Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 21:14:34 GMT
Patrick Reid (pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
: If you believe that "several hundred, eventually several thousand"
: death toll number, then you _must_ believe in the no-threshold model.
: Doses recieved by the general population due to the Chernobyl accident
: were below the low dose threshold, with the exception of thyroid dose
: to children (partly because they had iodine-deficient diets).
So, you are claiming that nuclear power is extremely safe, based on
your theoretical disagreement with established hazard models.
But according to your threshold theory, couldn't a small
contributing exposure result in a treshold breakover? Most of us
have been exposed to some degree by fallout from nuclear weapons
testing for much of our lives. Isn't it possible that a relatively
"small" additonal accidental exposure could push the population over
a dosage limit, and produce disproportionate effects?
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: Fossil madness
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 21:37:49 GMT
Will Stewart writes:
>Magnus Redin wrote:
>> >: Efficiency can only compete with new power production if there is a
>> >: large volume of power production and use to begin with.
> I don't quite capture your thought; could you restate it?
Sorry, I could have stted it much clearer.
>> Yes of course but you can not save anything from nothing.
>
> Power production can always be reduced due to efficiency gains.
If the power needed is slowly growing like in the USA the growth can
be kept smaller or even shrink some with savings while keeping the
same standard of living. This means that one saves power instead of
build new powerplants, this is often called "negawatts".
It is easier to save power if there is lots of power used sloppily in
unefficient processes with old technology and with wastefull habits.
This is probably true for large areas of USA and has been true for
manny industries in Sweden.
Saving power in the USA do then replace building of new powerplants?
Why dont power saving in the thirld world and the soon-to-be first
world countries help as much?
Simple, their needs can not be filled by savings since there are no
sloppy use of power to save from. They need new power production.
But useing efficient processes and technology do of course mean that
they can do more with their new power wich is a good thing.
Thus savings can be a solution for a need in USA and only a part of
the solution for the developing countries. Sadly manny US citizens
assumes that savings can work for the whole world since it works for
them and dont realy understand the hardship of living in the
developing countries. (Thinks about rich people in california covering
their roof with solar cells and using and reusing stuff manufactured
by an energy intensive economy. )
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: More on Tragedy of the Commons
From: EandorY
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 15:39:56 -0800
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> EandorY wrote:
>
> > The
> >first law of economics is that there is no free lunch. The first law
> >of socialism is to ignore the first law of economics. Apologies to
> >Thomas Sowell.
>
> Thomas Sowell has it half right on a good day. The whole universe is
> a free lunch. We get to play with it while we're here. I think we're
> well advised to help each other through as best we can.
Okay. But I suspect that that is not enough for you. Are we "well
advised..." or *required by law* to "help" each other? And to do so "as
best we can" would appear to be the main point of contention. You
believe that the best we can do is to sit back and let elite
"intellectuals" dole our daily necessities out to us. How much of the
universe are each of us entitled? Am I entitled to *your* stuff? Won't
you help me, by sending your stuff to me? Am I not entitled to your
help?
The universe may be free, but the resources within that universe to
which we have access are limited. That was the point of the Tragedy
of the Commons (the thread title, you may have noticed); public
allocation of scarce resources does not result in efficient use of the
universe, or maximum happiness of humans living within this universe.
So you see, Sowell understands the reality of *this* universe much
better than yourself. Resources are scarce, private allocation results
in conservation of scarce resources, public allocation results in
overuse. "The best we can" ... requires private property ownership.
Eric
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 14:11:54 -0700
> >John Moore wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> This is why captialism doesn't flourish under corrupt governments.
> >>
> >I reply:
> >
> >Yet clearly the best approach for a powerful corporation in a
> >capitalist society is to create a corrupt government.
>
> Not necessarily. In the short run it may be true but in the long run
> it may not be.
>
> Furthermore, if a powerful corporation can create a corrupt
> government, then the CITIZENS are sleeping at the switch.
>
I reply:
Your latter statement is certainly true.
John continues (see earlier posts for context):
>
> Sure... a good decision is one that acts to increase the overall
> economic pie. Capitalism, through competition, enabled by the
> governmental systems I have described, acts to reward this sort of
> decision by its very nature... by the economic nature of consumers >and producers.
>
> When wealthy people make bad decisions, *on the average* they lose
> wealth, because the market is unforgiving - must less forgiving than a
> bureaucrat in a socialist society - and the decision is punished by
> lack of economic success.
I reply:
This sounds great! How does it work in practice?
John continues:
> Well, keep in mind that the governmental constraints I described
> exist, among other things, to prevent corruption and (of course)
> illegal activities.
I reply:
Sounds good, but again, how do you think it's working? Are the public
sufficiently involved to prevent manipulation of our government by
corporate interests?
John continues:
>
> Yes, just like nature. And it thrives by the same mechanisms as
> nature: competition.
I reply:
So I'm absolved if I use people ruthlessly for my own benefit. OK, as
long as we all understand the rules.
John says:
>
> Capitalism means that someone has to earn money, and then, through
> property rights, they may do with it as they please (within the law).
> One thing people choose to do is pass it on to their heirs. So if you
> look at it from the point of view of the heirs, then they did not earn
> their money. From the point of view of the person who actually engaged
> in the money making activity, they did.
>
> So?
I reply:
Again, it's fine with me. I just want to make sure that when I use
any advantage I have to eliminate my competition, no one cries about
my not being fair, or that it's anti-capitalistic or some such thing.
I'm a great believer in winning by any means, but I was raised to be
concerned about the welfare of others, to contribute to my society,
and to maintain an esthetic outside the bounds of economic facility.
I'm going to toss this useless baggage, however.
John continues:
> I do not agree. Inheriting is much different than a lottery.
>
I reply:
I see the difference! In the lottery, you have to buy a ticket, while
with inheritance you don't. This seems very much like the corruption
you were warning us against, where the rules are made by the wealthy
to maintain their wealth. Again, however, I have had a change of
heart. Any wealth is justifiably mine if I can get it and keep it.
John continues:
>We could clearly specify all of these things but it would take a
>while. Most people recognize some of these basics... such as the
>concept of rights, and the concept of prohibition of criminal..
I reply:
I lost the rest - lack of memory error or something. Certainly the
history of law is an attempt to specify these things and it certainly
would take awhile. As long as we agree that what's mine is mine and
what's yours is mine, too, then we can go bid for our legislature (and
watch your 'rights' if I win, because they don't matter to me in the
least.)
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 14:29:23 -0700
B. Alan Guthrie, III says:
> The premise of this discussion is patently absurd. Dr. Freisel
> sounds like a precoucious sophomore in a Friday dorm bull session.
> A government makes laws, whether it is communist, fascist,
>monarchial,
>republican, or democratic. It can enforce those laws. A
>corporation
> can make no laws. A country normally has one government and that
> government has no competition amongst its citizens. A corporation
> has several competitors.
>These are but a few of the differences. It is difficult to believe
> that an adult can even put forth such a premise.
I reply:
To bolster a weak issue people such as you often resort to the
technique of insult -> weak argument -> insult. It would probably be
more effective if, well, no it wouldn't. First, I began by refering
to the internal workings of a corporation, but you and McCarthy seem
to have some fixation on the relationship among corporations and
external government. The rules that define the way corporations work
internally are not the same as the laws that govern our society. If
you insist on interjecting, well, please don't. Seeing no deeper than
your own level, you seem to continually lack anything worthwhile to
say.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | I keep get richer but I can't get
| my pitcture on the cover of
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com | the Rolling Stone.
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: tooie@sover.net (Tooie)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 23:02:25 GMT
Scott Nudds (af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: (Patrick Reid) wrote:
: : Your estimate is grossly too large. The total number of deaths to date
: : is less than _50_. Several hundred will probably be the total eventual
: : death toll. See the references in my original post.
:
: "By comparing mortality rates before and after the accident, the
: environmental organization Greenpeace Ukraine has estimated a total of
: 32,000 deaths. There are other estimates that are higher, and some that
: are lower, but I believe a figure in this range is defensible." - Dr.
: Yuri M. Shcherbak - Ukranian ambassador to the U.S. - Dr. Shcherak as
: several degrees in epidemiology.
I find it interesting that Dudds would (or has) dismiss claims from
others (global warming, etc.) based upon the fact that their source was a
lone individual going against the "mainstream" consensus but is eager to
trot them out when it serves his purpose. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh can find a
few PhDs to agree with whatever he thinks and I lend them as much credence
as Dudd's sources. Gee, *Ukranian ambassador*, sounds like a
politician. I guess socialists don't have agendas like those "evil
conservatives" and their "philosophy of death". *Greenpeace Ukraine*, no
agenda there! ROFL We must ask ourselves why Dudds evidently follows
the philosophy of hyprocisy and lies.
tooie
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: tooie@sover.net (Tooie)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 23:35:02 GMT
Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) displayed his ignorance for all to see:
: Patrick Reid (pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
: : If you believe that "several hundred, eventually several thousand"
: : death toll number, then you _must_ believe in the no-threshold model.
: : Doses recieved by the general population due to the Chernobyl accident
: : were below the low dose threshold, with the exception of thyroid dose
: : to children (partly because they had iodine-deficient diets).
:
: So, you are claiming that nuclear power is extremely safe, based on
: your theoretical disagreement with established hazard models.
Bob, check your newreader, it seems to adding phrases random nonsense
phrases to other people's posts. Nuclear power is extremely safe based
upon its safety record. Just because your reasoning is often specious,
don't assume that everyone's is.
Obviously you have not done your research on the data refuting the
no-threshold model and, contrary the the way Dudds operates, it's not a
lone person with an agenda.
: But according to your threshold theory, couldn't a small
: contributing exposure result in a treshold breakover? Most of us
: have been exposed to some degree by fallout from nuclear weapons
: testing for much of our lives. Isn't it possible that a relatively
: "small" additonal accidental exposure could push the population over
: a dosage limit, and produce disproportionate effects?
Then it follows we would see excess cancers in areas that have higher
than normal background rates. But this is not the case in the US, China,
and India, where studies have been undertaken. In fact there is study
involving 272,000 US homes in 1759 counties that shows a *negative*
correlation between lung cancer and and increasing radon levels. Well
Dudds, maybe radon *doesn't cause cancer after all ;->
The linear no-threshold model is *conservative* and was based upon
extrapolating high doses backwards (where there wasn't any data at the
time) to zero. Now that new studies have been conducted at low levels,
it's only logical to reassess the situation.
For further information see the 9/95 issue on Nuclear News for an article
by Jim Muckerheide. See Bob, I actually do want to increase your
knowledge. Maybe I'm not such a goon after all?
tooie
Subject: Re: Stephen Safe Misrepresentation concerning Dioxin toxicity
From: bodo@io.org (Byron Bodo)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 23:21:13 GMT
In article , aquilla@erols.com says...
>
>In Article <55flni$g1b@news1.io.org>, bodo@io.org (Byron Bodo) wrote:
>>In article <01bbc80d$6e57d2c0$89d0d6cc@masher>, masher@tusc.net says...
>>>They found a correlation coefficient of less than
>>>1.0, meaning that, as a group, the residents had a slightly smaller risk
>>>of cancer than the population at large.
>>Flunked stats 101 did you? Look in any intro stats text for the
>>definition of a correlation coefficient.
>Correlation does not imply any cause and effect. Many events are corellated
>at random. It don't mean squat.
Whatever was described wasn't a correlation coefficient by any standard
definition.
-bb
Subject: Re: Typical Joe Sixpack
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 96 23:58:38 GMT
In article <55fo2e$ish@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri
Kuchinsky) wrote:
>charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>
>: Bill Clinton and his cronies seem to be aspiring to
>: immorality! Gee, it's funny what happens when you leave
a
>: "t" out of a word.
>
>There're many kind of "morality". I'm not sure why Dole's
"immorality" is
>preferable to Clinton's. The whole US political system is a
cesspool.
>
>Vote Green!
>
>Yuri.
Dole's immorality is not preferable to Clinton's. However,
a few points need to be addressed:
1) I do not feel like rewarding Clinton's immorality by
re-electing him.
2) Dole hasn't demonstrated immorality yet, at least in the
office of the president. I'm willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt.
3) One of the few things that can constrain any president is
the desire to be re-elected. Once a president is a lame
duck, he is free to do whatever he wishes. I don't like to
consider the possibilities when the incumbent is clearly
socialistic in his views.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html
Subject: Re: Recycling Thermostats Containing Mercury
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 00:19:38 GMT
Jim Lellman (lellman@daugherty.com) wrote:
: 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?
Jim, somebody should certainly recycle the mercury. If it is
landfilled, it pretty much stays put, but if it is incinerated, it's
an airborne hazard. Today's high temperature mass-burn incinerator
stack emission controls have notoriously poor control over mercury
emissions, evidently because mercury vaporizes into gaseous form, not
solid particulates.
One thermostat might contribute grams of mercury, but the solid
waste of the USA includes fluorescent lamps, thermostats, picture
tubes, thermometers, and other sources which add up to many tens of
tons per year, which is not irrelevant. (John from Stanford will also
be happy to read that mercury pollution from fossil-fueled power
plants exceeds that figure.)
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: Natural Law Party and Food Safety
From: lhom@nature.berkeley.edu (Louis Hom)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 00:36:56 GMT
In article <55b3as$5mkh@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
>I ask the question that didn't find an answer: why is it that a farmer
>should be _forbidden_ to advertise his or her product as certified free
>of bioengineering?
Consider the controversy surrounding rBGH: there are MANY good
reasons to oppose its use -- discomfort to the cows, threats to the small
dairy operators, a preexisting surplus of dairy products . . . the list
goes on and on. Instead, what we got from rBGH-opponents was threats that
drinking milk from rBGH-treated cows would cause men to grow breasts or
that it would cause explosive growth of intestinal cancers and other scary
things. So that when someone advertised their product as being from
non-rBGH-treated cows, it was the scare tactics of the consumer "advocates"
that dominated the customers' minds -- unfounded, misleading information.
And for that reason, I opposed the labeling of milk as coming from
rBGH-treated or non-treated cows; rBGH opponents had provided no genuine
reason to support their cause.
At the same time, I personally opposed the use of rBGH for the
reasons above, which made for some nasty internal conflict. As a practice,
I made an effort to qualm fears about health risks associated with rBGH use
but then would follow up with reasons why I did think its use was a bad
idea.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Lou Hom >K '93 "Into each life a little rain
lhom@nature.berkeley.edu must fall, even in San Diego."
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom -- from "My Blue Heaven"
Subject: Re: Typical Joe Sixpack
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 18:41:18 -0700
charliew wrote:
>
> Dole's immorality is not preferable to Clinton's. However,
> a few points need to be addressed:
>
> 1) I do not feel like rewarding Clinton's immorality by
> re-electing him.
I ask:
What immorality are you talking about, exactly?
>
> 2) Dole hasn't demonstrated immorality yet, at least in the
> office of the president. I'm willing to give him the
> benefit of the doubt.
I reply:
Being Republican, his immorality is evident in his party's activities
and philosophy. What more do you need? When you elect a Republican,
you're not electing a man.
>
> 3) One of the few things that can constrain any president is
> the desire to be re-elected. Once a president is a lame
> duck, he is free to do whatever he wishes. I don't like to
> consider the possibilities when the incumbent is clearly
> socialistic in his views.
I reply:
I'm very interested in seeing what he will do. Since there is no
viable alternative other than perhaps Nader who is only on the ballot
in twelve states, there isn't much choice in the matter anyway.
>
> ===================================================================
>
> For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
> http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html