Newsgroup sci.environment 107715

Directory

DRAFT - THERMODYNAMICS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION 
       by Jay Hanson  11/01/96
All matter and energy in the universe are subject to the Laws
of Thermodynamics.  In thermodynamics, there is a concept called
entropy that can be thought of as a measure of disorder in a
system.  For example, the entropy of glass increases if it
breaks.(1)
What does thermodynamics have to do with the sustainability of
food production? Sustainable systems are "circular" because all
linear physical systems must eventually end. Modern agriculture
is increasing entropy (disorder(2)) in both its sources (e.g.,
energy, soil, and ground water) and its sinks (e.g., ground
water and soil). Thus, modern agriculture is not circular --
it can not be sustained.
Let's consider the most important limiting variable - energy.(3)
40 years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert developed a method for
projecting future oil production and predicted that U.S. oil
production in the lower-48 states would peak about 1970. These
predictions have proved to be remarkably accurate. Both total
and peak yields have risen slightly compared to Hubbert's
original estimate, but the timing of the peak and the general
downward trend of production were correct.(4)
In March of this year, World Resources Institute published a
report that stated:
"Two important conclusions emerge from this discussion. First,
 if growth in world demand continues at a modest 2 percent per
 year, production could begin declining as soon as the year 2000.
 Second, even enormous (and unlikely) increases in EUR oil buy
 the world little more than another decade (from 2007 to 2018).
 In short, unless growth in world oil demand is sharply lower
 than generally projected, world oil production will probably
 begin its long-term decline soon -- and certainly within the
 next two decades."(5)
Well, so much for oil! Should we be alarmed?
To really understand the implications of oil depletion, one
must stop thinking of the "dollar cost" of oil, and take a
look at the "energy cost" of oil. We note that the energy cost
of domestic oil has risen dramatically since 1975.(6) As oil
becomes harder and harder to find and get out of the ground,
more and more energy is required to recover each barrel. In
other words, the increasing energy cost of energy is due to
increasing entropy (disorder) in our biosphere.
Optimists tend to assume that the "type" of energy we use is not
significant (e.g., liquid vs. solid), that an infinite amount of
social capital is available to search for and produce energy,
and that an infinite amount of solar energy is available for
human use. Realists know that none of these assumptions is true.
In fact, all alternative methods of energy production require
oil-based energy inputs and are subject to the same inevitable
increase in entropy. Thus, we can see that there is NO solution
to the energy (entropy or disorder) problem, and the worldwide
energy-food crisis is inevitable.
When we can no longer subsidize modern agriculture with massive
fossil energy inputs (oil-based pesticides and fertilizers,
machine fuel, packaging, distribution, etc.), yields WILL drop
to what they were before the Green Revolution!(7) Moreover,
billions of people could die this coming century when the U.S.
is no longer able to export food(8) and mass starvation sweeps
the Earth.
                            . . .
              THE ANCIENT PROPHESY REMAINS TRUE
  And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat
  on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was
  given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill
  with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the
  beasts of the earth.                     -- Revelations 6:8
                            . . .
1. p. 43, Peet, 1992.
2. Here I define "order" as the evolved order of our
   biosphere as of, say, 25,000 years ago.
   See H. T. Odum's concept of "emergy" at:
   http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page17.htm#ODUM
3. http://www.igc.apc.org/millennium/g2000r/fig13.html
4. p. 55, Gever et al., 1991. See Also:
   http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/gifs/oil_f4-5.html
5. http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/index.html
6. http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page20.htm
7. p. 27, Gever et al., 1991.
8. http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page40.htm

I'm interested in information about aluminum toxicity in biological
wastewater treatment systems, specifically, what levels, if any, are toxic
or inhibitory to the system.
Thank you very much.

I'm interested in information on aluminum toxicity in biological wastewater
treatment systems. I'm talking about very high levels, in the range Of
50-500 mg/l.I know aluminum is not considered toxic at lower levels, but
perhaps at these levels it might be.
Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
                                                          John I.
Please respond to < jinterra@ch2m.com>

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote for all to see:
>H Brashears writes, in response to my accusation of the Republican 
>Party:
>
>'How did the Republicans do this without the Democratic Congress
>knowing about it?'
>
>I reply:
>
>Oh, the Democrats knew about it all right, as government 'downsizing' 
>has meant nothing else but an attack on any use of tax money for the 
>public good.  Since Reagan the Democrats have rolled over and died 
>like gutshot deer.
[remaining response deleted]
Your persoanl attacks have persuaded me do discontinue the current
discussion.  
While I think you are both ill-informed and ill-mannered, I do not
think you are either a simpleton or an idiot, nor do I think you
"blather".
If you feel like a discussion without ad hominen attacks, let me know.
In the meantime...nevermind.
Regards, Harold
----------
"Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. Be industrious 
and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, and you will 
be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy. 
	---Benjamin Franklin, Letter, 9 Aug. 1768

charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>Mike,
>
>You're wasting your time on this guy.  He'll soon have you 
>seriously devoted to justifying every statement you make, if 
>you let him.  I have already found out by experience that he 
>hates being ignored.  Try placing his address in your kill 
>file.  No thanks necessary.
I really must protest.  I do not think Scott should be placed in a
killfile.  In the first place, this means you have no warning when you
run across some quote from him in someone else'e.  This can be
unpleasant.
Second, it makes more sense to use a newsreader that lists the names
of posters, that way if you see a bunch of posts by Nudds you can be
sure that there is little of interest to be had, and kill the whole
thread.  That way, even Nudds is useful!
Regards, Harold
-------------
"It is very clear that political propagandists that accuse 
Stalin of the murder of millions, simply don't know what 
they are talking about."
	---Scott Nudds, 6/6/96

ON-LINE BOD/TOXICITY MONITOR
Columbus Instruments' new On-Line Respirometer utilizes a patented
principle of
measuring oxygen consumption in gaseous stage in the head space of the bio
reactor instead of immersed DO (dissolved oxygen) probes utilized in most
other
designs.  Although the advantages of measuring head space gas exchanges
are
numerous, the most important advantage is the separation of the oxygen
sensor
from the aggressive media of sludge or wastewater and, therefore, avoiding
the
sensor's damage or contamination.  Another important advantage is that
besides
measuring oxygen consumption, there is the possibility of measuring
additional
gases evolved from the wastewater or sludge such as CO2 and H2S.  The
principle
of Columbus Instruments' Respirometer is based on measuring the
respiration of
bacteria culture in the form of the fixed film attached to ceramic
granules.
This bacterial culture is alternatively exposed to clean water to measure
background respiration and wastewater to measure the increase of oxygen
consumption due to available nutrients.  The difference in respiration is
presented as value contributed to the available organic nutrients in the
wastewater (BOD).  Columbus Instruments' Respirometer can also be
programmed to
periodically measure oxygen consumption of the bioreactor exposed to the
standard solution of glucose or glutamic acid for testing biotoxicity. 
The wide
measuring range from 0.1 to 200,000 mg O2 per liter far exceeds
sensitivity and
range of any similar product.  It allows the measurement of BOD of water
from
relatively clean river or stream as well as active sludge.  Reactor size
is 3
liters but can easily be changed to 4 or 10 liters.  On-Line Respirometer
is
controlled by its own microprocessor and provides results on numerical
display.
Historical data for measurements from the previous 30 days is also stored
and
can be recalled on demand.  Data can be transferred to a remote computer
1,000m
away via RS-485 link.  
To receive more information, please e-mail you street address to Columbus
Instruments:  75144.2413@compuserve.com

I recently replaced two older thermostats with programmable ones.  The 
instructions with the new thermostats caution me not to throw the old
ones away if they contain mercury (they do.) I have been calling recyclers
in the Chicago area to see if someone will take these thermostats, but
everybody seems to be specializing in paper, aluminum cans, or scrap iron.
Do you know of any program to recycle thermostats and other devices
containing mercury switches?
--
There is no chance, no destiny, no fate
That can circumvent or hinder or control
The firm resolve of a determined soul.
			   - Ella Wheeler Wilcox

"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring human 
populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."
 "I would wish...to return as a killer virus to lower human population
 levels".
Hi, 
Hey, these are GREAT ideas. Look at "GLF: The Final Solution" on my web 
page (Politically Incorrect Zone)
-- 
                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________
                       (_)
         jim blair        (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu)
for a good time, call http://www.execpc.com/~jeblair/

In article <328a3612.126985916@news.primenet.com>,
John Moore  wrote:
>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.
Read my lips,  DDT has not been "banned", DDT is still used for
Malaria control in many countries.  If the vector is susceptible
DDT is indeed the insecticide of choice for indoor residual
spraying.  It should be noted
a) Many vectors are not susceptible.  DDT resistance first appeared
in the 1950s and now many important vector populations are resistant
including populations of A. gambiae which is responsible for most
Malaria deaths.
b) Indoor residual spraying may or may not be the most effective
approach to malaria control.  The most effective strategy depends
on many local factors.
I commend "Malaria: Obstacles and Opportunites", US Institute
of Medicine, National Academy Press 1991, to anyone actually
interested in malaria and its dreadful effects.
Andrew Taylor

In article <3277e82f.250164274@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears  wrote:
>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
You should have a chat with the US Institute of Medicine.  Their
book "Malaria: Obstacles and Opportunities" has an entire chapter
on malaria vaccines.  I don't think any vaccines are in general use
yet  but there have been a number of field trials with mixed
results.
BTW the "new" quinine replacements (quinine is still used) were developed
in the 1940s.  When the Japanese invaded Java they took over 90% of the
world's cinchona plantations forcing the Allies to develop synthetic 
alternatives.  The Germans also did some useful work on anti-malarial
before and during the war.  The US army has been responsible for much
subsequent development of anti-malarials.  But as Stein noted this work
has been heavily cutback in recent years.
Andrew Taylor

In article <32783b60.337010293@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears  wrote:
>davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote for all to see:
>>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.
It would be more accurate to say our ability to locate and use resources
is increasing rather than to say the world's resources are increasing. 
The resources are there whether or not we have the ability to utilize
them.  Someday if we ever get fusion to work then we'll have literally
oceans of fuel, but I would not count that as a current resource and I do
not like to bet our planet's future on the possible promises of technology.
>>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?
Accumulated guesses would be more precise.  How do we really know what a
stock of any company is worth?  Half of it is guesswork and the other half
approximations of value.  Even the bookkeeping is not precise depending on
what stypes of accounting they use (ie - straight line depreciation vs.
accelerated depreciation, cost of goods vs their market value, etc).  
>>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.
Yes, all business is gambling.  That is the point of my arguement.  You
are trying to compare a business' ability to accurately reflect the value
of its stock to our ability to reflect the value of Earth's resources. 
You claim that since the stock market's resources are increasing, so are
the planet's.  My point is that you are comparing apples and oranges.
>>>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.
My point here was that in order to make money, people will lie, cheat,
steal, slander, obscure, and worse.  You cannot take someone's word at
face value, especially if they are intent on making a buck.
      ****                   David Whitt     davwhitt@med.unc.edu
     ** ***
         **                  No one can make you feel inferior
         ***                 without your consent.
         ****                                 -Eleanor Roosevelt
        ***  *
       ***   **   *          People often find it easier to be a result
      ***    ******          of the past than a cause of the future.
     ***       ***

On 26 Oct 1996 20:42:32 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
wrote:
> ksahin@best.com (Koro) wrote:
> > (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> 				  
> >> Koro,
> >>  
> >> The point you are missing is that most of the putative values involved
> >> in these calculations are not captured, nor capturable, by investors.
> >> If you plant a forest in the Himalayas -- a pretty good idea -- who
> >> are you going to send a bill to a thousand miles downstream for the
> >> fact that you have reduced flooding on their famland?
> >>  
> >> Who is going to pay you for the oxygen your forest puts out, or for
> >> the carbon it has impounded?  Nobody.
> >Who in hell is talking about planting a forest?  I'm talking about the
> >use of currently owned forestland.
> Ad the difference, in economic terms is...?
One is already planted, and is alive.  Starting from scratch is very
difficult.
> >> The problem is this: specific actions very often have general
> >> benefits; since the general benefits cannot be charged for directly by
> >> the person carrying out the actions, it is necessary to invent
> >> intermediate structures to assess the benefits and identify the causes
> >> and costs wich bring them about.
> >True.  Then again, no one's going to pay you for such things.  
> If the intermediate struture is a _government_, or even a regional
> land management authority, I think it's fairly likely they are going
> to.
> >                                                       So
> >what?  You're still turning a profit.  The rest is just out of the
> >goodness of your heart. ;-)
>  
> If that's the way you think things work in forstry, I think maybe
> you're posting to the wrong newsgroup.  This is economics.
> Alt.new.age.aromatherapy is somewhere down the block someplace.
Welcome to the wonderful world of cross-posting.  I'm posting from
a.p.l.
> >Hey, I'm breathing, which contributes to CO2 levels in the air.  That
> >helps plants.  I should be paid by every person who owns a plant,
> >including everyone who has algae in their bathtub tiles.  I want my
> >money, I deserve it!
>  
> If there were a shortage of CO2, that might be the way to go.
> Unfortunately, as long as we're burning coal and chopping up calcium
> carbonate for cement, that's not a problem we have to worry about.
> Market price zero -- or perhaps far less.
Ah, but I want my 2 cents every 50 years.  I deserve it.  
BTW, are you going to bill people for removing oxygen from the air
also?  Animals need oxygen, so everyone who owns/is an animal would
recieve retribution for the damage every breathing person has done.
> >> This is the basic problem of socialism -- of creating an artificial
> >> economics which serves social ends.  The fact that socialism doesn't
> >> work very well yet is an indicator of how difficult the problem is.
> >> Fortunately there have been enough big and obvious successes -- public
> >> health, general literacy education, forest conservation -- that some
> >> of the directions are clear.
> >Are you supporting socialism here or are you accusing me of being
> >socialist?
>  
> Why would anyone accuse you of being a socialist?  Socialists usually
> start from at least some awareness of economics.
Ah, so you're a socialist...  Just wondering...
					KORO

Jim Lellman wrote:
>  I have been calling recyclers
> in the Chicago area to see if someone will take these thermostats, but
> everybody seems to be specializing in paper, aluminum cans, or scrap iron.
> Do you know of any program to recycle thermostats and other devices
> containing mercury switches?
Believe or not, you might try the US EPA Region V office in Chicago,
who may or maynot have a suggestion for a qualified recycler.  Also,
check
with the Ill. DEP, whom I believe do offer recycling programs.  Go for
the  fed regional
office first, as that is a local number for you, I believe.
Ya know, with the price of mercury being what it is, I am surprised that
you couldn;t
find someone quicker.  The couple of grams of Hg in some of the older
thermostats that I've seen ought to be worth a couple of bucks.

The T. horsfieldi incident was certainly a tragic affair. It all started
(in 
Sweden at least) when a fellow named Amro Hassan applied for permission to
import 1000 T. horsfieldi. This species' importation into the EU, however,
is 
not permitted (an EU law in effect since 1988) so the application was
turned 
down. Mr. Hassan never the less allowed the tortoises to be shipped to
Sweden.  
According to Thomas Larsson, spokesman for the Arlanda Customs office,
Hassan 
had declared the tortoises upon their and so could not be accused of
smuggling. 
The custom officials did not have the right then to confiscate the
animals. It 
appeared that Hassan's naive strategy was that if the animals showed up
somehow 
he would get them through.
This in fact almost happened. The Swedish Board of Agriculture (what I
have 
earlier called the Dept. of Agriculture) has the right to determine what
will be 
done with animals that "get stuck" in the customs zone. They had initially
applied for dispensation from the EU rule forbidding the import of T. 
horsfieldi, but this was denied by Brussels. If this dispensation had been
granted the tortoises would still belong to Mr Hassan who would have then
sold 
the survivors. He would have also succeded with "forcing" the animals
through 
customs and opened the flood gates for this kind of exploitation. On the
other 
hand the Swedish Board of Agriculture has the right to regulate the
storage of 
animals under such circumstances, and they could have confiscated the
tortoises 
on the grounds that they were being misstreated. The dispensation would
then 
have allowed the tortoises to stay in Sweden without being forced onto the
market. At this point in time I have not been able to find out what their
plan 
was, but they have been asked.
In addition to the EU prohibition, the EU rules also state that if the
import of 
CITES-listed animals is not in order the only place the tortoises could
have 
been sent would be back to the source country or the country issueing the
export 
license. Once there it would be up to that country's officials to decide
if 
Hassan would still be allowed to keep them. According to Mats Forslund,
the WWF 
in Sweden had initially offered to pay for their transport out of Sweden
but 
backed down when they found this out. Would the Tortoise Trust have paid
for the 
trip to Russia if Hassan would have been able to keep the tortoises and
sell 
them somewhere else? 
In the meantime the tortoises were stored in inadequate facilities (SAS's
cargo 
storage space) because adequate ones did not exist at the airport. The EU
has 
been pressing Sweden to correct this problem but nothing has yet been done
at 
Arlanda. Taking care of this is the responsibility of another
bureauracracy, the 
"Aviation Administration" (Luftfartsverket). However, the Swedish Board of
Agriculture, as stated, has the right to regulate the storage of animals
under 
such circumstances, and there was nothing stopping them from contacting
groups 
such as the National Swedish Hereptological Society (SHR) for help. We
have 250 
members within a half hour of Arlanda who could have rapidly arranged
suitable 
quarters for the tortoises.
Contrary to what has been circulating on the Internet, the tortoises were 
inspected by two herpetologists (appointed to aid customs officials in the
species identification of imported amphibians and reptiles - all of these
people 
are competent herpetologists and were chosen by the herpetological
community, 
not the governement) and a veterinarian.
I have spoken to both and was told that they did not find the animals to
be in 
very good condition. Many were injured, probably by the way they were
stored 
before they were shipped at least two weeks ago. It appears that these
tortoises 
have been in captivity for as long as 8 months already, waiting for a
buyer 
(according to the Swedish Board of Agriculture they were allegedly
involved in a 
confiscation in Russia as long ago as April, which suggests that sending
them 
back there,from where they were exported last, might not have been the
best way 
to ensure their survival).
How would a person only interested in making money store such turtles?
Probably 
in bins piled up on top of each other. I do not doubt that many of the
animals 
were in pretty miserable shape, but the herperpetologists who inspected
the 
animals do believe that a fair number of them could have been saved.
Those that I've spoken to at the Swedish Board of Agriculture felt that
the 
animals had already suffered considerably and that their return to the
source 
land was problematic at best. Therefore they decided that the best course
of 
action was to destroy the animals to end their suffering. They have
expressed 
skepticism toward the possibility of repatriating the tortoises back into
the 
wild, assuming that it would never work (although they have virtually no 
expertise in this field), in part because it was felt that it would be 
impossible to ascertain exactly where the animals came from. They have
also 
expressed skepticism towards the possibility of anyone being able to find
a 
suitable storage locality either here or in another country in a
reasonable 
amount of time, i.e. it would have taken too long to justify letting so
many 
tortoises go on suffering.
I do not agree with these objections to making an attempt to save the
tortoises. 
The Swedish Board of Agriculture could have confiscated the tortoises on
the 
grounds that they were being misstreated, eliminating the ownership
problems. If 
the bureaucrats were not so narrow-minded (and so arrogant as to assume
they 
know better than everyone else in the world about virtually evrything)
they 
could have done this and then enlisted the help of e.g. SHR to help
arrange 
suitable care for them. The bureaucratic problem of where they would go
next 
would still be here, but at least some of the tortoises would still be
alive and 
out of the hands of ruthless merchants. 
I also find it amazing that the real villain in this affair, Amro Hassan,
and 
unethical animal dealers in general, has been nearly totally ignored in
favor of 
the lynching of only bureaucrats. I have not spoken with him but if anyone
has 
anything to say to him he can be reached at:
+46-13-105 903   (home)
+46-70-783 1342  (mobile phone)
Address: Amro Hassan
         Bobergsgatan10
         582 47 Linkoeping
         SWEDEN
Sorry for any cross posting that has occurred.
__________________________________________________
   @..@        @..@        @..@        @..@
  (----)      (----)      (----)      (----)
 ( >__< )    ( >__< )    ( >__< )    ( >__< )
 """  """    """  """    """  """    """  """
Ralph Tramontano
Editor for the
    National Swedish Herpetological Society (SHR)
Ecology Institution, Department of Animal Ecology
S-223 62  Lund,  SWEDEN
E-mail:  Ralph.Tramontano@zooekol.lu.se
tel: work: +46-46-222 3818   fax:+46-46-222 4716
tel: home: +46-46-15 09 71   (answering machine)
_____________________________________________

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> 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
They apparently haven't hit my server yet.  I've seen nothing so far on
asbestos or Sri Lanka per se, though a few posts came by about a
nonexistent malarial vaccine.  The dioxin post was rebutted by Nudds with
two studies, neither of disproved my point.  The point I made that the DDT
ban cost several hundred million deaths was partially rebutted with the
(accurate) claim that some mosquito species were developing chloride
resistance at the time of the ban.  Several people did post studies about
possible links between DDT and bird mortality, which I, in all fairness,
only partially rebutted.  This, though, was not my primary point, and
claims I made re. DDT and bird mortality were done to refute a post which
claimed a decline in terminal-chain predators would 'wipe the earth clean
of humans'.
If there's any posts you've seen or made beyond this, I would be very happy
if you'd send them to me via email.   Thanks...for both the offer and the
courtesy!
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"In Dublin's fair city, where the girls are so pretty /
 I first set me eyes on sweet Molly Malone.  / 
 As she pushed her wheelbarrow / 
 through streets broad and narrow, /
 Crying, 'cockles and mussels! alive, alive, oh!' "

Hello there,
	Being part of a research project based in Queensland Australia 
investigating the Management and Pollution Control of Landfills, i would 
be interested in exchanging information with anyone in a similar area.
Thanks
Jeff Hannam
Jeff Hannam B Applied Science (Applied Chemistry)
Department of Chemical Engineering
The University Of Queensland
St. Lucia 4072
Ph  07 3365 4122 International 61 7 3365 4122
Fax 07 3365 4199 International 61 73365 4199

Recycling Machinery Manufacturer
Announcing : Brentwood Recycling Systems Internet Site
http://www.brentwood.com.au
Brentwood Recycling Systems is Australia's largest manufacturer of industrial shredding 
machines.
Our large range of machinery includes industrial shredders for:
- municipal waste
- vegetation waste
- tyres
- paper & cardboard
- medical waste
- timber & bark
- MDF & chipboard rejects
- abbatoirs (prebreakers & gut cutters for rendering)
- plaster board rejects
- light metals
- plastic
- glass
Brentwood have developed through many years of experience many "Turn-Key Plants" using 
proprietry materials handling equipment including:
- Steel Apron Feeders
- Belt conveyors
- Trommel Screens
- Hammermills for vegetation waste
- Multi-Purpose Shredding Plants
- Compactors for shredded waste
Tyre Processing has been a major R & D investment for Brentwood.
We have developed:
- Tyre shredding plants to reduce truck & car tyres to 25mm product size.
- Tyre grinding plants to produce pure rubber crumb free of steel & nylon.
- Truck tyre debeader for removing tyre beads & walls prior to shredding.
Brentwood's expertise is size reduction, materials handling of shredded & pre-shredded 
materials. Our engineering team are versatile and adaptable to individual requirements 
and reputation is highly regarded.
Please visit the Brentwood internet site at :
http://www.brentwood.com.au
or email:
brent@www.brentwood.com.au
Graham Badman
General Manager

snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) writes:
>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.
A Colombian medical research institute (can't remember the name, sorry)
has developed a vaccine.  In the process of getting it tested and getting
the results published they have apparently ruffled a few feathers of the
Western medical establishment.  The documentary also had heavy hints of
professional rivalry by Western medical researchers also working on a 
malaria vaccine and a resulting campaign to brush the Colombians off.
The Colombians claim that their vaccine is around 30% effective.  They
say it is better than nothing, the WHO disagrees and would not approve
of the vaccine.  (Refer to last sentence of previous para.)  A big bone
of contention was that the Colombians were conducting tests in Africa.
WHO experts said it was irresponsible to do so with a partially-effective
agent.
Sorry, cannot recall the details of the documentary either.  I think it
was a British production.
George Antony
PS Crossposted to sci.med

Snark says:
-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.
I reply:
I'm afraid that I am not the Grand Poobah of Knowlege before whom 
everyone must kneel, the utterances of my mouth being the sanctified 
words of god.  If it's any consolation for those of you looking to be 
or find an Authority to replace the effort of thought and research I'm 
afraid I decline and I don't think you are either.  If anyone wants to 
take what I say as misinformed, unwarrented assumption that is 
entirely their business, or we can discuss it.
He continues:
-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 reply again:
This is entirely up to you.  You probably could have saved some time 
through the simple words: 'Mark, are you sure about this?' in an 
e-mail message to which I would answer 'No.' and you would have been 
middlingly worse off through the extensive effort of this act.  As it 
is, you have 'wasted' your time chasing down proof and are now certain 
that there is no vaccine.  This is evidently worth nothing to you 
judging by your griping, and is so simply because there is not going 
to be an internet fracas about it. Evidently you really didn't care 
whether there was a vaccine, but you did want to find some issue that 
you could be right about, and use to show the world or yourself how 
right you can be.  I'd call this misdirected ambition.
Snark continues:
-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.
I reply:
It is not your job, that I recall, to correct people, nor did I ask to 
be corrected by you or anyone else for that matter.  I simply expected 
to be.  Correcting people is something you take on yourself because it 
makes you feel important or something.  Such feelings of importance 
are very important to scientists, and I rely to some degree on people 
continually looking for opportunities to feed their egos - preferably 
in a positive manner where it gives us the opportunity to learn.
Snark continues:
-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."
I reply:
But I may not acknowledge an error.  No one on the net has purchased 
my loyalty.  I'm not here because it's my job or my duty.  There are 
people on the net I simply like to talk with, and typically for those 
people I'll follow certain rules of decorum.  SOmetimes I just like to 
babble an opinion.  But in any case this is entirely up to me, and any 
reply is up to them.  No one has to reply to a message of mine.  I 
don't twist any arms, not in any effective way.

H. Brashears states:
-Your persoanl attacks have persuaded me do discontinue the current
-discussion.
-While I think you are both ill-informed and ill-mannered, I do not
--think you are either a simpleton or an idiot, nor do I think you
"blather".
-If you feel like a discussion without ad hominen attacks, let me 
-know.
-In the meantime...nevermind.
-Regards, Harold
-----------
-"Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. Be 
-industrious
-and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, and you 
-will be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy.
-        ---Benjamin Franklin, Letter, 9 Aug. 1768
I reply:
A high-horse is a high-horse.  You ride yours, I'll ride mine.

In article <3275F16C.2BAB179E@math.nwu.edu>,
Leonard Evens   wrote:
[snip]
>You should distinguish Cook County from Chicago.   Cook County is
>currently neither Republican nor Democratic.   Populations shifts from
>the city to the suburbs, many outside the county, and changes in voting
>patterns within parts of the city have changed the politics
>considerably. 
Point taken.
>Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
snark

In article <552ecr$hk0@news.inforamp.net>,
   dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>"Marcus Agua"  wrote:
>
>>After visiting the web page of the WorldWatch Institute,
>>(www.worldwatch.org) I found a blurb for their latest book, 
"Fighting For
>>Survival".   In it, alongside other ideas-- some excellent, 
some marginal--
>>they make the following suggestions for improving the 
economy:
>>- Redistribution of land from rich to poor
What function does this serve?  Economy of smaller scale?
>>- Loans to urban and rural poor
>>- Debt relief for third-world countries
These two really go together.  Big loans to third-world 
countries, and their inability to repay, largely contributed 
to the situation they find themselves in.  Are you sure you 
don't want to propose an outright gift to urban and rural 
poor?
>>- More 'equitable' distribution of income in industrialized 
nations
Who decides what is equitable?
At this point, I'd be willing to place a bet.  If all wealth 
were evenly divided up on a per capita basis, I would think 
that in 20 years, you would still find some people who are 
rich, some who are middle class, and some who are poor.  In 
other words, equal opportunity *does not* mean equal outcome!
>>It's not hard to see the underlying motives here. True 
environmentalists,
>>rise up and cast off your leaders!
>>
>I think Agua has it the wrong way around on the World Watch 
folks.
>Environmentally it seems to me they are worthless, just 
another bunch
>of whiners crying into their shirt-tails.
> 
>The four points above, however, seem to me excellent social 
policy
>from every point of view; they are all programs which are 
widely and
>empirically demonstrated to help productivity, innovation, 
and POAGG,
>that's peaceorderandgoodgovernment.
> 
>                                  -dlj.
> 
>
> 
>                             
Do any of you proponents of the above suggestions ever stop 
to think about what makes "poor" people poor?  If this was 
just a question of money, why hasn't the U.S. managed to 
eliminate poverty after 30 years of the Great Society?
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

Ummm...  could you please pass the steak sauce?
In article 
,
   John Nahay  wrote:
>
>And I think that you have the right to be blown up in the 
Oklahoma City
>bombing. That is MY legal right to state MY opinion.  And, 
YOU have NO 
>RIGHT forcing YOUR moral opinions on me or anyone else.  The 
FBI and the 
>Justice Departments should gun you down because you deserve 
it.
>You have NO right to complain about that, because that is 
YOUR choice to 
>eat meat, and hence YOU would be responsible for your own 
death.
>Go to some other country, if you don't like it here.
>
>And, just because you disagree with me, don't you tell me 
what I can or 
>cannot say. You are NO better than Saddam Hussein. So, 
therefore, I have 
>as much right to tell our President to give you the death 
penalty as he 
>would to Saddam Hussein.
>
>> Hey, fool!  For the last time, there is no torture going 
on! 
>> These animals are humanely dispatched in a quick way to 
>> prevent suffering as much as possible.  Of course, I 
realize 
>> that you are probably an animal rights activist.
>> 
>> Just for fun, I'll add my own view of animal rights.  
Animals 
>> have the right to contribute a steak to my dinner plate.  
The 
>> last time I looked, they couldn't vote, they apparently 
>> cannot think of concepts more complicated than how to eat 
>> another animal (or plant), and they don't organize into 
>> societies in the same sense as humans.  If animals think 
that 
>> they are being mistreated or abused, let them organize and 
>> overthrow us humans!
>> 
>> Have a nice day.
>> For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
>> http://www.hamblin.com
>
>Same old bullshit, I see.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <553o9f$t3f@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
   redflag@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Christian Camacho) 
wrote:
>"Knowledge is proud that it knows so much, 
> Wisdom is humble that it knows no more."
>
And the man who is knowledgeable and wise, realizes that 
ignorance is bliss!
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <553moe$bao@earth.njcc.com>,
   nahay@pluto.njcc.com (John Nahay) wrote:
>-2510962307150001@la-dial2-22.wavenet.com> 
<01bbc359$29a1dd00$89d0d6cc@masher> 
<3272F5EA.31F0@west.darkside.com> 
<01bbc409$612cdb20$89d0d6cc@masher> 
<01bbc433$107ca140$65bd99cd@hanson.quick.net> 
<01bbc435$c9a587c0$65bd99cd@hanson.quick.net>
>
>hanson (hanson@quick.net) wrote:
>: Any normal human being makes its living from constructing, 
building
>: something. The green fools , just like 2 year olds, only 
whine and cry,
>: shit all over the place and destroy things. But that's all 
they know. They
>: don't even know that the are used as the ultimate pawns in 
the greater
>: game. They don't even know how to vote. The sierra club, 
ie., has to give
>: them a voting list. 
>
>Just another jerk who opposes free speech from those with 
whom it...(he?)
>disagrees.
>
But John; you make it so easy to oppose free speech when it 
is coming from you.  Think about it.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <551gg0$epg@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
   davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
(cut)
>The world's resources are not increases.  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.  
This is not
>business.  It is gambling.
This is a very intelligent conclusion.  The value of stocks 
is based on what people are willing to pay.  This value is 
occasionally disconnected from any type of "net worth".
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

Ummm... please pass the steak sauce.
In article 
,
   John Nahay  wrote:
>> >How about YOU imposing YOUR moral views on animals by 
>> torturing them and 
>> >eating them?  
>> 
>> The only torture I would expose animals to would occur 
only 
>> if I let them read your endless and mindless drivel before 
>> killing them!
>
>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.
>
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <552lnv$j0a@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
   jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
>charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>
>
>: 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.
>
>	Repeating the URL for your benefit:
>
>http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Tempertr/pics/d_big.gif
>
>
>	Enjoy!
>
>	Jim Acker
>
Thanks.  I will look post haste.  Please ignore the earlier 
reply about this subject.
Some minutes pass ...
I just looked at it, and I am appending my observations to 
this posting.  
Some more minutes pass ...
At first glance, the data look intriguing.  I'll look at it 
some more before commenting.  Thanks for the URL.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

Ummm... please pass the steak sauce.
In article 
,
   John Nahay  wrote:
>> For someone who is an animal lover, you don't seem to love 
>> many of your fellow human beings, who are also classified 
as 
>> being in the animal kingdom.  Gee, I guess you selectively 
>> decide which animals you will love, and which ones you 
will 
>> hate.  Preach on!
>
>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.
>
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <552led$ij8@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
   jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
>	2)  Speaking of climatological data, HAVE YOU LOOKED
>	AT THE FIGURE YET?  (Sorry to shout, but the figure
>	from the Hadley Centre (UK) is pretty much what 
>	Charlie W. was asking for.)  If you haven't examined
>	it, and lost the URL, I'll provide it again.  Just
>	ask.  
>
I either didn't get the URL the first time, or I lost it.  
Please send this info again, and I will be HAPPY to look at 
the data.
BTW, some time back, I asked for a reposting, and didn't get 
it.  Please email me, so I don't have to look in 200 usenet 
postings to find it.  Thanks.
Have a nice day.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <328368b6.74413380@news.primenet.com>,
   ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
(Scott Nudds crap cut (thank goodness)):
>Well... there may be new ideas out there that someone will 
find, or
>long term social trends that will evolve.
>
>But socialism, communism, fascism and various mixes have 
all been
>tried and found wanting to one degree or another.
Capitalism also has its faults.  However, I am of the 
opinion that its faults are somewhat better than the faults 
of the other forms of government/economy that you mention, 
especially if it is "properly" regulated (e.g., competition 
is encouraged).
>
>Environmentalism has the same problem as any collectivist 
ideology: it
>requires people to go against their natural urge to better 
themselves
>or their family. When a country gets rich enough, as the 
USA is now,
>altruism can enter the equation. However, more than a 
limited amount
>of imposed altruism will be counterproductive.
Good point indeed.  Attempts to legislate morality are 
usually futile (e.g., prohibition).
>
>Besides... the real environmental problem is not in the 
west... it is
>in the population explosion that is at its worst in the 
third world.
>Unless that can be solved (and capitalism is one good 
solution),
>having the piddling few in the north make minor reductions 
in their
>environmental impact is not going to have much benefit.
>
Another good point.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <3276C0B7.7045@west.darkside.com> TL ADAMS  writes:
  > 
  > Jim Lellman wrote:
  > >  I have been calling recyclers
  > > in the Chicago area to see if someone will take these thermostats, but
  > > everybody seems to be specializing in paper, aluminum cans, or scrap iron.
  > > Do you know of any program to recycle thermostats and other devices
  > > containing mercury switches?
  > 
  > Believe or not, you might try the US EPA Region V office in Chicago,
  > who may or maynot have a suggestion for a qualified recycler.  Also,
  > check
  > with the Ill. DEP, whom I believe do offer recycling programs.  Go for
  > the  fed regional
  > office first, as that is a local number for you, I believe.
  > 
  > Ya know, with the price of mercury being what it is, I am surprised that
  > you couldn;t
  > find someone quicker.  The couple of grams of Hg in some of the older
  > thermostats that I've seen ought to be worth a couple of bucks.
Ecopiety has reached the stage of extreme silliness.  
Suppose the thermostat contains a milligram of mercury.  If you throw
it into the ocean, the milligram of mercury will join 60 million tons
of mercury already there, i.e you will be increasing the mercury in
the ocean by one part in 6 x 10^16.
-- 
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.

I'm also interested in finding out more about the disappearance of the
species you mentioned. I'm an environmental reporter in north Florida. I
grew up further south in Florida, near the Gulf, and I remember the
beaches around Long Boat Key being covered with coquinas and sand
fleas/mole crabs. Now I don't see any. There aren't any up here in around
Destin either but maybe there never were any. 
I don't know of any beach/slope changes, except the one that always
accompany development of structures close to the shoreline.
I'd be interested in any further information on this.
Robin

In article <32769B26.79E4@ix.netcom.com>, 
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>H. Brashears states:
>
>-Your persoanl attacks have persuaded me do discontinue the 
current
>-discussion.
>
>-While I think you are both ill-informed and ill-mannered, 
I do not
>--think you are either a simpleton or an idiot, nor do I 
think you
>"blather".
>
>-If you feel like a discussion without ad hominen attacks, 
let me 
>-know.
>
>-In the meantime...nevermind.
>
>-Regards, Harold
>-----------
>-"Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. 
Be 
>-industrious
>-and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, 
and you 
>-will be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be 
happy.
>-        ---Benjamin Franklin, Letter, 9 Aug. 1768
>
>I reply:
>
>A high-horse is a high-horse.  You ride yours, I'll ride 
mine.
Just be careful not to fall off.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <327573F5.5831@ix.netcom.com>, 
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>charliew says, in response to my display of temper (tell me 
if this is 
>better, Axel):
>
>>I had no intention of getting snooty.  However, if you 
want
>>to go this route, I will ask you to call me Master W.  
Yes, I
>>admit that I have less education than you.  Now the whole
>>world knows it.
>
>and says also in reponse to my self-aggrandizement:
>
>>Very admirable.
>
>and continues to remain embarrassingly (to me) polite and 
say:
>
>>I think the medium (email) didn't adequately convey the
>>intent of my former posting.  I apologize if it was
>>misinterpreted.  BTW, thanks for the additional 
information
>>in your followup.  I think I understand the point you were
>>originally trying to make.
>
>I reply to all of this:
>
>If your 'Mr. Friesel' wasn't the opening to some high-horse 
snootiness 
>then I apologize.  Master as a title is not used in this 
country, and 
>in England where it is used is not related to education to 
my 
>knowlege.  And I really don't care about your education or 
mine, 
>appearances to the contrary.  It's simply not that relavent 
in the 
>discussion of ideas.
Thanks for the followup.
OK.  I'll admit that I was in a rush, and I couldn't 
remember if "M" in "mfriesel" stood for Mark, or some other 
name beginning with "M" (how embarassing).  Go ahead ... 
shoot me for not remembering names.
BTW, I usually like to be polite, because this is better 
than much of what you see on usenet.
Have a nice day (boy, I won't make that mistake again!).
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In article <555vt4$oj8@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
   davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
>
>In article <32783b60.337010293@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>Harold Brashears  wrote:
>>davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote for all to see:
>>>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.
>
>
>It would be more accurate to say our ability to locate and 
use resources
>is increasing rather than to say the world's resources are 
increasing. 
>The resources are there whether or not we have the ability 
to utilize
>them.  Someday if we ever get fusion to work then we'll 
have literally
>oceans of fuel, but I would not count that as a current 
resource and I do
>not like to bet our planet's future on the possible 
promises of technology.
>
What a strange thing to type.  We *have* been betting our 
planet's future on the promises of technology (at least in 
the U.S.) for at least 50 years now.  Why is this time frame 
somehow different?
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

H. Brashears, crusader against ad hominum attacks (when they're 
directed at him), says:
-I really must protest.  I do not think Scott should be placed in a
-killfile.  In the first place, this means you have no warning when 
-you run across some quote from him in someone else'e.  This can be
-unpleasant.
-Second, it makes more sense to use a newsreader that lists the names
-of posters, that way if you see a bunch of posts by Nudds you can be
-sure that there is little of interest to be had, and kill the whole
-thread.  That way, even Nudds is useful!
I reply:
You old hypocrite, you! ;^)  *wink*

In article <32762337.431B@ix.netcom.com>, 
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
(BIG CUT)
>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.
I've noticed that you like to nurse grudges.  This is an 
observation, not an accusation.  If you could find it in 
yourself to quit doing this particular thing, you would 
probably be somewhat happier with your state of affairs.  
However, I do realize that this may require a personality 
change (it is unlikely to happen).
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

Dave Witt says:
- Also consider the stock market does not reflect
-actual physical
->wealth but intangible stocks whose value changes daily.
This is not
->business.  It is gambling.
To which charliew replies:
--This is a very intelligent conclusion.  The value of stocks
--is based on what people are willing to pay.  This value is
--occasionally disconnected from any type of "net worth".
and I add:
U.S. News, Oct. 21 1996 p. 62 'Business and Technology':
'Indeed, the fastest growing parts of the U.S. economy today include 
gambling, prisons, and medical treatment.'
However, the stock market is a special kind of gambling subject to 
special rules which reduce risk if you've got the resources.  One 
example is the 'Greenspan Rule' which held for a number of years and 
may still (which is where gambling is still involved) to wit:  Martin 
Marietta (or name your corporation) lays off 30,000, Greenspan lowers 
interest rates, stock market rises.  The more direct rule was 'lay 
them off, your own stock rises' because your short-term profits rise.