmental landscape has experienced a protracted
period of non-stop change since the regulated community's backlash of
1991/1992 and the Republican revolution of 1994.  Which way will the
Illinois environmental regulatory "Winds of Change" be blowing during
1997 and beyond?  What will the future hold for you and your employer
during the coming year?  Discovering which way the Illinois
environmental regulatory "Winds of Change" will be blowing will help
you chart a survival strategy during these times of continued economic
uncertainty.
OUR SPEAKER
Ms. Renee Cipriano is the Associate Director of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency and is based in Springfield, Illinois.
WHEN:       Thursday, October 31st
                    5:30 to 6:30 P.M.   Registration and Networking
                    6:30 to 8:30 P.M.   Dinner and Program
WHERE:    Kennessey's Cypress Restaurant 
                   500 East Ogden Avenue
                   Hinsdale, Illinois
                   (630) 323-2727
COST:         $25.00 Members with Reservations       
                    $35.00 Non-Members and At-The-Door
To make your reservation please FAX or e-mail your reservation no
later than October 30th to EMA at (630) 887-7703.  Payment will be
accepted at the door.  Cancellations on October 30th will require
payment.  Please circle your dinner choice.
            Chicken                         Beef            Vegetarian
Name: _______________________________                                
Company: ____________________________                 
Address:______________________________
City/State/Zip:____________________ 
Telephone/FAX:_________________

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>Nudds wouldn't be impressed by any number of references, no matter how
>authoritative.  On the other hand, I was glad to see them and will
>trot them out when appropriate.
Should be fun. Fodder for Nudds. They were all from the 1970s and 1980s.
Knowledge has progressed since then, specifically the concerns no longer
just focus on the cancer risk, but also for possible effects on human
reproductive systems, foetal development and immune systems, as 
such effects have been detected at levels not too far below measured
levels in humans - although the measured levels have been decreasing.
( EPA moves to reduce health risks from dioxin. D.C.Thomas Chemical
Health and Safety Jan/Feb 1995 p.8-9).  A far more comprehensive
general review  of the status of knowledge on Dioxin is a special
series of articles in the Januaury 1995 Environmental Science and 
Technology.  " Dioxin Risk: Are We Sure Yet?" p24A-25A
"EPA's  Dioxin Reassessment " p26A-28A, "EPA on the Right Track"
p29A-30A. " EPA Assessment not justified " p.31A-32A ( a group of
experts assembled on behalf of the American Forest and Paper assn )
" Incinerators Targeted by EPA" p.33A-35A.
The major review of dioxin has been the long running EPA reassessment
that was due out in 1995. I don't know if it was completed, but basically
it arose because there were concerns that the health risks from dioxin were
overstated. They reassessed the information, and decided that it was a
probably human carcinogen, but also found that it's non-cancer effects
were greater than previously believed.  Anyone hoping for credibility in the
dioxin toxicity dispute has to start with the latest information and work from
that, not selectively choose historical data. Few people are claiming that
dioxin is highly toxic, many are claiming that it's of such low toxicity, and 
that we may have evan have a low background exposure level, that control 
limits should incorporate that knowledge. Dioxin levels are dropping as
sources are being controlled, and the debate is more about how low they
should be, not whether they should be allowed to climb, given the lack of
current knowledge on some of the adverse effects seen in the laboratory.
Nudds is a buffoon, and should be treated as such, but inappropriate
selection of information sources, just because they agree with what 
you wish to believe, is also silly. If you really are keen on the issue,
get the "EPA assessment not justified" and other articles from the
issue of ES&T; to obtain more recent perceptions of the issue. Perhap
even get the EPA assessment, if it has been released. There is a lot
more research required before we can fully quantify any harmful/harmless
properties of Dioxins, especially the noncancerous effects. 
              Bruce Hamilton

Dell Erickson (ricks@tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
: Better gets those rockets going-- 25,000 more people were added
: yesterday, and today, ...
250,000 people actually, but hey, what's an order of magnitude one
way or the other...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of Euthanasia           http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/coe/      
P.O.Box 261                         ftp.etext.org /pub/Zines/Snuffit
Somerville, MA 02143                        coe@netcom.com    

You could always come down to Norwich and speak to the gene jockeys here
Ian Bedford
Research Entomologist
John Innes Centre
"If life's a bed of roses... then watch out for the bugs!)

John Moore wrote:
> 
> Oh... so you think those countries were just dumb to let their people
> die of malaria after DDT was banned?
Since when did any government show great concern over the health and
welefare of a bunch of poor farmers.  If that were the case, then
dehydration wouldn't be the primary cause of death in the third world's
children.
> 
> I don't believe there is any pesticide as effective, safe and
> inexpensive for the control of maliaria vectors.

davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote for all to see:
>
>In article <5500c3$e10@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, jw  wrote:
>>In <326BCE19.2B2F@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes: 
>>>Do you want to wait until our resources are gone?
>>
>>Will they? Apparently, the stock market, the commodity market 
>>do not believe they will be...
>>not surprisingly, because the resources  are increasing.
>
>The world's resources are not increases.  
I do not think that is correct.  I note that the world has more
resources now than it did twenty years ago, indeed, there are
resources now that were trash not too long ago.  People make
resources.
>The market's ability to get at
>more resources is.  Consider the fall of the Soviet Union and the market
>that (and China) has opened to the US.  Also consider NAFTA and the market
>(especially in Mexico) that has opened.  US-based corporations today now
>have access new resources which they are now plundering at incredible
>rates.  Also consider the stock market does not reflect actual physical
>wealth but intangible stocks whose value changes daily.  
The price of a stock reflects the expected resource stream (cas flow)
to be derived from ownership of the stock, and is the accumalated
wisdom of thousands of people.  That is all, but what would you have
it reflect?
>This is not
>business.  It is gambling.
I am not sure I know what you mean by this statement, but I would have
to guess it ties in with you slight misunderstanding as to the nature
of a stock price.
I would hazard the opinion that all business is gambling.  When
advertisining is purchased, when a store is opened, when stock is
purchased for resale, when a new process is invented.  These are all
gambles, the good businessman reduces the risk to the extent possible.
>>The market is intellectually honest, its paticipants
>>gain by making true predictions to the best of their
>>ability and sources of information - which, collectively,
>>are enormous. 
>If you believe that, I have some things in my attic I'd like to sell you.
I fail to grasp your point here as well.  Most people who work in the
private sector, and make errors as to what the market will want, do
lose money.  If they are correct they make money.  An example might be
if a person were to judge that there would be a market for an
occupation, train for it, and find that new technology has made the
position obsolete.
Regards, Harold
-----
"Of all checks on democracy, federation has been the most
efficacious and the most congenial... The federal system 
limits and restrains the sovereign power by dividing it
and by assigning to Government only certain defined rights.
It is the only method of curbing not only the majority but
the power of the whole people."
	---Lord Acton (1834-1902) 

In article <32762A0A.53@facstaff.wisc.edu>,
jim blair   wrote:
>A recent letter described a "near death" experience of a car driver in
>their encounter with big fast trucks at I90 and I94 near Madison. A recent
>truck car collision killed 5 people, and the I think ANYONE who drives on
>the highway much knows that large trucks are a hazard to cars.
In the great transportation debate you have to have some ammunition.
The cheapest BY FAR form of freight transportation is by shipping.
Grain barged down the Mississippi transports for 1/1,000 the cost of
trucking the grain.
Rail transport is about 1/10-1/100 the cost of trucking.
Trucks have their places for local transportation and delivery of 
goods from shipping and rail facilities to non-centralized locations.
But you have to understand that the reason that trucking is becoming
the major shipping form in the US is because the shipping and rail
concerns are controlled by near monopolies and they can make demands
like the railroads now do -- now in many cases they not only demand
full car-loads  (in the past LTC less than carload was a large part
of the rail traffic but was less profitable than full carload) but
are often now making demands of FULL TRAIN LOAD!
Most shipping cannot even consider full carload, moreover the railroads
are also into shippers who do NOT need real service. THey want shipments
that can wait, lost, on sidings for months on end. Shipments that they
can deliver whenever they want, and not when the customer needs it.
Unless something drastic happens to the railroads and shipping concerns
they will continue to lose more and more market share to trucking and
the service that a competitive transportation form, coupled to one-man
operation can give.
I don't like all the trucks on the highway, but you wouldn't have
your bicycles unless there were truks delivering them to the dealers.
And MOST truck drivers are exceedingly professional drivers that 
are far better on the road than most car drivers.
Tom (Yes, I have driven trucks) Kunich
And yes, most of my relatives drive trucks.

snark@swcp.com wrote:
-> In article <32755752.15F6@ilhawaii.net>,
-> Jay Hanson   wrote:
-> >In the 1950s, M. King Hubbert (geologist) developed a method for
-> >projecting future oil production.  Hubbert predicted then that
-> >U.S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter.
-> [snip]
-> 
-> >Hubbert's predictions proved to be remarkably accurate.  In the
-> >case of the coterminous 48 states (the "lower-48" states in
-> >oil-industry language), production began its decline in 1970.
-> >[See: http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/gifs/oil_f4-5.html ]
-> 
-> I note that Alaska did not become a state until 1959, so Mr.
Hubbert's
-> prediction is, so far, correct, modulo not realizing that Alaska
would
-> become a state.
The same principle applies everywhere,
 it is called "entropy".
I encourage everyone to visit Simon's web site.
 His logic is absolutely UNBELIEVEABLE!
In the absence of market signals, how he can tell
 when he has a "scarcity" of gas in his car? 
For a good chuckle:
http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAQ01A.txt
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/

snark@swcp.com wrote:
-> In article <32755752.15F6@ilhawaii.net>,
-> Jay Hanson   wrote:
-> >In the 1950s, M. King Hubbert (geologist) developed a method for
-> >projecting future oil production.  Hubbert predicted then that
-> >U.S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter.
-> [snip]
-> 
-> >Hubbert's predictions proved to be remarkably accurate.  In the
-> >case of the coterminous 48 states (the "lower-48" states in
-> >oil-industry language), production began its decline in 1970.
-> >[See: http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/gifs/oil_f4-5.html ]
-> 
-> I note that Alaska did not become a state until 1959, so Mr.
Hubbert's
-> prediction is, so far, correct, modulo not realizing that Alaska
would
-> become a state.
The same principle applies everywhere,
 it is called "entropy".
I encourage everyone to visit Simon's web site.
 His logic is absolutely UNBELIEVEABLE!
In the absence of market signals, how he can tell
 when he has a "scarcity" of gas in his car? 
For a good chuckle:
http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAQ01A.txt
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/

I have not posted on the subject of dioxin and probably won't.
However, I have added Bruce Hamilton's list of references to those
posted by Mike Asher.
-- 
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.

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

In <554tig$gd7@falcon.le.ac.uk> "Dr E. Buxbaum"  writes:
>>Older cars do have a disadvantage in fuel economy, as shown by the 
>>lower fuel economy of vehicles driven by poor families. 
>There are other disadvantages as well: they need more maintainance and 
>they are less safe, especially if people cut down on the maintainance. 
>And of course: They are very bad for the environment.
A good used car will not need much maintenance apart from the
usual changes of fluids and belts, the sort of thing that anyone
can do at home safely and economically.    As I noted in my
earlier post, there has been very little improvement in fuel economy 
over the past decade, so a good used car is "very bad for the
environment" only in the same sense that a brand new car is.
(Unless, perhaps, you're in a country where pollution control
devices on cars are a recent phenomenon.)  Otherwise, a
poorly-tuned new car is certainly much worse for the environment
than a well-maintained used car.
--
 Josh@WolfeNet.com  is  Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
                       "My other bike is a car."                   
Used & classic bike parts for sale: finger Joshua_Putnam@WolfeNet.com for list.
         Dura Ace aero toe clips, steel, Medium, USED, $5/pair

TL ADAMS  wrote:
> As of my last reserve tour of duty, no vaccine existed.  I am not sure
that that
> a vaccine can exist, considering that malaria is a protazoa.   (snip)
> 
> From a government management perspective, the best (opinion) option is
> to manage the breeding sites of the vector.
It's interesting that malaria at one time was quite common in the southern
USA.  This situation was resolved by the large-scale engineering project
that converted much of Florida from a swamp into useful land.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"There is almost universal agreement among atmospheric scientists that
little, if any, of the observed warming of the past century can be
attributed to the man-induced increases in the greenhouse gases."
     - Hugh W. Ellsaesser, participating guest scientist, Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory.

Bruce Hamilton  wrote:
>
> Few people are claiming that
> dioxin is highly toxic, many are claiming that it's of such low toxicity,
and 
> that we may have evan have a low background exposure level, that control 
> limits should incorporate that knowledge.
The thread started with my assertion that many in the environmental
movement claim that dioxin is one of the most toxic substances known.  The
purpose of my first post was to refute this claim.
> Nudds is a buffoon, and should be treated as such, but inappropriate
> selection of information sources, just because they agree with what 
> you wish to believe, is also silly. If you really are keen on the issue,
> get the "EPA assessment not justified" and other articles from the
> issue of ES&T; to obtain more recent perceptions of the issue. Perhap
> even get the EPA assessment, if it has been released. There is a lot
> more research required before we can fully quantify any harmful/harmless
> properties of Dioxins, especially the noncancerous effects. 
My sources on the controversy end at around 1992.  There was no
'inappropriate selection of sources', I posted studies whether they agreed
or disagreed with my conclusion.  I will look at your 1995 reference and
report back.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"We must reclaim the roads the and the plowed land, halt dam construction,
tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness
tens of millions [of acres] of presently settled land."
     - David Foreman, "A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching"

I made the statement:
>>Do you want to wait until our resources are gone?
>>
while advocating action to a problem, hypothetically accepted by 
McCarthy.  I was apparently unclear that I was referring to was wealth 
in the many forms in which it is presumed to exist in our society.  
Since we have individuals worth multi-millions and billions, it seems 
evident that the remaining members of our society are equally well 
off, and since wealth buys resources - presumably McCarthy and other 
right-wingers won't argue if I state that to create and replace other 
resources requires wealth - we should at present be wonderfully 
equiped to solve the problem McCarthy hypothetically accepts.  If we 
wait, we may find ourselves not-so wealthy or perhaps find out that 
we've been robbed blind by Republicans or some such thing, so what 
better time to act?
By the way, I or a member of my family have bought or been given three 
air matresses from China - each developed leaks almost immediately, 
and the last one I found was a fault which had been sealed by a hot 
iron ,embrittling the plastic which caused a new leak; one tape deck 
from China which did not work right out of the box, a dozen sprinkler 
heads from Mexico, half of which failed;  seven Disney articles made 
in Mexico including a battery-powered toothbrush and an electric 
train, five of which either did not work properly or failed within a 
short time.  I'm also tryihng to find the source of Fred Meyer's FMV 
garbage bags, which are too weak to carry garbage.
H. Brashear's and others' replies address a different resource problem 
than I referred to, so I apologize for my lack of clarity.

In article ,
Thomas H. Kunich  wrote:
>But you have to understand that the reason that trucking is becoming
>the major shipping form in the US is because the shipping and rail
>concerns are controlled by near monopolies and they can make demands
>like the railroads now do -- now in many cases they not only demand
>full car-loads  (in the past LTC less than carload was a large part
>of the rail traffic but was less profitable than full carload) but
>are often now making demands of FULL TRAIN LOAD!
Some have a different perspective on monopolies in rail transport.
If you want to get a car full of stuff from one end of the US
to the other, it used to be that you would have to go through
a dozen different rail companies, at the very least.  This
should be compared with trucks, where you put it on the truck at
one end, and take it off at the other - there's no need to go through
all the details of switching between carriers.  Many feel that
mergers of rail companies will make them more efficient.  In particular
the recent merger approved by the US government will make it possible
- for the first time in history - to send goods by rail up and down
the entire length of the US East Coast without having to deal with
the costs and delays of transferring between different companies.
>I don't like all the trucks on the highway, but you wouldn't have
>your bicycles unless there were truks delivering them to the dealers.
>And MOST truck drivers are exceedingly professional drivers that 
>are far better on the road than most car drivers.
I won't argue with either of those points!
Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca)

Hello,
	I have to write a term paper on exotic bird species introduction and their 
effects.  I was wondering if anyone could send me any information that have 
on this topic.  Please email me with it.  Thanks in advance.
Kris
PS: if anyone knows of some job opening in an environmentally related 
field, could you please email me with that as well.

Hi,
We would like to network with others concerned with either offshore
gas
drilling or gas pipeline concerns, or both. While we have already
gathered some information, additional info or other help would be 
much appreciated. 
In particular, we are looking for info on offshore drilling and
natural 
gas extraction, offshore/onshore gas pipeline problems, and what
social 
and environmental issues should be examined.
The project is called the "Sable Offshore Energy Project." The
companies 
involved are: offshore - Mobil, Shell and Imperial Oil; and onshore - 
Westcoast Energy Inc., PanEnergy Corp and Mobil. 
The pipeline is called  the "Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline,"  and
it 
will be bringing natural gas ashore via underwater pipeline from near 
Sable Island onto mainland Nova Scotia. A gas processing plant will be
built onshore, to separate the various components of the natural gas. 
The methane part will be transported via pipelines across Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and Maine, to Dracut, Massachusetts (near Boston).
North Shore Anti-Pipeline Group
P.S. If desired, we can send  the Notes from a presentation on 
     "Limitations of the Sable Island Gas Panel", given on behalf 
     of the North Shore Anti-Pipeline Group, to the final "Scoping 
     Meeting" of the Joint Review Panel/ Sable Gas Projects, in 
     Halifax N.S. on October 24/96. (The article below is based on
     an extract of the presentation.) 
----------------------------------------------------
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
The Daily News Worldwide - Friday, October 25, 1996
----------------------------------------------------
Shell, Mobile rapped at Sable panel hearing
By STEPHEN BORNAIS --The Daily News
The two main proponents of the Sable Offshore Energy Project were
derided
yesterday in Halifax as despoilers of the environment and a friend of
dictators.
Green activist David Orton urged the joint federal-provincial panel
reviewing the $2-billion project to consider the environmental and
political practices of Mobil Oil Canada and Shell Canada before it
gives
its approval.
Speaking on behalf of some rural property owners concerned about a
natural
gas pipeline associated with the offshore project, Orton told the
five-member panel the pipeline has been imposed upon landowners
without
consent.
He also accused the panel of lacking empathy for the concerns for Nova
Scotians.
Orton said the two oil companies have a poor history of environmental
destruction worldwide. He singled out Shell, which has a minority
share in
Sable, for its continued association with the repressive military
regime in
Nigeria.
The hearing was to be the last of a series of "scoping" sessions,
designed
to allow the public a chance to point out any deficiencies in the
project
information provided by the proponents on their plans to bring ashore
natural gas from six offshore fields near Sable Island then pump it to
the
mainland via an underwater pipeline.
But the panel decided to extend the public participation deadline with
the
announcement Wednesday that the east side of Issacs Harbour,
Guysborough
Co. has been picked as the preferred site for a processing plant for
the
gas as it comes ashore.
Panel chairman Bob Fournier said once they have received documentation
on
the plant and an accompanying liquids pipeline to Port Hawkesbury, the
public will have two weeks to review it and submit concerns.
A separate proposal, in which Mobil also has a minority share, has
been
submitted to the panel for a 1,000-kilometre pipeline to carry the gas
through Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to markets in the United States.
That will be reviewed by the panel at a later date.