Newsgroup sci.environment 107893

Directory

To ISO 9000 registrars:
We are currently in the process of becoming accredited as registrars for
ISO 14001 under the RAB-ANSI National Accreditation Program.  We are
seeking ISO 9000 registrars for partnering arrangements to provide
combined registrations for organizations desiring to become accredited
for both ISO 14000 and ISO 9000.  If you are interested in pursuing such
arrangements, please contact me.
Rick Gehrke
ISO 14000 Program Manager
Advanced Waste Management Systems, Inc.
http://www.mindspring.com/~awms/iso/

"SDEF!"  wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>There are other toxic effects, which make the hormone disruption
>claims largely unneccessary for the case for elimination of dioxin.
>Taking that aspect alon is about as logical as claiming nuclear waste
>isn't dangerous because most of it is only slightly acidic.
>Here are a few more health effects.
>reproductive disorders: 
[edited list of symptoms attributed, without proof, to dioxin]
>Ask the survivors of Bhopal if they need any proof.
Personal attack here:
If you are so ignorant as to believe that the deaths in bhopal are
related to dioxin, then I would judge you to be smater than a fence
post, but not by much!
That was a result of methyl isocyanate exposure to water.
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring 
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be 
something like AIDS."
     - Earth First newsletter,  ref. December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

dmaclean@axionet.com wrote:
>Hi, 
>I'm a student at British Columbia Institute of Technology, and I am
>writing a paper on "Analytical Procedure in Measuring BTEX".  Any
>information you have on  BTEX in soil and ground water analysis  would
>be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks in advance.
Maria:
Contact Enviro-Test Laboratories in Edmonton. They do LOTS of these 
analyses and have documentation that describes analytical procedures.  
You can telephone them at 1-800-668-9878 (ask for Doug Johnson) or visit 
their web site at http://www.envirotest.com
--Margaret in Calgary

John McCarthy  wrote in article
...
> CSD4AW - or some other robot includes
> 
>      The question should be, not why is X or Y country
>      prosperous, but why the hell certain fantastically-endowed
>      states such as Zaire are stuck deep in grinding poverty. The
>      answers to such questions can only be sought in the
>      mechanisms of dependency that attach South to North.
> 
> If that is where you only seek answers, you will never find the truth.
> The Zaire politicians will continue to loot not only their own people
> but any loans or gifts that come their way.  Fools in the North will
> praise the self-righteous speeches of their leaders in the UN.
> 
Quite right.  When Mbutu Sese Seko took power, he stopped 'colonial
influence' by such actions as banning the use of European names and the
nationalization of assets.  The country has been in a downward spiral ever
since.   I visited Zaire in 1988; the corruption and abuses are
mind-boggling.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

SDEF!  wrote:
> This whole debate is concentrating on ONE aspect of Dioxin Toxicity.
> ...
> Ask the survivors of Bhopal if they need any proof.
Are you seriously suggesting dioxin had anything to do with Bhopal?  You
are quite mistaken.
> Here are a few more health effects.
> reproductive disorders: 
Wrong.
"Except for Chloracne, however, TCDD (the most toxic dioxin component) has
not demonstrated comparable effects in man; that is to say, no long-term
effects on the cardiovascular system and central nervous system, the liver,
the kidney, the thymus and immunologic defenses, or on the reproductive
function-- in the male, female, or offspring have been demonstrated."
     - AMA, Council on Scientific Affairs, 1984, pg. 41
> Birth defects 
Wrong again.
"The study failed to disclose any gross developmental abnormalities."
     - Pierpallo Mastroiacovo et al.  "Birth Defects in the Seveso Area
after TCDD Contamination", JAMA vol. 259, Nol 11.
> Increased rates of cancer, including (tumors) of numerous specific sites
and 
> all cancers combined. 
Again, wrong.  A study published in the June 1989 issue of American Journal
of Epidemiology reported on the correlation between Seveso-area residents
and the incidence of cancer.  They found a correlation coefficient of less
than
1.0, meaning that, as a group, the residents had a slightly smaller risk of
cancer than the population at large.
Also, from the New York State Department of Health, after intensive testing
at Love Canal:
"Blood testing, which was designed to screen for liver and kidney
abnormalities, leukemia, and other blood diseases, showed no pattern of
excess abnormality.  [computer analysis of test data] produced no unusual
patterns of illness or other disorders.  Cancer incidence was within normal
limits.   Efforts to establish a correlation between adverse pregnancy
outcomes and evidence of chemical exposures have proven negative."
Another study by the New York Cancer Registry was released in 1981 in
Science Magazine.   It showed "no evidence for higher cancer rates near the
Love Canal site."
Another study, which looked at possible genetic effects:
"No chromosomal damage or other long-term effects were found."
     - M. L. Tenchini et al, "Preliminary Cytogenetic Findings in
TCDD-Exposed Subjects after the Seveso Accident".  Berg, K. ed., "Genetic
Damage in Man Caused by Environmental Agents", Acedemic Press 1979.
The authorities agree: dioxin is a false issue.   If you are truly
interested in the environment, why not concentrate on somethine serious?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

Again, > indicates a reply by McCarthy...
John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> Corporate public relations departments are always sending press
> releases to newspapers and to radio and TV stations.  Rarely an
> article appears based on such a release, but presumably the releases
> have some effect - or at least the corporations must think they do.
> 
> A more direct case is a newspaper or radio station refusing
> advertising space to a corporation for a statement of its opinion on >a public issue.  A corporation cannot defend itself against an attack > by the _New York Times_, even if it is willing to pay for the space.
> The newspapers' right to refuse critical advertising has been deemed
> protected by the First Amendment.
I reply:
I would like to find out more about this.  Do you have any references 
to articles where this issue is discussed?  Any true-life examples of 
how this has worked in practice?  Clearly there must have been a suit 
at some time.  Corporations can still employ direct mail if the issue 
is that important to them.  Was this allowed in the USSR, and doesn't 
this somewhat negate the effects of newspaper and radio?  Further, 
since the media is not controlled by the state as in the USSR, isn't 
there a fair likelihood that radio stations and newspapers could be 
found which would accept corporate advertising?
I apologize that I keep regressing to talk about the original issue, 
but within the corporation the 'state' controls the newspaper and can 
print and suppress pretty much what it likes.  In other words, in this 
respect the corporation is run pretty much like the soviet state.
> --
> 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.

John McCarthy wrote(indicated by >):
> I continue my comparison between the Politburo and the Board of
> Directors of a Corporation.
I impolitely interrupt with the snide comment:
You mean, you claim that you will start to talk about it.
> 
> Power tends to corrupt, and greater power tends to greater >corruption.
> Corporations and owners don't have life and death power over their
> employees.  If they did, some of them would abuse it.  Where they do
> have part of this power, e.g. have company towns, they often do >abuse it.
> 
> It is a virtue of modern capitalism that there are a variety of >partly
> independent economic organizations that compete with one another and
> which have limited power over their employees, competitors and their
> customers.  There are unions and laws encouraging them somewhat,
> anti-trust laws, and consumer rights laws.  These aren't optimal by
> anyone's standards, but they offer all of us some protection and >still
> permit competition.
> 
Usually when someone says they will continue talking about something, 
they in fact do so.  What you talk about above is all very interesting 
and worth discussion, for example the need to keep corporations under 
control because of their tendency to want to eliminate unions, to have 
life and death power over employees, etc.  Some other time.
If your health is bad, let me know and I'll quit jumping on you.
> --
> 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.

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> What amuses me is that this discussion is going in an atmosphere of
> panic at a time when the price of oil is at an all time low in real
> terms, and the alternatives are obvious.
> 
> What makes these kids to fret?
> 
> There is much useful work to be done, but as far as I can see worrying
> about digging up hydrocrabons ain't part of it.
Perhaps you can't see very well.
================================================================
    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" (outputs
become inputs) -- 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., water and soil). Thus, modern agriculture
is not circular -- it can not be sustained.
Consider the most important limiting variable -- energy.[3]
There is NO substitute for energy.  Although the economy treats
energy just like any other resource, it is NOT like any other
resource.  Energy is the precondition for ALL other resources
and oil is the most important form of energy we use, making up
about 38 percent of the world energy supply.
40 years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert developed a method for
projecting future oil production and predicted that 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 [estimated
 ultimately recoverable] 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?  YES!  Modern
agriculture -- indeed, all of modern civilization -- requires
massive, uninterrupted flows of oil-based energy.
To really understand the underlying causes and 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
increases in entropy.  Thus, 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.
Is there nothing we can do?
We could lessen human suffering if all the people of Earth
cooperated for the common good.  But as long as political
systems serve only as corporate errand boys, we're dead.
------------------------------------------------------------
           The ancient prophesy remains true:
      "Where there is no vision, the people perish."[9]
THE BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO:
"In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground
 would have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates.
 No serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the
 remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why
 did this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth
 increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and
 2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows
 by 85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During
 the first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century,
 the rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use
 as many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in
 the entire century before. So many resources are used that
 much more capital and energy are required to find, extract,
 and refine what remains.
"As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to
 obtain in this simulated world, capital is diverted to
 producing more of them. That leaves less output to be
 invested in basic capital growth.
"Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this
 is physical investment and depreciation, not monetary).
 The economy cannot stop putting its capital into the
 agriculture and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity
 of food, materials, and fuels would restrict production
 still more. So the industrial capital plant begins to
 decline, taking with it the service and agricultural
 sectors, which have become dependent upon industrial
 inputs. For a short time the situation is especially
 serious, because the population keeps rising, due to the
 lags inherent in the age structure and in the process
 of social adjustment. Finally population too begins to
 decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack of
 food and health services."[10]
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE   Billions
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        |11
 You are here-------------+                           |10
                          |         _                 |9
                          |      _ -|~~-_             |8
                          V  _ -~   |     ~ - _       |7
                          _-~       |           ~ _   |6
                      _- ~          |               ~_|5
                   _-~              |                 |4
               _-~                  |                 |3
     ____ ---~         Massive human die-off begins.  |2
~~~~                            (GIGADEATH)           |1
---|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
   1920  1940  1960  1980  2000  2020  2040  2060  2080
                           . . .
References:
1. p. 43, ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY,
   John Peet; Island Press, 1992. ISBN 1-55963-160-0.
   Phone: 800-828-1302 or 707-983-6432; FAX: 707-983-6164 
   http://www.islandpress.com
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, BEYOND OIL, Gever et al.; Univ. Press Colorado, 1991.
   303-530-5337 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. Estimated in 1994 to be about 2025 by Pimentel.  See:
   http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page40.htm
9. Proverbs 29:18
10.p.p.132-134, BEYOND THE LIMITS, Meadows, et al.;
   Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099,
   603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576;  ISBN 0-930031-62-8
   http://www.unh.edu/ipssr/BTL.html
*************************************************************
Please copy and reprint or crosspost this article as much as
 you can. Be sure to include the BRAIN FOOD invitation in
  the article.  This article and 65 others are archived at: 
   http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page1.htm
                     and
   http://www.aloha.net/~jhanson/page1.htm
Please join my BRAIN FOOD mailing list.  The purpose of this
 list is to distribute my essays and news.  I expect that
  there will be no more than a couple of mailings a year.
 My work is dedicated to the Common Good. My essays may be
  freely reprinted and my ideas may be incorporated into
   other works without credit.
 The major themes on this list are "systems" and "philosophy".
  Subtopics may relate to specific disciplines such as
   politics, economics, theology, and ecology.
 This is not the type of list where subscribers can enter
  into a dialog with other list members.  This is a manual
   list that I am running from my home.
 To join this free list, send :
  "subscribe BRAIN FOOD" to jhanson@ilhawaii.net
 [You will get no acknowledgement.  If you are already on
   my list, there is no need to re-subscribe.]
Jay

Wind Torque Ltd  wrote:
> 
> The solar constant is 1388 watts/sq meter.  The Earth has a 
> cross-sectional area of approx 1.27 E14 square meters.  That works out 
> at about 176,000 TW, compared to humanity's consumption of about 15 TW 
> (which is about 3 kW/capita), i.e. the solar resource is more than 
> 10,000 times more than humanity's requirements.  So the solar resource 
> is abundant!
Absurd.  The solar constant is defined outside the earth's atmosphere, at
normal incidence.  Accounting for the angle of incidence introduces a
factor of 1/2.  Atmospheric absorbtion and cloud cover a factor of 1/10 (at
a guess).  The day/night cycle introduces another factor of 1/2.  Now we're
down to 250X.   Divide by 4 to consider land area only.  Assuming 20%
conversion efficiency (good luck!) we're down to 12X.  So, if we destroy
every ecosystem on the planet by covering the entire land surface with
solar collectors, we'll have plenty of solar power.   I won't even mention
the environmental harm caused by the manufacturing of uncounted gigatonnage
of solar cells.  
Solar power is at present only feasible in certain highly restricted uses. 
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

SDEF!  wrote:
> Unfortunately these self-appointed demi-gods fail to realise that we 
> lesser mortals who wait on their tables, clean their streets, build and 
> service their appliances, build their houses and roads, collect and 
> distribute thieir food, remove their waste to where they can't see it, 
> look after them when they are sick, fund their research projects and 
> don't have the time to progress beyond elementary chemistry have just as 
> much right to act on the basis of our opinions as they do.
Ah, at last you admit your belief of the dangers of dioxin is an opinion,
and not science.  
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

"SDEF!"  wrote:
>So all those who died as a result of the "accident" in Bhopal were 
>having a mass hallucination were they? 
Excuse me for popping up here...but to my knowledge, the Bhopal
accident was NOT dioxin, but rather some common organic reagent used
in the chemical industry.
Furthermore, the only large scale human exposure with dioxins was in
Italy, in which contaminated cooking oil was used by thousands of
people. This was published in an article in Scientific American a few
years ago. Perhaps their information is dated, but as I recall, this
massive exposure (exceeding by several orders of magnitude anything
encountered by humans normally) produced NO deaths and NO excessive
cancers. Perhaps more is now known about this unfortunate test
population. 
Jim

John McCarthy wrote:
> CSD4AW - or some other robot includes
> 
>      The question should be, not why is X or Y country
>      prosperous, but why the hell certain fantastically-endowed
>      states such as Zaire are stuck deep in grinding poverty. The
>      answers to such questions can only be sought in the
>      mechanisms of dependency that attach South to North.
> 
> If that is where you only seek answers, you will never find the truth.
> The Zaire politicians will continue to loot not only their own people
> but any loans or gifts that come their way.  Fools in the North will
> praise the self-righteous speeches of their leaders in the UN.
Occasionally (just occasionally) you hit the nail square on the head.
Having lived in Ghana for three years, and visited Zaire and other
African states during that time, I would advise a healthy dose of
caution regarding "colonial" dependency theories.  Whatever factors
dominated the landscape five decades ago are no longer driving the
forces of anarchy in Africa.
BY THE SAME TOKEN, I would advise caution is believing that 
attempting to raise the standard of living will be the cure-all.
A lot of African nations have nothing of relative value on the
scales of consumer standards (at this time).  Trying to get them
there will only present other problems that continually mire in
the political/greed/selfish circles of some African leadership.
I emphasize leadership because in almost all my travels, with
very few exceptions, the diverse tribal and national areas of
Africa (and especially Ghanaians) are filled with really great 
people.
> The success of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea are now
> taken for granted.  You still have to account for Chile's increased
> prosperity since the end of the Allende regime.  More embarrassments
> for the colonial dependency theory are coming along in Thailand,
> Malaysia and even Indonesia.
Again, your idea of "success" may be somewhat limited in its 
applicability in the future, and especially with interior Africa 
(with very limited infrastructures).  It is not by accident that
thriving ports dictated a lot of market expansion.  Even in
port areas of Africa, the transportation infrastructure is 
severely degraded.  It becomes a awesome Catch-22 in trying
rectify these problems with current political structures, etc.
Sustainability of the current consumerist venture of humanity
is just ONE of the problems you face in trying to improve the
African continent.
Sam McClintock
sammcc@nando.net

Checkout this site.
http://www.wecs.org

	Work with the #1 Fastest Growing Private Company in America
		Dedicated to offering solutions to everyday
			Environmental Problems
I'm looking for a few ambitious and driven individuals with a sense of 
humor for Manager, Supervisor, and Director positions for local offices 
across the nation.  Flexible.  PT/FT.  No experience necessary.  Full 
Training and support. Call to set up interview.  Miss. Nguyen Trinh 
@201-408-4396

(cut)
>Unabomber PAC wrote:
>> 
>>         This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution.  Its 
object
>>         will be to overthrow not governments but the 
economic
>>         and technological basis of the present society.
>>         -The Unabomber
>> 
>>         Come on, baby, take a chance with us...
>>         -The Doors, "The End"
>> 
>> The publishing of the Unabomber's manifesto in the 
Washington Post was
>> an extraordinary event, and any honest examination of the 
subsequent
>> press coverage reveals a simple but important truth: the 
Unabomber hit a
>> nerve.  Even Time Magazine, surely a symbol of corporate 
control, was
>> seen quoting the Unabomber at length, and supporting many 
of his
>> observations.  Industrial society HAS been a disaster for 
the human
>> race, and people ARE humiliated and degraded by the 
technologies they've
>> created.
>> 
>> The Unabomber Presidential Write-Campaign is about 
revealing the
>> resignation that people feel, the deep conviction that 
they are utterly
>> helpless, that they have no choice but to join the 
parade, that their
(BIG BIG BIG CUT)
>> fates are determined by forces far beyond their control. 
>> Four hundred years ago, our suburbs and office parks were 
wilderness,
>> forest and plains, mountains and rivers, teeming with an 
unimaginable
>> diversity of life.  Industrial society crushed out that 
diversity, and
>> replaced it with monoculture: mile after mile of corn 
fields, each plant
>> a genetically perfect copy, identical houses and cars in 
endless rows,
>> one size fits all, even people standardized and stacked 
on top of one
>> another like cans of beer.  What native society ever 
built factory
>> farms, or robotic slaughterhouses?  What makes us so 
different from our
>> veal cows, force-fed and chained to their pens, unable to 
take a single
>> step?  Who were the real savages?  A vote for the 
Unabomber is a vote
>> for the chaos of freedom, a vote for Wild Nature: dare to 
join the
>> barbarians at the gates.
>> 
>>                             WE ARE THE VEAL
>> 
>> 
____________________________________________________________
________
>> Unapack                     Unabomber Presidential 
Write-In Campaign
>> P.O.Box 120494                  
http://www.paranoia.com/unapack/
>> Boston, MA 02112                    unapack@paranoia.com	
I wonder what turnip truck this guy (the author) fell off 
of?
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

In article <327975A6.9501B1A@math.nwu.edu>,
   Leonard Evens  wrote:
>James G. Acker wrote:
>> 
>> charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>> : In article <557ogf$9t@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
>> :    jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
>> : (BIG CUT)
>> :
(cut)
>> : I have indeed looked at the Hadley Centre data.  In 
fact, I
>> : have several observations and comments:
>> :
>> : 1) Sputnik wasn't launched until 1958 (as I recall).  
Yet,
>> : the referenced data for global average temperature 
starts
>> : in 1860.  It seems unusual that there is an implication 
that
>> : the data from 1860-1960 was as valid as the data since 
1960,
>> : when there were no orbiting satellites to record global
>> : average temperatures, and no one knew that this data 
would
>> : be needed in the future.  Confidence intervals on the
>> : observed temperatures would be interesting to see.
>> 
>
>Actually satellite collection of temperature data did not 
begin
>until 1979.
I am fully aware that we didn't use satellites for weather 
observation until some time after 1958.  I picked that point 
in time because it was obviously impossible to get satellite 
data before then.
(cut)
>> : 2) It looks almost like there were "step" changes in 
the
>> : global average temperature at 1920, and again at 1980. 
 The
>> : period from 1860 to 1920 looks like it belongs to given
>> : circumstances, while the period from 1920 to 1980 looks 
like
>> : it belongs to different circumstances.  It is also 
apparent
>> : that we are presently in another "step" change, and it 
is
>> : difficult to tell where this new trend will "line out".
>>
>
>You can't eyeball time series and come to any sensible 
conclusions.
I didn't draw any conclusions.  I gave my impression of what 
I observed.  However, while you mention it, your point is 
equally valid for people attempting to conclude that human 
produced CO2 is leading to the observed heating.  The plot 
of temperature vs. time doesn't clearly demonstrate that.  
In fact, I'm not sure what it demonstrates, other than the 
fact that global temperatures seem to have increased by 
approximately 0.5 deg C in the last 135 years.
>It is true that most of the change this century seems to 
have taken
>place in two `spurts', one in the 20s and one in the 70s, 
but trying to
>draw detailed conclusions by uniformed viewing of the 
graphs is not
>going to leas to any sensible conclusions.   Statistics is 
a very
>difficult subject to start with and time series analysis is 
particularly
>murky.
Agreed.  The acid test of expertise in time series analysis 
is fairly easy to devise.  Some time back, a grad school 
prof told me that you could apply time series analysis to 
the stock market.  This would be fairly easy to test.  
Anyone who tried this and wound up broke in a period 
stretching over several years would clearly prove that he 
didn't know what he was talking about.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>: France delt with their spent fuel by making more fuel out of it.
>  More fuel, high level waste, and a lot of enemies.
1st, they generated LESS high level waste - you see u-238 is converted to
plutonium in all light water reactors.  It is created and burned during
the fuel cycle, but we create more than we burn (can you tell me which
isotope? - if not, don't bother replying as you DO NOT know what you are
talking about)
They use this plutonium along with the remaining uranium (235 and 238) AND
"newly" enriched uranium to create another fuel assembly.  So, actually,
they are RECYCLING!  This means less digging uranium out of the ground.
2nd, the only enemy they have is you.  In fact, their latest plant, UP3,
is in contract with several countries, some of the "bigger" players being
the UK and Switzerland.
I would NEVER think to make statements about something I know little
about, but it seems fair game for everyone to come out against the fission
process when they cannot even explain how power is produced from a nuclear
plant.  In my experience, most of these anti-nukes point to the cooling
tower and call it the "reactor".  Are you one of them?
Patrick
All opinions are mine alone!

CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKELY
CAUSE OF CURRENT SHIFT
     Global climate change resulting from the burning of fossil
fuels and other human activities is the likely culprit in the
strange behavior of the El Nino Pacific Ocean current over the
past several years, according to researchers Kevin Trenberth and
Timothy Hoar of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.
     El Nino traditionally refers to the periodic warming of
Pacific waters off the coasts of Peru and Ecuador.  It is part of
ENSO, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, a large and complex
interaction between the tropical Pacific Ocean and the global
atmosphere.  The Pacific warming has been linked to such impacts
as drought in Australia and South America and flooding in
California and along the Gulf Coast.
     New findings on the globe's most recent El Nino were
released March 29 by NCAR.  This warming of waters in the central
and eastern tropical Pacific lasted from 1990 to mid-1995, the
longest in 130 years of records.
     Using a series of sophisticated statistical tests, Trenberth
and Hoar found that such an event would be expected to occur only
once in about 2,000 years--if the climate were unchanging.  The
results of their study, they said in an article in the journal
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS in January, raise such climate
questions as: "Is this pattern of change a manifestation of
global warming and related effects of increasing greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere? Or is this pattern a natural variation that
occurs on a time scale of a decade or longer?  We have shown that
the latter is highly unlikely."
     Both the unusual length of the recent El Nino and the
pattern of more frequent El Ninos over the past 20 years are
statistically unlikely to be the result of natural variations,
Trenberth and Hoar said.  An El Nino of such length, given the
existing historical record, is likely to occur about once every
1,500 to 3,000 years, while the change in frequency is a one-in-
2,000 years occurrence.
     Current global climate models do not yet do a very good job
of simulating El Nino events, the two said, so the question of
what is causing the recent trend cannot be stated with certainty.
Nevertheless, the low probability of natural causes "opens up the
possibility that the ENSO changes may be partly caused by the
observed increases in greenhouse gases."
_______________________________________________________________________________
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted (from a back issue), at no cost.
For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back
issues, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable energy,
energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The
electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length. 
The free electronic edition of the _Weekly_ is intended as an educational
publication for those without a commercial interest in the wind energy 
industry.  If your interest in wind is commercial in nature, please write to
 for more information about AWEA membership and
publications.
If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization, and
reason for interest in the publication. 
____________________________________________________________________________
Tom Gray 					          tomgray@econet.org
____________________________________________________________________________
Support renewable energy!  Visit the Electronic Lobbyist for
Renewable Energy Web Site: 
	http://www.serve.com/stevie2/doorway.html

CONVOCATORIA 
UNIVERSIDAD DEL VALLE
FACULTAD DE INGENIERIAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE PROCESOS QUIMICOS Y BIOLOGICOS
SECCION SANEAMIENTO AMBIENTAL
Requiere: Un (1) Profesional de tiempo completro para el AREA DE PROCESOS
DE TRATAMIENTO DE AGUAS RESIDUALES.
REQUISITOS:
Poseer título de Postgrado en el Area.
Acreditar al menos dos (2) años de experiencia Profesional, Docente o
Investigativa.
Presentar los documentos solicitados:
INTERESADOS ENVIAR:
Carta de presentación indicando aspiraciones en el Campo de Investigación
en el Area
Hoja de Vida completa
Propuesta Preliminar de Investigación en el Area ( Máximo 20 páginas)
Documento escrito para Conferencia de 30 minutos, en temas relacionados con
el Area ( Máximo 20 páginas)
FECHA LIMITE PARA RECEPCION DE SOLICITUDES Y DOCUMENTOS : 
Diciembre 13 de 1996
INFORMES: 
Julia Rosa Caicedo
Jefe Sección Saneamiento Ambiental
E-mail: julcaice@mafalda.univalle.edu.co
Teléfono: 57 - 92 -3312175
FAX: 57 - 92 - 3392335
Apartado Aereo : 25360
Cali - Colombia
Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones
E-mail: vrinv@mafalda.univalle.edu.co

In article <327A1D06.2B54@ilhawaii.net>,
   Jay Hanson  wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
>> What amuses me is that this discussion is going in an 
atmosphere of
>> panic at a time when the price of oil is at an all time 
low in real
>> terms, and the alternatives are obvious.
>> 
>> What makes these kids to fret?
>> 
>> There is much useful work to be done, but as far as I can 
see worrying
>> about digging up hydrocrabons ain't part of it.
>
>Perhaps you can't see very well.
>
>===========================================================
=====
>
>    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" 
(outputs
>become inputs) -- 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., water and soil). Thus, modern 
agriculture
>is not circular -- it can not be sustained.
>
(BIG CUT)
This whole discussion about entropy is totally ridiculous.  
The sun provides the energy that drives all weather related 
processes on earth, which make it possible for food to grow. 
Thus, considerations of entropy for the earth by itself look 
at *way* too small a portion of the universe to reach 
anywhere close to the correct conclusions.
Additionally, entropy is supposed to lead to maximum 
randomness, if left alone.  Yet, when you look at the scale 
of solar systems, it is obvious that gravity causes 
particulates and gases to come together to form planets.  
This doesn't look like a maximally random distribution of 
mass and energy to me.
Finally, if you believe in evolution, it should be obvious 
that no life could have adapted at all due to the effect of 
entropy.  The mere fact that living creatures (which are 
very complicated) abound, strongly implies that there are 
probably things in this solar system (and universe) which 
may be more important than entropy.
Quit trying to confuse laymen with your gibberish.  Choose a 
subject that contains things which can be measured and 
impacted by practical human means.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

Checkout the American Nuclear Society's home page or the DOE's for the
latest in fundings.
Patrick McCarthy
(wow, there are some fellow pro-nukes out here - great!)

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
> Wind Torque Ltd  wrote:
> >
> > The solar constant is 1388 watts/sq meter.  The Earth has a
> > cross-sectional area of approx 1.27 E14 square meters.  That works out
> > at about 176,000 TW, compared to humanity's consumption of about 15 TW
> > (which is about 3 kW/capita), i.e. the solar resource is more than
> > 10,000 times more than humanity's requirements.  So the solar resource
> > is abundant!
> 
> Absurd.  The solar constant is defined outside the earth's atmosphere, at
> normal incidence.  Accounting for the angle of incidence introduces a
> factor of 1/2.  Atmospheric absorbtion and cloud cover a factor of 1/10 (at
> a guess).  The day/night cycle introduces another factor of 1/2.  Now we're
> down to 250X.   Divide by 4 to consider land area only.  Assuming 20%
> conversion efficiency (good luck!) we're down to 12X.  So, if we destroy
> every ecosystem on the planet by covering the entire land surface with
> solar collectors, we'll have plenty of solar power.   I won't even mention
> the environmental harm caused by the manufacturing of uncounted gigatonnage
> of solar cells.
> 
> Solar power is at present only feasible in certain highly restricted uses.
> 
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
Not so fast!  The posting used the value of cross-sectional area of the
earth (which I verified), not surface area.  This means the area that
subtends the solar flux.  This eliminates your factors due to day/night
and angle of incidence.  The influence of the atmosphere and clouds on
sunlight varies with time and technology needs to deal with this, but
they do not reduce it by a factor of ten.
The name of the previous poster (Wind Torque Ltd.) and the content of
his posting should tip you off to one fact:  solar energy isn't just
collected from solar cells.  Wind energy is a result of differential
solar heating; it can be generated over oceans but still collected over
land.  Even with solar cells, they don't have to cover every square
meter of collecting area.  Mirrors can be used to focus light on a
solar cell.
Brent Lofgren, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor

I'm trying to gather information for a paper I am writing, and need to 
know about how paper and plastic bags are recycled.  I have found a lot 
of info on paper, but almost nothing on plastic.  If anyone knows any of 
the details (how it gets recycled, how much is being recycled, what are 
the effects on the environment, etc.), or could point me in the direction 
of any literature on the subject, it would be greatly appreciated.
Feel free to e-mail me directly.  Thanks in advance!
Laura Smith
smithl2@ucs.orst.edu

Are you a DOD employee affected by a BRAC action?  If yes, the Naval
Facilities Engineering Service Center has approximately 20 positions
(many environmental) available to you!  To apply, visit your local
personnel agency.  Enroll with the VERA/VSIP DOD stoper list (specifying
Southern California).  To learn more about our command, dial
1-888-4-THE-ESC (free call).

Harold Brashears wrote:
> >amusing alright, now name me one product that was developed from
> >theory to shelf by big business. Hint all you can comne up with is the
> >pet rock.
> 
> That's a joke, right?  Post-It notes!  There, one product, as you
> requested, albiet a small one.
One may correctly assume that any product or process developed prior to
the merger of industy, government, and the university sectors prior to
the mid-1940s was a direct result of corporate R&D.; And with the
exception of the high-tech fields we see today, that includes most
industies, however mundane. Automobiles, printing, refrigeration, radio
and television, forestry, aeroflight, steel, rail and road, agriculture,
and a thousand others all got their start from entrepeneural efforts
without government intervention or control.
Perhaps plastics and advanced health care are the two great exceptions.
I wouldn't even rank semiconductors in that class, though, since they
are but a variation on fully functional tube technology. Their
application in the computer industry, however, can be said to have been
driven with government intervention. Most everything you are surrounded
by is actually old technology with a twist - not post 1940s.
Steve Crisp

I am in the process of setting up a web site with lots of information on
everything and anything related to reverse distribution.  Check it out
at www.ReturnLogistics.com!
For plastics recycling information, try the following web sites:
     - Global Recycling Network
     - Plastics News
     - NAPCOR (National Association for Plastic Container Recovery)
     - Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers
If you want to search for the subject, the following might help:
     - Green Design
     - Pollution Prevention
     - Plastics Recycling
     - Waste Reduction/Prevention
Hope this helps!
Katherine Belle Fischer, Communications Director

In article , athos
 writes
>In article <326865BD.AC8@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman 
>wrote:
>
>> The problem with your statement is that the true owners of the trails,
>> wildlife, are not considered -- only the human users. Wildlife, OF COURSE,
>> would vote to keep you out.
>
>Oh god. He's back.
>
>Wildlife... and ownership... irresolvable. 
>
>"Wildlife" do not own, they possess, until some other animal takes the
>possession away. "Wildlife" certainly do not "own" in a communal way,
>either. Ownership is not an applicable concept for "wildlife."
>Well-meaning, hoplessly irrelevant nonsense once again spews from MV's
>fingers.
>
>And Mike: "wildlife" would vote to keep us [I assume *you* are included]
>out...? Heck, the grubbs would vote to keep the moles out... the songbirds
>would vote to keep the jays out... the salmon would vote to keep... well,
>nearly everybody out... the fungus under the forest floor would... oh
>well, if you'll ever get any point, you'll certainly get this one. Or
>you'll "cretinly" miss it.
>
>But just to spell it out: "wildlife" wouldn't vote en masse. They'd
>probably be offended by your lumping them into a general group. Where's
>the individualism? One "wildlife," one vote? What are you? A commie?
>[Athos suddenly breaks out in a giggling fit so severe that his friends
>are compelled to slap him.]
>
>Your science is faulty. Your reasoning is flattered to be described as
>such. Your rhetoric is empty. You are a fool.
>
>Good day, and good hiking (while crushing burrows with your feet of clay
>and disturbing meals of hapless "wildlife" in need of saving by St.
>Michael de Vandeman).
>
>[Athos bursts out laughing again and, crossing his heart, he swears never
>to reply to Mike Vandeman or Mike Edgar again and wanders to the kitchen
>singing a simple song: "To all the Mikes I've loathed before...." His
>friends simply shake their heads; they just don't believe him.]
>
Excellent news, remove your schoolboy prattling, rhetoric and lack of
vision to where it belongs, .... try rec.children.neandertal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Mike Edgar       "the line between human and nonhuman is, like all lines,
 one that should be drawn in pencil, so that it can be moved to accommodate
moral 
evolution and the realization of moral reality."  Prof. Gary L. Francione
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3278F13B.4869@ix.netcom.com> Bill Toman

> [...] A typical 3.5 horsepower gas mower, for instance, can emit the
> same amount of VOCs -- key precursors to smog -- in an hour as a new
> car driven 340 miles [...]
This is slightly off topic, but I'm also looking for emissions data
for small 2-cycle glowplug engines that use methanol for fuel, and use
total-loss lubrication. I'm less concerned about smog than about the
health hazards of running the engines indoors without special
ventilation.
The fuels are mixtures of methanol, nitromethane (CH3NO2) 0%-50%, and
oil 14%-30%. Oil is typically castor oil or synthetic.
-- Frank Manning

In article <01bbc5cb$99f93660$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher"
 wrote:
> 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.
A Columbian researcher named, if my memory is correct, Dr Pattarroyo,
produced a vaccine which he claimed was partially effective in preventing
malaria. I believe the claim  was something under 40 %. There was great
controversy of these findings and the last notice I read was that US
researchers failed to replicate the Columbian doctor's findings.  Since
hundreds of thousands  of children die each year from malaria,
particularly in Africa a partially effective vaccine which was even 20-30
% effective would have a major public health impact. I am not sure if "the
jury is still out" on this subject.
I do not think that the reduction of malaria in the southern US can be
attributed solely to  "the large scale engineering project that converted
much of Florida from a swamp into useful land" Public health projects and
public health education might also be claimed as having had some effect
along with a change in living conditions brought about after World War II:
i.e. screens on doors and windows and treatment of those infected.
Finally, a comment on the quote attributed to Dr Hugh W. Ellsaesser who
worked for the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (a major SDI (Star Wars)
contractror), as an atmospheric physicist. I belive much of his work had
to do with the transport of radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb testing.
I tried to contact him a few years ago concerning his being quoted in the
controversial book, "The Holes in the Ozone Scare" by Rogelio Maduro and
Ralf Schlauerhammer. The day I called  I was told he, and everyone else,
was attending a lecture by  Dixie Lee Ray,the former Atomic Energey
Commission Chairman, governor of Washington and  another highly
controversial author not to mention bete noir of Wall Street bond
salesmen.
Dr Ellsaesser is quoted on the back cover of the "Ozone Scare" book, as
stating that "...even a worst case senario of an 8 percent decrease in
ozone is wquivalent to the increase in ultraviolet radiation and skin
cancer risk you would get from moving 100 miles south."
There is so little know about natural levels of ultraviolet radiation that
anyone can say anything they want about them. (i.e. no detailed ground
based measurements). However, I don't see how  Dr Ellsaesser's opinions on
global warming and ultraviolet climatology and skin cancer rates can be
given any special weight. They seem to be outside his field of expertise
and subject to bias.
Best wishes, Jim Scanlon
-- 
199 Canal St #8
San Rafael CA
94901
415-485-0540

Jennifer Mills wrote:
> 
>  am a high school student trying to figure out what to do with my
> life, eduacation and career wise.
> 
> I am very concerned about the environment and I am looking for
> information on environmental careers and universities where I can get
> the needed education.
> 
> I am especially interested in the engineering field (Environmental
> engineer?)
> 
> I feel that the environment is an increasingly important topic and I
> feel that the environment would be a good career path for me to
> choose.
> 
> Any information or suggestions regarding the above is appreciated!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jennifer MillsJennifer, 
In regards to thinking about choosing a career in environmental, there are a couple of 
very important things that you should take into consideration.  First off, I am a 
chemical engineer with a BS and a MS from Texas A&M; University.  I've been in the 
environmental arena for 12 years, and manage, from a corporate regulatory complaince 
standpoint, 15 manufacturing facilities in the US and Canada.  
First, you should visit the governments web page for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 
read the info they have regarding future career growth in all disciplines (not just 
environmental) between now and the year 2005.  Unfortunately, environmental careers in 
the United States are not expected to grow very appreciably in the next 10 years.  With 
the currently political push towards "de-regulation" in this country, and the current 
trend towards loss of manufacturing to other contries outside of the US, the need for 
environmental engineers from a regulatory complaince standpoint is rapidly decreasing.  
This means that there will be fewer and fewer well paying jobs in this area over the 
next ten years.  And the compitition for those jobs is currently, and will become, even 
more tight.  I just recently hired an environmental engineer with three years experience 
for one of my Research and Development facilities, and I had over 200 applicants for 
that one job.
Other things to take into consideration.  How much do you like to travel? Do you plan on 
getting married and having children someday?  Can you envision a day that you would want 
to spend more time with your family, and less time on the job?  If so, keep the 
following in mind.  The position I currently hold requires me to travel overnight away 
from home over 50% of the time.  I work at least a 50 hours a week in the office, and 
that does not take into account the work I bring home on weekends.  I would like to 
hire more people to reduce the workload on those I do have, but because environmental 
personnel are support staff (i.e. they do not contribute directly to the bottom line of 
a company the way a manufaturing engineer does), I can't get the budget(money) to do 
it.  I don't see my family as much as I would like, and the travel, especially 
international travel, can be very exhausting. Because I have specialized in one area of 
environmental, which is regulatory complaince and management, it is very difficult to 
"step down" to a job with less responsibilities to spend more time with my family.
The up side is I do love my work, and I do make a very good salary.
There are other types of environmental engineering besides what I do, which is 
regulatory compliance.  Teaching and research are others, but the pay is 
usually very low in those areas.  Consulting is another area many engineers go into, but 
I found consulting (back in the late 70's and early 80's) to be even less family 
oriented than working for a large corporation.  But I would encourage you to find other 
women who have choosen that career path and solicit their input.  Perhaps things have 
changed in the consulting arena since my time.
If you would like any additional thoughts on choosing an environmental career, please 
feel free to e-mail me at the following address:  chasel@metronet.com.  
I think choosing an engineering career is very good one for a women, I love the work 
I do.  But if I had to do things over again, I would probably look more at being a 
software engineer or a electrical engineer in the telecommunications field.  There is 
more job stability there, an excellent expected growth of jobs over the next 10 years, 
and is a more family oriented career path than the one I have choosen.  I know a number 
of women in this field who work for MCI and Northern Telcom, and I would be happy to put 
you in touch with them if you would like more info on that type of career path.
Good luck in whatever you choose to do!!!
Celeste Haseltine, PE

SDEF! wrote:
> 
> Miikka Raninen wrote:
> >
> > >Mike Asher wrote:
> > (on the basis of some evidence from which he concluded that dioxin was safe)
> 
> > >Regardless of your personal beliefs Miika, here the evidence is
> > >irrefutable. The dioxin issue is a paper tiger, created to advance
> > >an agenda.
> 
> So all those who died as a result of the "accident" in Bhopal were
> having a mass hallucination were they?
Methyl isocyanate, not dioxin, was released at Bhopal.  FYI, here is why 
over 2000 people died and over 200,000 were injured at Bhopal (quoted 
from the MSDS for methyl isocyanate):  
HEALTH EFFECTS
INHALATION:
CORROSIVE/SENSITIZER/HIGHLY TOXIC.
3 ppm Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health.
ACUTE EXPOSURE- A 5 minute exposure to 2 ppm may cause respiratory tract
irritation; 4 ppm may cause marked irritation; 21 ppm may be unbearable.
Human exposure from an industrial accident produced coughing, dyspnea,
choking sensations, weakness, fainting, vomiting, urination, defecation,
and colicky abdominal pains. Neurologic symptoms included panic,
depression, confusion, agitation, apathy, and convulsions. The victims
who died within 72 hours had severe necrotizing lesions of the 
respiratory
tract affecting the bronchioles, alveoli, and capillaries. Death may 
have
been due to slough off and blocked portions of the airways of the lungs.
Other effects from exposure may include headache, nausea, vomiting, 
cough,
increased secretions, chest pain, bronchitis, pulmonary edema, pulmonary
tuberculosis, and pneomonitis emphysema. Visual perception, attention
response speed along with vigilance were also severely affected. 
Extremely
low levels may trigger an asthmatic response in sensitive persons.
Exposure may result in increases in complications during pregnancy
including miscarriage. Human mutagenic effects, including chromosome
damage have been reported. Reproductive effects noted in mice included
fetal toxicity and decreased fetal body weight.

In article <558nfa$45m@news2.lakes.com>,
	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>amusing alright, now name me one product that was developed from
>theory to shelf by big business. Hint all you can comne up with is the
>pet rock. The only business that was even close to doing so was the
>old Bell labs in the 20-30's. Secondly big business isn't intrested in
>doing reseach as it envolves risk,and they are scared of their own
>shadow.
Hmm.. I can name a few products that were developed from theory to shelf
by private enterprise (not neccessarily "big" business.. smaller ones are
often better innovators).
The Microprocessor (some subsidies from NASA and the military I guess, but it
                    was invented in a private lab)
The personal computer
Most computer media (magnetic discs, laser media, the laser, etc.)
The automobile
The graphical user interface
The telephone
The electric light
Lots of medical products
Modern construction techniques (concrete buildings, etc.)
The airplane
Ethernet (the basis of most computer networking)
Fiber optics
... etc.
There are lots of examples too of things that originated in academia, but the
pet rock is by no means the only thing to come out of the private sector.
>>More interesting is the assertion that "corps" want less research.
>>These "corps" have tried to get research as a tax credit or a tax
>
>read above. And why should the Us tax payer be forced to subisdize
>their business, you can bet they will never allow the reseach to be
>freely published. Thirdly they have been living high oin the hog off
>of academia reseach.
Academia is not any kind of direct subsidy.  Better to cut direct
subsidies such as "corporate welfare."
Also notice the original poster's statement that corps have tried to
get tax deductions for research.  Maybe if there were less taxes and a more
stable economy private interests would be more apt to gamble a little with
research money?  Remember Xerox PARC, Bell Labs, etc.???  (Xerox PARC is a
story of how a company had really great research and DIDN'T EVEN USE IT!)
>>offset of some sort, but it has not gotten through Congress.  In
>>addition, most of the government research funds went to these very
>>"corps", and the idea of them spurning government money to fund their
>
>the only reseach funds that went to private sector was defense, the
>bulk of everything else goes to academia
Government research funds.
>>research is amusing, it is so misdirected.
>
>>Finally, we are in a world market, and I would be surprised if any
>>large number of "corps" did not recognize that continuous innovation
>>and improvement of old products, and introduction of new ones, is
>>required just to maintain the US edge as the world's leading exporter.
>
>we also are the leader in reseach. The Japanese are very good at
>copying but leave one hell of a lot to be desired in the way of
>inventions, a fact that they even bemoan.
They have high taxes too (see above).
-- 
Anyone sending me unsolicited advertising e-mail will be charged a $200.00
proofreading fee.  Do not send me unsolicited mail!

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
> SDEF!  wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately these self-appointed demi-gods fail to realise that we
> > lesser mortals who wait on their tables, clean their streets, build and
> > service their appliances, build their houses and roads, collect and
> > distribute thieir food, remove their waste to where they can't see it,
> > look after them when they are sick, fund their research projects and
> > don't have the time to progress beyond elementary chemistry have just as
> > much right to act on the basis of our opinions as they do.
> 
> Ah, at last you admit your belief of the dangers of dioxin is an opinion,
> and not science.
It is opinion based on, among other things, science.
I am not a robot, I realise that there are things in the world of which 
science knows nothing, and science has no proof of anything, only 
accumulated evidence. Any real scientist knows this.
-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
"Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
that which he loves" -Ovidius

TL ADAMS wrote:
> Wish I had half of Dr. Asimov's talent.  Doctorate in Biochemistry, but
> writes space soap opera, popular science and critiques on religion.
Wrote, sadly.  We could ill afford to lose him.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
My usual and customary fee for bouncing unwanted junk e-mail
advertising is $500 U.S. per message. Sending me such e-mail
is a contract which acknowledges and accepts my fee schedule.
Dan Evens

Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
: >brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
: >>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
: >>>mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
SNIP....: >
: >amusing alright, now name me one product that was developed from
: >theory to shelf by big business. Hint all you can comne up with is the
: >pet rock. 
: 
: That's a joke, right?  Post-It notes!  There, one product, as you
: requested, albiet a small one.
: 
Post-It notes were an accident.  They were trying to develop a
better glue, they found a worse one.  Even so one would be
hard pressed to regard this as a theory to practice to
sales example.  Industry is very good at develping new
polymers, but where does the theoretical development come
from?
: In addition, of course, many computer products were developed only by
: business, particularly software.  The transistor was developed in the
: forties, if memory serves, by Bell Labs.  The laser was also developed
: by a private firm, as I recall.
Note that bell labs was the exception being talked about.  Even
so Bell missed the boat by only moving from the theoretical development
to demonstration, but left commercialization to others.i
The first 'demonstrated laser' was in an industrial lab, but the
theory had been developed in universities.  Does anyone know
if the work was done for a government research contract?
: >The only business that was even close to doing so was the
: >old Bell labs in the 20-30's. Secondly big business isn't intrested in
: >doing reseach as it envolves risk,and they are scared of their own
: >shadow.
Josh Halpern

Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
: 
: >>Bell labs, IBM, and others 'downsizing' 
: >>eliminated most of their research staff.  
: 
: Bells Labs (now called Lucent Technologies, BTW), to my knowledge, is
: doing just fine.  I am sure they will be distressed to hear your news
: that most of their research staff has been eliminated, as this will be
: a severe blow to their expansion plans!
Hmm... You mean all those Bell Labs and IBM Research folks I
saw looking for jobs in the 80s and 90s were figments of my
imagination.  FYI both both places became much more applied,
and an awful lot of first class folks, left, were encouraged
to leave, or just plain fired.  
Bell Labs and IBM and a few other industrial research labs
made major contributions to science and technology by
encouraging and allowing their scientists and engineers
to do basic research on problems that at first glance were
far removed from everyday business.  These contributions
have enriched the US and the world, helped the companies too.  
Unfortunately, one must say MADE, as the basic research
effort in industrial labs has been scaled back to 
basically zero.i  this includes Lucent.
Josh Halpern

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> 
> amusing alright, now name me one product that was developed from
> theory to shelf by big business. Hint all you can comne up with is the
> pet rock. 
Teflon.

jbh says:
-Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
-: gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for 
-all
-: >brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
-: >>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for 
-all
-: >>>mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
....etc.
Although your statements support my opinions, please be careful, as 
there is nothing else quoted in your message that was written by me.
Thanks.

Re: the suicide of V. Nechai, head of the Chelyabinsk-70 nuclear 
complex.
When reading the following quote, do not assume that I am Christian, 
that I believe in some god, or that I am attempting to transmit some 
specific lesson.  I simply found these words to evoke unplumbable 
emotional depth in light of the context:
'Woe to him who seeks to pour oil upon the waters when God has brewed 
them into a gale!  Woe to him who seeks to please rather than to 
appal!  Woe to him whose good name is more to him than goodness!  Woe 
to him, who in this world, courts not dishonor!  Woe to him who would 
not be true, even though to be false were salvation!  Yea, woe to him 
who as the great Pilot Paul has it, while preaching to others is 
himself a castaway!'
'Delight is to him - a far, far upward and inward delight - who 
against the proud gods and commodores of this earth, ever stands forth 
his own inexorable self.  Delight is to him whose strong arms yet 
support him, when the ship of this base, treacherous world has gone 
down beneath him.'
Herman Melville         'Moby Dick'

Michael Tobis  wrote:
> 
> Biomass energy is solar energy. No additional carbon is added to the
> active (atmosphere/biosphere/upper ocean) reservoirs.
> 
If you think we can run a 21st-century society strictly off of burning
vegetable matter, you lack basic understanding of energy and engineering.
==========================
Marcus Agua   magua@dbtech.net
==========================