Newsgroup sci.environment 108066

Directory

I wrote:
> >
> >This sounds great!  How does it work in practice?
J.M.
> Yes - not perfectly, of course. But if it didn't work in practice,
> today the cocuntry would be owned by 10 or 20 families. It isn't.
> 
M.F.
> >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?
> 
J.M.
> Of course not. Nothing is perfect.
> 
> >> Yes, just like nature. And it thrives by the same mechanisms as
> >> nature: competition.
> >
M.F.
:
> >
> >So I'm absolved if I use people ruthlessly for my own benefit.  OK, as
> >long as we all understand the rules.
>
J.M.
> No, because you are missing the relationship between morality,
> government and capitalism.
> 
> Capitalism is an economic system. The system itself knows little
> morality. But individual economic behavior should be moral. (etc.)
> 
M.F.
> >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 etc.
J.M.
> See above. Again you are confusing capitalism with the totality of
> human behavior.
M.F.
> >I see the difference!  In the lottery, you have to buy a ticket, while
> >with inheritance you don't. 
J.M.
> 
> I sm getting a bit tired of the snideness. If you don't like it, why
> don't you just say so.
I reply:
I did say so, but you seem to have a very poor understanding of 
capitalism.  It is more than a few over-riding general principles.  IT 
is capitalism in practice, and as the sum of its components, that 
defines capitalism. Capitalism leads directly to corruption in 
practice, and it is the attempt of the general public to counter this 
corruption and unbridled 'capitalism' which led to labor riots, the 
formation of labor unions, and the rise of socialism in the early part 
of this century.  'Capitalism' has fought these trends tooth and nail 
because, in practice, it is inherently immoral.  It must be tempered 
by socialism without being overcome by it.
Regarding your continual insistence on permitting inheritance, You 
seem to be overlooking the power of money in a capitalist society.  
You try to justify giving large sums of money to people for no reason 
other than someone with money wanting to do so.  This is entirely 
counter to the principles of capitalism - where innovative people with 
guts and stamina succeed.
J.M.
> 
> Inheritance is hardly corruption. It is simply passing on money from
> one generation to another. What the receiving generation does with the
> money determines the moral nature of the transaction.
I reply:
Inheretance is nothing but a very selfish form of welfare.  Insofar as 
it leads to concentration of wealth in the hands of those who have 
done nothing to earn it, it corrupts capitalism.  There isn'tmuch else 
to be said about it.

Bill Toman (witoman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: > 
: > Eric Arons (arons@unix.sri.com) wrote:
: > : Anybody out there have any data on how much lawnmowers contribute to the
: > : smog problem in urban areas?  I've heard they make a difference, but
: > : I've never seen numbers indicating how much.
: > : Thanks,
: > 
: > Does anyone really care?  (If you would work the first order estimates
: > of a lawn mower engine emission against that of an 18-wheeler, you'd
: > probably get a relatively good idea of the emissions ration.  Still,
: > quite seriously, does anyone with an IQ above 80 really believe that
: > lawn mowers could constitute an environmental hazard?  Certainly,not
: > me!)
: > 
: >                                         Harry C.
: 
: Harry, here's something pulled from the Air Quality Management
: District's web page:
: 
: "Spring gardening -- for some of us it is a labor of love, for others it
: is required weekend drudgery -- but, for pollution fighters, lawn and
: garden equipment is yet another contributor to our smog problem. 
: 
: Most of us don't think of garden equipment as causing much air
: pollution, but the small engines found in lawn mowers, leaf blowers and
: weed wackers are actually a significant source of smog. 
: 
: The federal Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are 89
: million pieces of lawn and garden equipment in the United States with
: engines rated at 25 horsepower or less. There are 4.6 million small
: garden engines in California, half of them gas mowers. In Los Angeles,
: Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties alone, 1.3 million
: lawnmowers, edgers and trimmers are used constantly by both homeowners
: and commercial gardeners. 
: 
: Garden equipment engines emit high levels of carbon monoxide, volatile
: organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, producing up to 5% of the
: nation's air pollution and a good deal more in many metropolitan areas
: like Los Angeles. 
This is consistent with my expectation.  With 95% of the pollution 
coming from others sources, a 5% contributor is effectitvely 
negligible.  Following the Sutton Principle, first address the 
95% problem and, only after that is resolved, address the 5%
problem.
Given that we have available technological means to reduce the 
95% problem substantially (expanded use of nuclear energy), falsely
fingering lawn mowers as a major cause of pollution is obviously 
little more than a misdirection exercise organized by those incapable
or unwilling to address the valid issues.
                                     Harry C.

Check with your supervisor, every material that presents a possible hazzard is 
required to have an MSDS, (material safety data sheet), on the premesis. (OSHA) The 
sheet should contain some of the information you seek.  Aside from that, you could 
try searching some of the medical library archives concerning long term exposure to 
certain metals and/or toxins. Also, you can go directly to OSHA and inquire about the 
specifc conpounds you are concerned with.  In general, long term exposure to any 
metal fumes is probably not a good thing. If you are that concerned, wear a 
respirator until you get more conclusive info.

Scott Nudds (af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) writes:
>  "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.
> 
> "In contaminated regions, incidence of thyroid and breast cancer and
> leukemia is two to three times higher than in other regions. Belarus has
> never had to cope with this and needs concrete medical help." - Ivan
> Kenik - Ukranian Chernobyl Minister - 1996
It has been already established that Ukranian officials are not to be
trusted on this issue, since they are in a conflict of interest (ie, more
global sympathy = more global economic aid).  Mr. Nudds is aware of this
fact.
For a more reliable assessment, look to reports like that of the
International Conference: One Decade After Chernobyl (summary at
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/thisweek/preview/chernobyl/conls17.html#health):
"     LONGER TERM HEALTH EFFECTS
 24. Apart from the confirmed increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer
     in young people, there have been some reports of increases in the 
     incidence of specific malignancies in some populations living in    
     contaminated territories and in liquidators. These reports are not   
     consistent, however, and the reported increases could reflect 
     differences in the follow-up of exposed populations and increased   
     ascertainment following the Chernobyl accident; they may require
     further investigation.
 25. Leukaemia, a rare disease, is a major concern after radiation
     exposure. Few fatalities due to radiation induced leukaemia would   
     theoretically be expected according to predictive models (based on
     data from the survivors of the Japanese atomic bombing and others). 
     [snip]
     In summary, to date, no consistent attributable increase has been
     detected either in the rate of leukaemia or in the incidence of any
     malignancies other than thyroid carcinomas.  "
Or, the OECD summary "Chernobyl: Ten Years On",available at
http://www.nea.fr/ntml/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl.html:
"Nevertheless, the dose estimates generally accepted indicate that, with the
exception of thyroid disease, it is unlikely that the exposure would lead
to discernible radiation effects in the general population. Many   
predictions of the future impact of the accident on the health of
populations have been made, all of which, apart from thyroid disease, 
indicate that the overall effect will be small when compared with the   
natural incidence and therefore not expected to be discernible (An88, Be87,
Hu87, Mo87, De87, Be87)."
"Childhood leukemia incidence has not changed in the decade since the
accident. There is no significant change in the level of leukemia and      
related diseases in the contaminated (more than 555 kBq/m2) and
noncontaminated territories of the three states (WH95). Other attempts
through epidemiological studies have failed to establish a link between 
radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident and the incidence of
leukemia and other abnormalities. No epidemiological evidence of an
increase in childhood leukemia around Chernobyl (Iv93), in Sweden (Hj94) or
the rest of Europe (Pa92, Wi94) has been established. However, it may be  
prudent to withold final judgement on this issue for a few more years."
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/

In article , Mike Edgar
 wrote:
>
> Excellent news, remove your schoolboy prattling, rhetoric and lack of
> vision to where it belongs, .....
>
Glad to disappoint you about that "excellent news." 
I don't lack vision: I mostly share yours, you moronic braggart. 
However I can actually *see*: you'll never benefit anyone or anything with
your nonsensical approach and moralistic baiting. And if you don't take
that reading comprehension course I suggested, you're going to miss a lot
of enjoyment in this life. Practice reading Mike; practice makes perfect.
> try rec.children.neandertal
What's that thing you homo sapiens sapiens kids say? 
Oh yeah, "pot, kettle, black."
You're really losing it Mike. Sorry to see it.
(For the record, I do not hunt or fish. But I do enjoy eating and I work
and play well with others.)
-- 
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized.             ]
[              2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[              3. a polite act or utterance.                ]

af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> The cost of avoiding waste disposal is . Don't burn the coal,
> don't produce nuclear waste and you don't have waste to dispose of.
What is the cost of living poor? Very low of course as is the income
in a poor society. Is that desirable?
What is the enviromental cost of living in a poor society? Very high
since people have to live on a day by day basis and have no resources
to work for the long 100 year and more perspecitve.
> Members of the nuclear faith like to make it look like the only
> alternatives are coal or nuclear as a method of promoting nuclear.
Please tell me what will replace coal and oil for power production in
the developed countries and what the developing countries will use to
generate power? There is simply a need for massive ammounts of
(electrical)power and the ammount of resources to build the facilities
are limited, solar, geothermal, etc dont add up to cover all the
needs.
> This is a false choice.
No it is a very real choice. Your dreams do mostly maintain status quo
and the current coal and oil use. How do we get people to _stop_ using
power generation methods and other processes that hurt our
environment? We have to present something better.
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

Various persons wrote:
> > >The disposal costs should be less than 1/10 of 1%, but some persons,
> > >with a agenda object.  Using low cost Space Technology, any residue
> > >radioactive material, can be launched Sun ward and be destroyed by the
> > >greatest Nuclear Power Source within 4 Light Years.
It is cheaper to simply launch it into interstellar space (lower
delta-V).
>I don't take space disposal seriously, because the stuff may be
>valuable some day.  I favor using some of the Nevada Test Site,
>keeping the rest for future peaceful nuclear explosions.
Some long lived isotopes, like I-129, Tc-99, Cs-135, and Kr-81
are difficult to isolate for sufficiently long times.  So, if nuclear
power is used over a period >= their halflives, they could build
up in the environment in significant amounts, with their
disintegrations, in equilibrium, occuring at the same rate as
their creation in reactors.  Space disposal or destruction by
transmutation would be firm solutions.  This is not now a pressing
problem.
Note followup.
	Paul

conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
>
> Given that we have available technological means to reduce the 
> 95% problem substantially (expanded use of nuclear energy), falsely
> fingering lawn mowers as a major cause of pollution is obviously 
> little more than a misdirection exercise organized by those incapable
> or unwilling to address the valid issues.
Since the major source of urban pollution had nothing to do with power
generation, what the hell does use of nuclear usage have to do with 
anything.  The problem is cities is transportation.
I believe in the Simplex model of optimization.  Optimize those variable
that can be obtimize with the minimum amount of expenditures.  Get/forcing
pleading for people to reduce miles driven is not working.  Requiring
appropriate controls on 2 cycle engines will.
Or are you willing to give up your car and take the bus?

Mark Friesel includes:
     Not only that, but the CEOs and major stockholders of the
     corporations proposing nuclear waste be shot into space have
     promised that they will pay all reparations and clean up the
     environment to the satisfaction of even the most ardent
     Liberal, and at their own expense!  And the space shots and
     cleanup would not be paid for by the taxpayer!  Who could
     ask for more?
Mark is being sarcastic, but my experience is that the inexperienced
often take sarcastic posts literally.  So far as I know, none of the
current plans for spent nuclear fuel involve shooting it into space,
even though this would also work.
-- 
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.

In <550dk9$6sc_008@pm3-150.hal-pc.org> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
writes: 
>
>In article <54uins$pk@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>   jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>>In 
>u>
>>Kathryn Ostertag  writes: 
>>>
>>>The Endangered Species Act has been a great help in saving 
>many
>>animals, 
>>>such as the peregrine falcon, the red wolf, the bald eagle, 
>and the
>>list 
>>>goes on and on.  I hope that everyone here is going to be 
>backing it,
>>so 
>>>our children's children can enjoy the same species of 
>animals and
>>plants 
>>>that we have been able to enjoy.
>>
>>I haven't enjoyed any of the species listed here!
>>I've never met them, and probably wouldn't have enjoyed it 
>>if I did...
>>
>>Nevertheless, I believe bird and mammal species ought to be
>>preserved, though not necessarily in the wild.
>>
>>It is different with insect species, there are
>>so many of them. We could lose half and never notice.
>
>Good point.  We want to protect the "cute" species.  On this 
>note, I have some interesting questions.
>
>1) Do we want to protect snakes, especially the poisonous 
>kinds?
They are useful for medicinal purposes. But of course
it is a bad idea to let them survive *in the wild*
where they are dangerous. Far from protecting them
there, we should exterminate them - but breed them
in captivity.
>2) Do we actually want to protect insects?
Not mosquitoes, for example. Exterminate them, too.
Insects can be collected and preserved in frozen
or dried-up condition; then revived for study as needed.
>3) Do we want to protect plants?
Collect seeds and seedlings. No need to preserve
plants in the wild, except those known to be useful.
>4) Do we want to protect microbes, even if they are harmful 
>to humans?  Don't forget that we have supposedly exterminated 
>smallpox worldwide.
Some of them are useful and even necessary, like
those inhabiting human intestines. As for
the rest, preserve them in labs. 

bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns) wrote:
>
>   Dioxin in various forms is impossible NOT to produce in high
> temperature burnig operations such as fossil-power, and mass-burn
> incineration, among others.  These sources of dioxin are also major
> financial vehicles which control enormous amounts of pension and
> waste management tax money.  It is unfortunate, but not surprising,
> that many are strongly motivated to support dioxin pollution for
> financial reasons.  
> 
Although dioxin is a unfortunate by-product of the quenching of
Cl radicals and hydrocarbon radicals, it is very possible to minimize
the formation and control the release of dioxin into the environment
from powerplants, hazardous waste incinerators, pulp and paper mills
Dioxin forms on the surface of particules in the quench stream.  Any
operation that controls these particle controls the release of dioxin.
A power plant that uses Electrostatic control technology release a
far smaller amount than an uncontrolled amount.  
Since the formation is in the quench phase of combustion, formation can also be 
controlled by appropriate quench temperature and injections.
It can be done, we are doing it.
For more information contract a competent licensed engineer.

"sdef!"  exasperated
to the reponse of a bunch of idiots:
 disposal costs should be less than 1/10 of 1%, but some persons,
> > >with a agenda object.  Using low cost Space Technology, any residue
> > >radioactive material, can be launched Sun ward and be destroyed by the
> > >greatest Nuclear Power Source within 4 Light Years.  This was proposed
> > >in the 50's & 60's, but again, some very vocal persons with a agenda,
> > >and a large bankroll (via govt grants, and donations), who would not
> 
> In keeping with the rest of the loony replies on some of these groups, I 
> reply thus:
> 
> There is no evidence of a rocket ever blowing up on a launch pad. All 
> the films and photos were produced by communist insurgents with a hidden 
> agenda. Nuclear waste is safe anyway, It never killed anyone, it is just 
> a paper tiger.
> 
Lets see, we can design a container able to withstand both are
large suborbital engine failure and a low orbital boo-boo which
would send tons of bad gunk into a decaying orbit.  
>
Geez, people statis fields and neutronium arn't common engineering
techniques, at least to my knowledge.
Now, I'm not concerned about the risks of the occasional plutonium
power source slingshotting on its way to Jupiter, but routine solar
launches.  Ya right.
No doubt to be run by the same contractors that gave us Fernald,
Paducah Gasous Diffusion, Savanah Rivers and Oak Ridge.

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
to see:
[edited]
>the current model is a good model, certainly it can be improved.But
>the forecasts it makes are reasonable and accurate. One of the first
>observables the model predicted was increasing frequency and severity
>of storms. Which has certainly became visible in the last 5 to 10
>years.
This puzzles me, as I thought I saw an analysis in Scientific American
that showed there was increase in severity or nomber of storms,
contrary to popular perception?
I guess I shall have to go look it up!
[edited]
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,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>To bolster a weak issue people such as you often resort to the 
>technique of insult -> weak argument -> insult.  
Funny you should say that.  Are you pretending that you do not resort
to ad hominem assaults to support your weaker arguments?
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a 
chance of saving the world ecologically.   I think it's 
possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
     - Judi Barry, Earth First,"Policy Review", Jonathon Adler,
	summer 1992

In article <327c1957.0@kristy.atnet.net>,
   Mark  wrote:
>October 30, 1996
>Dear Don Baccus:
>
>Notice how the song does not mention salmon once, YES.
>
>I think that the song is that way because total returning salmon 
today are 
>about what they were before Grand Coulee Dam.  I know that salmon 
did go 
>to Kettle Falls because one old-timer there recalls the smell of 
the 
>rotting salmon.  However I have never heard of the Indians having 
a return 
Are you familiar with World Watch Organization.  In their Nov.Dec. 
issue they are discussing Pacific Northwest.  An article named Six 
Floods discusses salmon fishing.  Salmon fishing peaked in Columbia 
around 1915.  Around 1880 Northwest Salmon fishery was canning 
enough to feed every man, women and child in America four pounds a 
year.  They do not provide their sources in this particular 
article.

jim blair  wrote in article
<3274E82D.5D7E@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> Dennis McClendon wrote:
> I think that cars should pay at least the EXTRA cost of keeping the 
> streets up to car standards.
The College of Saint Rose in Albany, NY (a private college) has been after
the City for years to install a traffic control device in front of their
admin. bldg. because of a conflict between autos & pedestrians wanting to
cross Madison Ave (4 lane-State route 20).  The College's requests always
fell on deaf ears (for brevity-the city is strapped-financially).  The
College took matters into their own hands, hiring a firm from Saratoga to
redesign that portion of route 20 to include a pedestrian walkway complete
with traffic signal and landscaping.  The college is paying for
everthing....The City agreed to maintain the light after it's turned on.
The stinkie part is, at the Pine Hills Neigh. meeting a couple of people
objected to the redesign because it would entail the loss of nine parking
spots.  Luckly common sense prevailed, after a brief discussion on people
being flattened like pancakes -vs- the loss of nine parking spots.

P.S: Master Edgar, I was thinking about taking this year's vacation in a
completely tamed, human-controlled environment (for once) and taking a
break from rational discourse and effective action; I was thinking about
the U.K. 
Do you think you could put me up in a wing of your mansion for a few weeks?
-- 
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized.             ]
[              2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[              3. a polite act or utterance.                ]

staplei@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (Ian Staples) wrote for all to see:
>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) writes:
>>ransu@sci.fi (Miikka Raninen) wrote for all to see:
>>[edited]
>>>...and for those who have not yet studied their chemistry (everyone should),
>>>here's a quotation from one of the most used and respected chemistry study-
>>>books used in universities all over the world...
>>>
>>> "This contaminant is known as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 
>>>  (TCDD or dioxin for short). This chemical has been recognized as a major
>>>  hazard in the chemical industry for almost thirty years. It is extrimely
>>>  stable, being resistent to attack by neat and other chemicals. Once 
>>> [...]
>>>  - Chemistry in Context. ISBN 0-17-448164-0
>
>If it's so damn stable, how does it actually *do* anything?
>
>Ok, Ok, maybe it acts as a catalyst or something.  Does it?
No, to my knowledge dioxin is not a catalyst.  Yes, it is very stable,
and does not react readily.
Regards, Harold
-------
"This vast tragedy, however, is nothing compared to the nutritional
disaster that seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at
the latest, the 1980s) ... A situation has been created that could
lead to a billion or more people starving to death." 
 	- Paul Ehrlich, "The End of Affluence" (1974), p.21

api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote for all to see:
>In article <55b8qu$7bk@news2.lakes.com>,
>	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>>>That way, you'd have a sort of adversarial system and all the bias might
>>>balance out.
>>
>>there already is a sytem in place. Its called peer review; if you
>>can't handle the results tough luck, it just proved your ignorance.
>
>I know about peer review.  However, the peer review process loses a lot of
>it's usefulness if everyone in the process thinks the same way.
While there may be much in the peer review process to criticize, it is
far and away the best device ever developed for weeding out the
useless publications and poorly performed work.  It is my opinion
that, even in situations where the is strong social pressure to find a
certain result, the truth eventually comes out.  Nuclear winter might
be a good example of this.
If you have a method that you think is superior, what would be your
suggestions?
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,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

In article <55goeq$nig@linet06.li.net>,
   bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns) wrote:
>  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
I understand that if you write to Honeywell, they will mail you a 
prepaid envelope for your thermostat.  

af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>(Don Borowski) wrote:
>: There is something that doesn't add up here.  The world is (obviously)
>: presently supply is own energy needs.  Almost all this infrastructure
>: has been built in this century.  How is it that it was possible to do
>: this, seeing as building such infrastructure must require such
>: inordinate amounts of resources to be built?
> 500 nuclear reactors have been built in 50 years. The proposal is to
> build 200,000 in approximately twice that time. This represents a
> rate of construction that is 200 times greater than current rates.
That 200 000 reactor figures is meant to demonstrate that it is
possible to provide our culture with plenty of power indefinately.
Its not a building program to replace all power production with
nuclear power immediately even if that would be desirable.
>: Even without a major transition, the worlds whole energy infrastructure
>: will have to be rebuilt over the next century simply due to the old
>: infrastructure wearing out.  This rebuilding process is going on even
>: right now.  What is so unusual about it?
> Quite simply, the scale of construction proposed is 200 times the
> scale of construction going on now.
For the electrical infrastructure, power lines, transformers,
generators and so on the factor is _one_. There is nor difference on
that side between nuclear poerplants and traditional powerplants. To
replace current power production with for instance solar power gives a
factor larger then one since more equipment is needed.
To get the steam to turn the turbines one needs more constructioning
when building a nuclear powerplant then a coal or oil powerplant. But
you need less equipment and energy for handling the fuel. It takes
five years to build a BWR 1100 MW nuclear powerplant like Forsmark 3
in Sweden, it would have taken slightly less to build a 1100 MW coal
powerplant.
I find it reasonable to assume that a nuclear infrastructure would
cost about twise as much and definately less then four times as much
as a corresponding fossil infrastructure for generating electrical
power. But the cost for fuel is much lower. This evens out nicely when
you have several hundred nuclear reactors and corresponding financial
institutions funneling money to new constructioning and maintaining
funds for waste handling and disposal and insurance if here are anny
accidents. Thus the nuclear industry would take full responsibility
for its life cycle.
Btw, it would take about 500 nuclear reactors to supply all the
electricity USA currently needs. USA has 1/20 of the world population.
To supply the same ammount of electricity to everybody with nuclear
power would mean 10 000 nuclear reactors. During the building time the
population would increase but power will be saved with more efficient
technology and a lot will be produced with hydro power and in sparcely
populated areas wind power. Assume a 50 year life lenght of the
reactors, that means that 200 would have to be built each year. The
optimistical steel company Uddcomb in Sweden did in the 70:ies plan to
build 5 reactor vessels each year. (They made one per year and lost
money. :-/ ) And there were at the peak of the building program
roughly one reactor built every two years in Sweden. This indicates
that one needs 40 times Sweden to build reactor vessels and 400 times
Sweden to build the powerplants. We were roughly eight million then,
even it out to ten. This means the steelmill industry of 400 million
people and the general building industry of 4 billion people withouth
having either part dominating the steel or building industry.
This means that it is doable for all industrialised countries and
impossible for the whole world untill people have raised their
education level and there is a fairly large industry present. I guess
we have to burn oil in cheap powerplants untill we reach that level
and it also indicates that it is dangerous to stop half way and
stagnate.
It is doable to build 10 000 reactores of the current type but it is
most probably not desirable since more advanced reactors would use
their fuel much more efficient and generate less waste.
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

In <3273D1B1.2D84@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes: 
>
>jw says:
>
>'Yeah, do not make those arguments, do not raise doubts,
>suppress your honest opinion, do not give our little game away
>to the enemy, to the general public. Or else it
>won't be possible to *do* anything at all. :-(
>
>I reply:
>
>Presenting 'honest opinion' incessantly, and the more so when backed 
>not by a desire to learn or even a desire for the truth, 
Yeah, always psychoanalize your opponents. If their arguments
are too much for you, concentrate on their *motives* -
as revealed infallibly to you. :-(
>is not 'raising doubt' and is not 'honest opinion'.  
Let us run this tape again: 
"Presenting 'honest opinion' ... is not 'honest opinion'", 
you say? And naturally logic is not logic? 
>It is disruption
It is: truth disrupts many lies.
The child who said publicly that the emperor had no
clothes was very disruptive, and in the exactly same way.
> and an 
>attempt to degrade the efforts and authority of 
>highly trained people 
The tailors who made the emperor's new clothes
were highly trained people - in their way. 
It took a child to degrade their efforts and authority.
Card sharpers, astrologers, shamans, psychoanalysts are 
highly trained people, too.
>whose opinions you don't happen to like.
Seriously? I disagree with those opinions with which
I disagree? How perspicacious of you to guess that.

Jay Hanson has finally given us something to chew on rather than
merely references.
     The two essential forms of stored thermodynamic potential
     are "energy" (e.g., a barrel of oil) and "order" (e.g.,
     clean drinking water and deep topsoil). "Entropy" is a
     measure of the unavailability of energy: the entropy of oil
     increases as it burns, and the entropy of a water table
     increases as it falls because more energy will be required
     to pump it to the surface. Entropy can also be thought of as
     a measure of disorder in a system: polluted water that
     requires purification has higher entropy than the same water
     unpolluted, and the entropy of topsoil increases when it is
     dispersed or polluted by salt from evaporating irrigation
     water.
Thermodynamics only recognizes one entropy, because all of its
manifestations are transformable into one another.  For example, water
that requires purification can be purified (its entropy reduced) by
using free energy from nuclear or solar power (thereby increasing the
entropy of the rest of the universe).  However, neither nuclear nor
solar free energy will run out in the next 5 billion years, so Hanson
needs some additional argument to show that we are doomed in less than
34 years.
-- 
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.

Note truncated follow-up
Leonard Evens  writes:
> Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> > In article <55b8qu$7bk@news2.lakes.com>,
> >         gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
> > >>That way, you'd have a sort of adversarial system and all the bias might
> > >>balance out.
> > >there already is a sytem in place. Its called peer review; if you
> > >can't handle the results tough luck, it just proved your ignorance.
> > I know about peer review.  However, the peer review process loses a lot of
> > it's usefulness if everyone in the process thinks the same way.
> Today, all physicists think the same way about the theory of relativity
Strictly this is not true. Ignoring the fact that
a finite number of physicists think relativity is
"wrong" in some sense, there are at least three conceptual
ways of considering (general) relativity, which are not
strictly equivalent. (Special relativity is different)
> so a paper suggesting that it is false is likely to be met with
> skepticism, although I am sure any objective evidence will be examined
> in the peer review process.   So the fact that everyone in the process
In fact a number of papers testing or outright challenging
general relativity are common, and some of the people who
make these challenges are amongst the most respected 
physicsts. 
This is poor example, both because GR thrives on these challenges,
none have so far been successful; and because it is known
that there is a limit in which GR must fail.
> thinks the same way may simply be because the preponderance of the
> evidence leads an objective person skilled in the art to that
> conclusion.     There have been, of course, classical examples of where
> the profession as a whole rejected a hypothesis as implausible but that
> hypothesis was later shown to be true.   One such example was
> conteinental drift or as we now call it plate tectonics.   However, even
> in such example, the scientific process does eventually work.
In the cases we know of it did. Of course, by definition,
in those cases where it didn't work, we don't know it. 1/2 :-)
> What we have in the kinds of debates that have taken place in these
> newsgroups is people not skilled in the particular art questioning the
> scientific consensus.   Referring to the literature and the scientic
Which newsgroups? On sci.env a significant fraction of posters
are active researchers and do peer review - in their own 
sub-specialties, but that is a plague of any inter-disciplinary
field.
	It is notable that those who _do_ peer review, are not
the first to call upon it as the definitive proof of authority.
But then peer review is a bit like democracy, its better than
all the alternatives.
> peer review process is one way to determine what that consensus is.
> Now it is possible that a random lay person or engineer without any
> qualifications in climatology may notice something that the experts have
> failed to notice, but it is not too likely.
> In case, we are imperfect human beings, and since the scientific peer
> review process is performed by human beings, it too is imperfect.   But
> substituting random uninformed opinion not subject to any review at all
> is not more likely to lead to the truth.   It may even be true that the
> uninformed opinion strikes a responsive cord with the average person.
> But since the average person's understanding of science is abysmal, this
> is hardly a recommendation.
But since the aggregate of the average person's opinion is
the ultimate authority as to what response will be made to
the research, it is interesting and useful to know what it is.

Harold Brashears wrote:
> If I may interject a moment, this fallacy is a weakness of people who
> have no understanding of thermodynamics.  The concept of entropy
> (disorder) constantly increasing applies only to a closed system.  If
> you do not live in a coal mine, you realize that the earth is not a
> closed system.  It receives a constant energy input from the sun,
> energy which feeds evolution and life on earth.
Harold,
If you would have read a book in the last 50 years
 (or even checked my references), you would know better.
Economists in Europe have been reading about entropy
 and how it relates to the economy for years.
  See:  http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page17.htm
Here a explanation of how thermodynamics is used in
 ecological economics:
------------
All matter and energy in the universe are subject to
the Laws of Thermodynamics. In the discipline of Ecological
Economics, systems are delimited so that they are meaningful
to our economy. What does thermodynamics have to do with the
sustainability of food production?
The two essential forms of stored thermodynamic potential
are "energy" (e.g., a barrel of oil) and "order" (e.g., clean
drinking water and deep topsoil). "Entropy" is a measure of
the unavailability of energy: the entropy of oil increases as
it burns, and the entropy of a water table increases as it
falls because more energy will be required to pump it to the
surface. Entropy can also be thought of as a measure of disorder
in a system: polluted water that requires purification has
higher entropy than the same water unpolluted, and the entropy
of topsoil increases when it is dispersed or polluted by salt
from evaporating irrigation water.
[snip]
---------------
 From:  http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page65.htm

jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
>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 polymers, I don't know.  Rare gas halide lasers were developed
under DARPA funding, I do know that.  Phillips (I think it was) did
some early work in the utilization of certain types of multivariate
data reduction for chemical analysis, which has been carried into
common use.
I do not think I ever said that federal funding of university research
was not the primary engine of new theory, clearly that has been so for
the past 50 years.
The question, shown above, was to name one product developed by big
business.  I think I did that.  I was unaware of (and reading the
thread still do not see) any requirement that the theory be profound,
or the invention "important" in any sense.
I do not think any single group, business, government or university is
truely able to concieve of an earth shattering scientific
breakthrough, develop it to the point of a product that may be
manufactured, and then carry it on into daily use in the home.  Each
stage of this process requires different skills and differnt types of
organization.
The somewhat obscured implication of the question was that big
business made no contribution to this process.  I dispute that
implication, and consider the question somewhat simplistic to ask, so
I answered in kind.  Sorry that caused you any discomfort.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
----
"I got the impression that, instead of going out to shoot
birds, I should shoot the kids that shoot birds"
     - Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace
	(Acess to Energy, December 1982, Vol. 10, No 4)

Ecological Economics, Entropy and Sustainable Food
All matter and energy in the universe are subject to the
Laws of Thermodynamics. In the discipline of Ecological
Economics, systems are delimited so that they are meaningful
to our economy. What does thermodynamics have to do with
the sustainability of food production?
The two essential forms of stored thermodynamic potential
are "energy" (e.g., a barrel of oil) and "order" (e.g.,
clean drinking water and deep topsoil). "Entropy" is a
measure of the unavailability of energy: the entropy of
oil increases as it burns, and the entropy of a water
table increases as it falls because more energy will be
required to pump it to the surface. Entropy can also be
thought of as a measure of disorder in a system: polluted
water that requires purification has higher entropy than
the same water unpolluted, and the entropy of topsoil
increases when it is dispersed or polluted by salt from
evaporating irrigation water.
Sustainable systems are "circular" (outputs become
inputs)—all linear physical systems must eventually end.
Modern agriculture is increasing entropy 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.
For more, see:
 http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page65.htm

Jay Hanson includes:
     Sustainable systems are "circular" (outputs become
     inputs; all linear physical systems must eventually end.
     Modern agriculture is increasing entropy 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.
Indeed there are aspects of modern agriculture that cannot be
sustained just as they are now.  There will have to be a substitute
for the water being mined from the Oglallala Aquifer if that region is
to continue agricultural production on the present scale after some
tens of years.  If the water became unavailable now, that production
might well be abandoned, because there is an oversupply of
agricultural products from regions not now requiring expensive new
water systems.  It makes sense to mine the water for now, just as it
made sense for our ancestors to light their homes with whale oil.
Topsoil will eventually become a commodity, but the price of
agricultural land seems to be too low at present for this.  Again a
matter of over-supply of agricultural products.  It is not clear how
soon this will be, because the rate of loss of topsoil is declining,
and the agricultural productivity of present farm land with good
topsoil continues to increase.
Food, and especially its primary production (not counting subsequent
processing and distribution) is such a small fraction of American GDP
that increased primary prices (e.g. more for a bushel of wheat) will
have little effect on the standard of living.  Americans spend 16
percent of personal income on food, but that includes the cost of
being served in restaurants as well as the cost of all the packaging,
trucking, advertising and retail and wholesale selling.
-- 
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.

"Mike Asher"  wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>I am not aware of any stratospheric measurements done for
>CFCs; typically this is done at ground-based stations.  Perhaps you can
>provide some information on this?
I can assure you that CFC's have indeed been measured in the
stratosphere, and have been for years.  This is very easy and cheap to
do, so it was done some time ago.  I even recall reading about one of
the first such, when there was a publication of a graph showing
concentration of CFC and O3, which had been measured at the same time.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
----
"The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in
the effect was already in the cause."
	---Henri Bergson, Philosopher (1859 - 1941)

ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote for all to see:
>On Sat, 02 Nov 1996 18:18:20 GMT, gjkaralu@centraltx.net (George J.
>Karalunas) wrote:
>
>>The disposal costs should be less than 1/10 of 1%, but some persons,
>>with a agenda object.  Using low cost Space Technology, any residue
>>radioactive material, can be launched Sun ward and be destroyed by the
>>greatest Nuclear Power Source within 4 Light Years.  This was proposed
>>in the 50's & 60's, but again, some very vocal persons with a agenda,
>>and a large bankroll (via govt grants, and donations), who would not
>>pollute space (their words, not mine), continue to this day object. 
>
>I am a backer of nuclear power, but this is going too far. There is a
>small (???) risk of launching high level rad-waste into the sun: what
>if the rocket blows up while still in the earth's gravitational field
>- on the pad for example. You now have radwaste scattered to the wind.
That certainly sounds scary, but is improbable.  The explosion of a
rocket motor, such as the SRM, is not of the required force to "have
radwaste scattered to the winds".  Rocket motor propellant is not can
be formulated to simply not explode.  It must have a high burn rate,
but it can be less than required for what we generally refer to as an
explosion.  Thus insufficient energy would be available for dispersal
of the protected cargo.  I think a stronger argument would be
concerned with the fallibility of rocket guidance systems.
In addition, I do not think this is a good idea, anyway.  I wonder
that we want to throw away permanently anything that is so radioactive
it is dangerous, for this means there is still available energy to be
extracted.  I am far from an expert in this field, but it occurs to me
that, even if we have not the technology to use this energy today,
throwing it away means that we will not be able to use it in the
future, even if we develop the technology required.
Regards, Harold
-------
"This vast tragedy, however, is nothing compared to the nutritional
disaster that seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at
the latest, the 1980s) ... A situation has been created that could
lead to a billion or more people starving to death." 
 	- Paul Ehrlich, "The End of Affluence" (1974), p.21

-> > Bruce Hamilton wrote:
-> > >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.
-> >
-> > Really?. I've referred you to the data before... From the Gasoline
FAQ...
Why don't you take a look at the WRI graphs and see what they show?
 http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/gifs/oil_f4-5.html
  They appear to agree that lower-48 oil production peaked around 1970.
   Sounds like you are wrong.
-> > >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)
-> >
-> > This is not because of resource entropy, but because it is now
-> > obvious to most countries that energy self-sufficiency is an
-> > economically rational choice that soon will not affect
international
-> > competitiveness.
Bruce, you have a general misunderstanding how entropy is
 used in Ecological Economics (my perspective).
  See: http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page65.htm

On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 07:51:42 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>I did say so, but you seem to have a very poor understanding of 
>capitalism.  It is more than a few over-riding general principles.  IT 
>is capitalism in practice, and as the sum of its components, that 
>defines capitalism. Capitalism leads directly to corruption in 
>practice, and it is the attempt of the general public to counter this 
>corruption and unbridled 'capitalism' which led to labor riots, the 
>formation of labor unions, and the rise of socialism in the early part 
>of this century. 
Life leads directly to corruption in practice, which is why today the
labor unions and socialist governments are highly corrupt. Your point?
> 'Capitalism' has fought these trends tooth and nail 
>because, in practice, it is inherently immoral.  It must be tempered 
>by socialism without being overcome by it.
It is hardly immoral. An economic system which rewards work and
ingenuity, which allows people to retain the fruits of their labor,
and which is based on voluntary aggreements between its players is
hardly immoral.
And it need not be tempered by socialism - it requires either well
moral individuals, or rule of law, in order to temper the immoral
impulses of some individuals who may choose to operate within
capitalism.
>
>Regarding your continual insistence on permitting inheritance, You 
>seem to be overlooking the power of money in a capitalist society.  
>You try to justify giving large sums of money to people for no reason 
>other than someone with money wanting to do so.  This is entirely 
>counter to the principles of capitalism - where innovative people with 
>guts and stamina succeed.
I think you misunderstand the concept of property in capitalism. Money
becomes property, and property can be disposed of in whatever (legal)
manner the owner of that property desires - including passing it on to
others.
BTW, from your objection to inheritance, I presume you also object to
charity? Charity is where people in a capitalist society freely give
property to those they don't even know, and who are typically not
"deserving" in the strict sense you are trending towards.
>Inheretance is nothing but a very selfish form of welfare.  Insofar as 
>it leads to concentration of wealth in the hands of those who have 
>done nothing to earn it, it corrupts capitalism.  There isn'tmuch else 
>to be said about it.
Inheritance doesn't concentrate wealth - it dilutes it - as typical
generations are larger than their predecessors. And it is hardly
welfare, as its purpose is simply to disposal of earned property in
the manner desired by the earner.

This is a very good posting, quoted below) I would like to add a point which 
I don't think is contrary to what was said (I have to say that as here it 
seems like everone assumes you are arguing):
Lack of evidence is not evidence. The uninformed or misinformed seem to be 
replying to references to evidence with references to lack of evidence. For 
example if I post some evidence that dioxins are very poisonous, someone 
else will find an example where strong evidence was not found. They seem to 
think that an experiment or study that fails to find evidence for something 
somehow negates other studies that did find such evidence.
If it was scientists who were posting this kind of thing I would call it bad 
science, but I doubt that they are scientists.
Also, scientists quite honestly call their theories just that. A world view 
that believes in scientific fact is a stunted world view. I think most of 
these people confuse science with technology, many of the proponents of 
which have the blind faith of a religious fundamentalist. Science neither 
supports nor opposes technology, it is used by technology and technology is 
dependant on it, but science depends only on human curiosity and the 
existence of a universe to wonder at. Phenomenology doesn't even need 
that...
Andy
Leonard Evens wrote:
> Today, all physicists think the same way about the theory of relativity
> so a paper suggesting that it is false is likely to be met with
> skepticism, although I am sure any objective evidence will be examined
> in the peer review process.   So the fact that everyone in the process
> thinks the same way may simply be because the preponderance of the
> evidence leads an objective person skilled in the art to that
> conclusion.     There have been, of course, classical examples of where
> the profession as a whole rejected a hypothesis as implausible but that
> hypothesis was later shown to be true.   One such example was
> conteinental drift or as we now call it plate tectonics.   However, even
> in such example, the scientific process does eventually work.
> 
> What we have in the kinds of debates that have taken place in these
> newsgroups is people not skilled in the particular art questioning the
> scientific consensus.   Referring to the literature and the scientic
> peer review process is one way to determine what that consensus is.
> Now it is possible that a random lay person or engineer without any
> qualifications in climatology may notice something that the experts have
> failed to notice, but it is not too likely.
> 
> In case, we are imperfect human beings, and since the scientific peer
> review process is performed by human beings, it too is imperfect.   But
> substituting random uninformed opinion not subject to any review at all
> is not more likely to lead to the truth.   It may even be true that the
> uninformed opinion strikes a responsive cord with the average person.
> But since the average person's understanding of science is abysmal, this
> is hardly a recommendation.
> --
> Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
> Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> Evanston Illinois
-- 
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

In  cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L.
Spitzer) writes: 
>That's because when
>you work with systems every day, you learn humility.  Nobody can
predict
>all of the behaviors of a complex system before it is built.  Nobody
>can anticipate all of its failure modes, even though most of the work
of
>system design is preparation for failures of various kinds.  Nobody
can
>predict how a system of the biosphere's complexity will respond to
having
>components removed, or gross perturbations like the current fossil
>carbon release.  
But that is exactly the point! Nobody can predict, yet
people who call themselves scientists peddle predictions.
There is however a difference between an engineered system
and a natural one. For an engineered system, there is
a correct mode of behavior, according to spec. It may
malfunction, but is, in principle, functional. 
Nature, however, serves no function, has no spec, 
owes us nothing. If we disturb it, it may change its
behavior unpredictably - granted. But, unlike a machine,
the change is just as likely to be for the better.
And - the change may just as likely occur because
we do *not* disturb it - it has other disturbances,
it is chaotic and subject to unpredictable swings.
This is where the conservationist ideology fails:
there is nothing to conserve, it is not in any
kind of optimal or user-friendly state.
>Murphy's Law is not a joke.  Nature bats last,
It does, indeed; nature may do it to you,
even if you do nothing.
This is why doing nothing has *no advantages*,
in case of nature. That is the difference:
Murphy's law *does* hold for nature; but "if it works,
don't fix it" does not.

In  jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
McCarthy) writes: 
>
>Len Evens includes:
>
>     If you have become convinced that the IPCC, which represents
>     the world's experts in atmospheric, meteorological, and
>     climatological science, is biased and following an
>     ideological line, you are adopting the position that all
>     knowledge depends on ideology.  In particular, if we can't
>     trust the IPCC, why in the world should we trust the few
>     critics?
>
>There has been enormous ideological pressure put on the climatological
>community to confirm what the good guys believe.  It would not be
>surprising if they have bent to some extent.  The famous wording
>suggests the minimal concession to the demands on them.  Fortunately,
>such stress is rare in science.  Leftist scientists bent a bit towards
>accepting Lysenkoism even when they didn't fully accept it.
>
>That one doesn't fully trust the IPCC to be fully objective doesn't
>imply that one fully trusts the critics - who may also be somewhat
>motivated by ideology, the less popular ideology in this case.
>
>Len should take a look at a book review of three environmentalist
>books in _American Scientist_ for November-December.  These books and
>the approving review suggest that anyone who dissents from a rather
extreme
>environmentalist position (a far more extreme position than any Len
>has taken in sci.environment) is scientifically illiterate.  One of
>them, _Greening the College Curriculum_ gives course outlines for
>putting environmentalism into every course.
>The point of the previous paragraph was to illustrate the level of
>stress on science from environmental ideology.
The larger problem is that this creates a precedent, and 
so changes the standards of truth for other controversies and 
other disciplines. In addition to the peer pressure - the stick - 
there is the carrot: the money, fame and influence gained 
by jumping onto an ideological bandwagon - 
influence well outside science,
in matters of policy, and publicity well outside science, too. 
These three forces: the pressure, the lure, the bad precedent, 
are corrupting science to a degree that's hard to contain.

                             SEARCH FOR TECHNICAL EXPERTS
Product and/or process development requires specific information, knowledge
and/or experience. Specific information/knowledge/experience is mostly not easy
to track down, even not in centres for technology. One reason is that specific
knowledge/experience is mostly linked to individuals, the experts on a
specific topic.
In order to further the search for specific knowledge I am setting up a
database that refers to experts on all kinds of technological topics.
Companies that look for specific knowledge/experience can use the database
to get in touch with the needed expert.
If you are an expert and you like to be included in the database, please
send me (by email) the following information:
KEYWORDS describing your expertise:
* Field of technology, e.g. chemistry: 1 keyword.
* Application in terms of product/process, e.g. thermocouples: 1 - 3 keyword(s).
* Application in terms of industry/activity, e.g. refinery: 1 - 3 keyword(s).
* Description of your specific expertise: preferably 3 keywords, e.g.
  degradation, misinterpretation, carbonmonoxide; if not possible: a small text 
  is allowable.
 Some Rules:
 -For the selection of keywords you may use your own terminology.
 -A keyword may consist of more than one word.
 -Use the above description for each separate expertise you offer.
 -If you feel the use of keywords is too restrictive for a good description,
  your expertise is probably not specific but general.
PERSONAL details:
*      Name.
*      Name of company you represent (if applicable).
*      Email address and/or facsimile number.
*      Country/State.
Confidentiality: My name is J.H. Heerings (Dieren, The Netherlands). I am
writing from a personal interest and as an individual (no company is involved).
The above information will not be used for mailing lists or otherwise; only for
the abovementioned database. I will contact you at the moment the database will
start to run and is accessible to industry.
The information should be emailed to: heerings@worldaccess.nl

   Do you want to see statistics on  --  Air Pollution, Garbage, Nuclear
   Tests, and other environmental related statistics and facts ?  Then 
   go to the Vital U.S. Statistics and Facts Home page at
      http://www.instantech.com/users/1260/index.htm
Here is a sample:
 Air Pollution:
   About 64,000 people in the 239 surveyed areas died          
   prematurely each year of heart and lung ailments caused 
   by particle air pollution.  That compares with 29,245 
   deaths in those areas from auto accidents and 18,683
   homicides.  In the most polluted cites, lives are 
   shortened by an average of one to two years.
   10 Most Expensive Disasters                 In Billions
  1.  Hurricane Andrew, 1992                         $ 15.5
  2.  Northridge, Calif., earthquake, 1994      $ 12.5
  3.  Hurricane Hugo, 1989                              $ 4.2
  4.  Hurricane Opal, 1995                               $ 2.1
  5.  20-state winter storm, 1993                     $ 1.8
  6.  Oakland, Calif., fire, 1991                        $ 1.7
  7.  Hurricane Fran, 1996                               $ 1.6
  8.  Hurricane Iniki, Hawaii, 1992                   $ 1.6
  9.  Flooding, Texas, N.M., 1995                    $ 1.1
 10.  Loma Prieta, Calif., earthquake, 1989     $ 0.96
   LAST POLITICAL POST - This is your last chance to download the mostly
   " Politcal Issues " statistics web page.  A lot of the information 
   will be removed very soon.  Next post to this newsgroup will be only
   when there is new information.   
   You will also see statistics and facts on a huge range of subjects like --
   The U.S. economy, national debt, state budgets, tax rates, crime,
   juvenile crime, drugs, drug trafficking, prison population, death 
   penalty, Aids, cancer, education, Medicare, gender issues, population, 
   teen pregnancy, illegal immigration, smoking, religion, sex statistics,
   and even the various costs of the O.J. trial.  All this and much 
   more in summary form. There are over 50 links to my page and other 
   factual web pages, which includes the presidential and congressional 
   candidates and their stance on various issues.
   This is not an advertisement for a product.  
   Feel free to download and save the web page.  It will be summarized 
   even more that it is now in the near future.  It does take about
   a minute to download, but there is not any graphics so once you
   downloaded it will instantansly download in future visits. 
   Read the CLINTON and GOP REPORT CARD while the page downloads.
   Note : This web page can also be found from the search engine  
          ALTA VISTA.  Just type  >>  " VITAL U.S. STATISTICS " <<
          ( include the quotation marks )  and it should be the 
          first choice. 
   ALTA VISTA can be found in Netscape's net search. Just scroll
   down until you find the search engine  ALTA VISTA.

In article <327B9271.5CA7@not.here.com>, Anonymous  says:
>Miikka Raninen wrote:
>> >Mike Asher wrote:
>> >As rebuttal to 14 case studies showing the negative effects of dioxin
>> >on man, we have an Earth First member quoting from "Chemistry in
>> >Context". Although represented as a scholarly work, this textbook is
>> >typically used as an introductory course to elementary and high school
>> >teachers.  I was able to get a table of contents for this tome of
>> >knowledge; some of the high points are below:
>> >"Chemistry in Context"
>> >  Ch. 2: "Protecting the Ozone Layer"
>> >  Ch 3: "The Chemistry of Global Warming"
>> >  Ch 4: "Energy, Chemistry and Society"
>> >  Ch 5: "The Wonder of Water"
>> >  Ch. 8: "The Fires of Nuclear Fission"
>> >  Ch. 9: "Solar Energy: Fuel for the Future"
>> >  Ch. 12: "Nutrition: Food for Thought"
>> As you said you really haven't seen the whole book. Highschool mayby but
>> elementary? - And, thats the point! Even a simple, basic chemistry
>> studybook gives the fact that dioxin is one of the most poisones
>> chemicals in the world. As for your "high points" those above mentioned
>> "chapters" are short one or two page introductions in the end of the
>> book to what chemistry is in reality.
>> >Regardless of your personal beliefs Miika, here the evidence is
>> >irrefutable. The dioxin issue is a paper tiger, created to advance
>> >an agenda.
>> 
>> What and who's agenda?
>> >>    I admit that I represent an enviromental organization.
>> >>    What do you, Mike Asher, represent?
>> >>    Industry who wants to bring a new thalidomine on market?
>> >>    Or mayby the US-army who wants to use the agent orange again?
>> 
>> >I have no involvement in the chemical industry Miika.  Look elsewhere
>> >for fulfillment of your paranoia.
>> We don't need paranoia when we have people like you.
>I am not entirely sure with respect to the phenomenon, however, I have
>heard that in general dioxin will 'mimic' the steroid molecules in many
>respects.  Steroids, being fat soluble, will cross cell membranes and
>attach with complexes that then will attach directly to the DNA chains
>producing alterations in genetic expression.  Dioxins, also being fat
>soluble, will also cross cell membranes and possibly complex in the same
>way, but possibly alter the conformations of the complex and thus the
>expression, and possibly alter the DNA that the complex will bind to. 
>Dioxin I have heard will not cause cancer to any great effect in rats,
>but dioxin with progesterone will (at least this is what I heard).
This group (or the zombies who write here) doesn't give a shit what you
have "heard" or what you "think"...
You have to have lots of "scientific evidence" (preferably funded by
the industry) and "research studies" (preferably done by industry) to 
make ANY stand here...
Also people here don't trust themselves to make their own reseach or
are so closely attached to the usenet, that they can't go the local 
university's library to look for some real facts...
AND most importantly - don't even THINK you could write here anonymously!
If you write here anonymously no one will have any bases to make ridicule
out of you. And they will not trust a word what you say because you don't
have PhD after you name...
I "heard" alot of things at university's enviromental-chemistry courses
but it seems all they taught was false.. ..and not to mention the 
biology-lectures about chemicals (including dioxin) that mimic oestrogen
and therefore cause reduction in spermcount, reproductive abnormalities,
mental retardation, reduced IQ, learning disabilities and other permanent
neurological abnormalities, suppressed immune defences against 
infectious diseases, AND almost any kind of cancer... ,etc.
BUT again my university lecturers are propably in conspiracy with some
radical eco-religion that wants to brainwashe all innocent students...
Ask Mike Asher and he will explain in detail how WRONG and STUPID you are.
- Miikka Raninen  - Earth First! Finland

> 
> Mark Friesel includes:
> 
>      Not only that...etc.
> 
John McCarthy says:
> Mark is being sarcastic,
I interject only to state that I will take any opportunity to be able 
to agree with you, and do so now.  I was indeed being sarcastic.
John continues:
> but my experience is that the inexperienced
> often take sarcastic posts literally.
I interject again:
Whereby they gain experience.  My experience is that the inexperienced 
tend to believe far more quickly someone with Stanford credentials, 
hence my little bit of occasional rubbish concerns me very little.

In article <32782446.4261@ix.netcom.com>, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Mike Asher says:
> 
> -Myself and several others here have stated the nonexistence of a 
> -malarial vaccine.  While researching counterclaims on the malaria 
> -issue, I discovered that the WHO is currently conducting field trials 
> -for a new malaria vaccine.  It reportedly has few side effects and an 
> -efficacity of 98% +.
> 
> -Can we all join together in celebration of this wonderful 
> -achievement?
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Rather amusing, I think.  Being a conservative, I'd suggest waiting to 
> celebrate until the field trials are completed.
I agree it is sensible to wait until the results are in and evaluated. It
is also a good idea to keep in mind that the outcome of drug trials have
great financial implications for manufacturers of drugs, vaccines and
diagnostic tests etc.
Whoever develops and markets a treatment, even a partially effective
treatment, of any of the endemic debilitating diseases of the non
industrial and developing countries is assured great riches.
There is nothing wrong with making money in an of itself, but it does tend
to skew one's perception of what is safe and effective.
Jim Scanlon
-- 
199 Canal St #8
San Rafael CA
94901
415-485-0540