Newsgroup sci.environment 108106

Directory

Don Baccus  wrote:
> 
> DDT wasn't banned in the US.
What planet are you on? 

jw says:
-Yeah, always psychoanalize your opponents. If their arguments
-are too much for you, concentrate on their *motives* -
-as revealed infallibly to you. :-(
I'm glad you think so.  If it's starting to get to you, go crack a 
book.
jw says:
-Let us run this tape again:
-"Presenting 'honest opinion' ... is not 'honest opinion'",
-you say? And naturally logic is not logic?
I reply:
This is your misreading.  If you can't do better than that on your 
own, you won't get any more help from me.
jw says:
-It is: truth disrupts many lies.
I reply certainly, but this has little to do with your posts.
jw says:
-The child who said publicly that the emperor had no
-clothes was very disruptive, and in the exactly same way.
I reply:
Plagerizing an exerpt from one of my posts certainly doesn't help you 
appear any brighter. 
jw says:
-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.
I reply:
Ta dahhh!  At last some insight, however misplaced, and enough wit to 
convince me that if you practice real effort and desire there may be 
hope for you.  The next step is to realize that only one out of all 
those watching told the truth, while the rest apparently said nothing.  
I haven't seen that you're that one yet, but if you want to keep 
trying don't stop on my account.
jw says:
-Card sharpers, astrologers, shamans, psychoanalysts are
-highly trained people, too.
I reply:
...and in their field of expertise I wouldn't presume to take them on.  
You apparently would play politics with politicians, gamble with card 
sharps, open your own astrology booth, play medicine man with the 
shamans, argue about psychoanalysis with professional shrinks, and 
vccc (uh-oh, my dog wanted to write) tell scientists all about 
science.  All from a position of what appears to be the most appalling 
ignorance.  Well, it's your life.
jw continues:
-Seriously? I disagree with those opinions with which
-I disagree? How perspicacious of you to guess that.
I reply:
This is your misreading.  It would do me no good to correct it for you 
since there is no lower level for you to practice on.

In article <55ipll$cg7@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
	jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) writes:
>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.
This trend towards ideologically biasing everything in society is one of the
more alarming social trends of today.  Reality doesn't exist anymore.  Reality
depends on who you listen to.. Earth First or Rush Limbaugh.
I am not a climatologist and I admittedly have not heavily researched either
ozone depletion or global warming.  However, given the extreme amount of
ideological bias on both sides, I don't really trust anyone in this field
to be objective.  The war doesn't seem to be between those that believe that
ozone depletion/global warming is happening and those who don't.  The war
seems to be between those that *want* it to be happening (in order to push
an ideological agenda), and those who don't *want* it to be happening (in order
to push a different ideological agenda).  Reality has no place in this debate.
I don't see much science here.  Just a propaganda war.
I do have a list of questions on both if anyone who is scientific and
objective wants to answer.
On ozone depletion:
I understand how the reaction works in theory-- CFC and Bromides are carried
into the upper atmosphere by wind currents, and there they break up freeing
Cl2 and Br2, which act as free-agent catalysts to break up O3 into O2.  I have
two questions:
1) What about chlorine from other sources such as volcanoes?  What makes manmade
chlorine different?  If wind currents can carry big heavy CFC molecules up
to the stratosphere, then they can certainly carry natural sources of chlorine
up there.  Also, how do the volumes compare.. manmade vs. natural?
2) How extensively have other alternatives been explored?  Is there any data
on solar radiation vs. ozone thickness?  What about the possibility of there
being a natural ozone cycle?
3) If chlorine causes O3 to be broken up into O2, which allows more solar
radiation through, wouldn't this just lead to the production of more (the
same amount as what was lost) O3?  Solar radiation causes the formation of O3,
so wouldn't the increased solar radiation cause an amount of O3 to be generated
that would replace what was lost?
On global warming:
1) Do we have enough fossil fuels to create enough CO2 to cause any significant
climatological change?  (BTW, we will "run out" when they are too expensive
to use practically as fuels.. not when there is absolutely no more left.)
2) Don't the oceans absorb CO2?  Has this been factored into climatological
models?
3) Doesn't increased concentration of CO2 merely trigger an increase in plant
growth, such as photoplankton in the ocean?  Has this been factored into
climatological models?

Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> 
> In Article <55hfe4$ill@wilma.widomaker.com>, alanh@widomaker.com (Alan
> Horowitz) wrote:
> >In <55gpf8$fa1@agate.berkeley.edu> lhom@nature.berkeley.edu (Louis Hom) writes:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > So, if I don't convince =you= of my arguments in this or that dispute,
> >you're ready to oppose my freedom of speech?
people who wish to suppress freedom of choice by making the imparting of 
information illegal make a very good case for exceptions.
-- 
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

On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 19:21:30 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold
Brashears) wrote:
>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:
>>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.
I wasn't referring to a high velocity explosion. But all it takes are
cracks in the solid fuel, or a mechanical failure of the motor, to
cause it to release a lot of energy, in a very short period of time.
Unless the waste is glassified, it is going to be scattered. Even if
it is glassified, I suspect the temperatures in an SRB are high enough
to decompose the glass.
So you could get an explosion.
The rocket guidance system is another interesting issue... especially
since it will be near a very high rad environment - not conducive to
good functioning of electronic systems.
As a side note, I wondered during the Gulf War if the bad guy with the
mustache might load up a Scud with a bunch of rad waste and toss it
towards Isreal. It's the poor man's atom bomb and requires only a
reactor. It could easily release more radiation than a nuclear
explosion.
>
>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 agree with you there. It is energy, and it can be used for
something... how about a beacon :-)
>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.
I agree. Also, most of those opposed to nuclear waste seem to have the
(possibly unconscious) assumptions:
  (1) In the future, we won't be able to dig it up and repackage it if
       it threatens to leak - ie, we will somehow slide back into a
       pre-industrial society. I consider this wishful thinking on
       their part.
  (2) That stuff might be handy in the future, as you point out

Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> 
> Leonard Evens  writes:
> 
>> 
> > 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.
> 
It seems impossible to make a statement anywhere in this newsgroup
without someone challenging it.  I am afraid I have been guilty of
the same thing on too many occasions.
Let's just replace  `the theory of relativity' by `the theory of special
relativity' as far as the point I was trying to make is concerned?   Or
are you going to maintain that there are physicists who seriously
challenge that?   There were at one time, even during my lifetime.
Your description of general relativity reminds me of what Phillip
Morrison told a graduate physics class I audited in the 50s.  That
quantum mechanics and special relativity were well established but that
general relativity was supported by little experimental evidence and not
generally taken seriously by physicists.  It was my impression that much
of this changed beginning with the Pound Rebka experiment (which only
established the Principle of Equaivalence) and then later work on
cosmology and its relation to elemenatary particle physics.  It was my
impression that no respectiable theoretical physicist today does not
accept a framework like that suggested by general relativity, but of
course some differ as to the detailed structure of the theory, and
Einstein's original form of the theory may be contested.  Certainly,
we know for sure that none of these theories are the final answer since
they don't explain all the fundamental forces of nature in a single
theory.   In any case, I would be extremely surprised if you  could name
a prominent physicist who claimed that Newton's picture of space and
time was essentially correct and Einstein's picture was all wrong. 
I think you should be very careful about statements like the one you
made above.   While you may be technically correct, you are quibbling,
and the quibbles are not relevant as far as my main point was concerned.
I am sure for example that some readers of your posting will conclude
that you are saying that we can safely go back to Newton.
> > 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 :-)
> 
There you go again.  You are making this into a clever debate instead of
a serious discussion of issues.   It is a tautology to say that we don't
know what we don't know.   It is also true that any human activity
involves a certain degree of faith.   On the basis of the record so far,
the history of science indicates that we understand a great deal that we
didn't even 100 years ago.  But of couse, it might all be a delusion.
But the end of your particular logical road is the point at which we
conclude that no objective knowledge is possible, since at some later
date it may all be proved wrong.   In that case, one is forced to rely
on whatever one feels is true and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
That would be a sorry state of affairs.
 > 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.
If my sample or recent postings, many of which are cross postings,
is any indication, there are a preponderance of ideological based
articles, mostly by people with little or no serious knowledge of
science.   I hope I am not ideologically biased, and I have made an
honest attempt to understand the science underlying environmental
questions, but I am not a scientist.   I am familiar with peer review in
mathematics, but we have an entirely easier time of it.   I do pay
attention to the few postings from people who seem to know what they are
talking about, but they are few and far between.
>         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.
> 
That was essentially the point I was trying to make.   But I would put
it  more strongly.   It is the only alternative in doing serious
science.
> > 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.
I don't disagree.  But that doesn't mean that one has to accept all
statements by all persons as having equal relevance to a scientific
discussion.   Since I am not a climatologist myself I approach that
subject with a certain amount of humility.   Were I so inclined, I could
take the high position, possible to a mathematician, that all the things
the rest of you do are nonsense because it is almost invariably true
that you have to make assumptions about the mathematics that you use
that can't be established.  Indeed, in some cases, they aren't even
true.   But I choose instead to try to understand what people in the
subject are doing and how they come to the conclusions they do.   It is
easy enough to stand on the outside and criticize, but that is in the
end a not very fruitful exercise.
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> 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.
....and more.
I reply:
Harold, I must admit that at times your concise summarization of a 
situation shows excellent insight.  How nice if we could avoid 
politics, and maintain discussion on a civilized level despite 
disagrements.

In article <55i5ad$lf@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
   jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>In <327d7483.339185332@news.primenet.com> 
ozone@primenet.com (John
>Moore) writes: 
>>
>>On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:44:28 GMT, 
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
>>(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
Isn't it interesting how many people out there are so 
mentally undisciplined that they see what they are looking 
for in practically any data set?  It seems to me that people 
who were looking the the "truth" would formulate a 
hypothesis, and design some kind of test to verify or refute 
that hypothesis.  However, I realize that we can't do that 
in this case - the *possible* consequences are just too dire 
to wait for the necessary data!  We must act now!  Circle 
the wagons!  Oops ... I almost got on my soapbox again. ;-)
Have a nice day.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

In article <327c31fa.9236351@news.primenet.com>,
   ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Nov 1996 14:11:54 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com 
wrote:
>
>>> >John Moore wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
>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.
>
But what about an excellent example?  It seems that once 
upon a time, there were two *VERY* rich and greedy brothers 
named Hunt.  These guys tried to corner the silver market in 
the early 1980's.  Unfortunately, they didn't have enough 
billions of dollars to do this, and their monumental 
miscalculation led to the loss of their great fortune!  This 
is a very good example of redistribution of wealth (the rich 
don't always get richer).
Alas, everything is a subtle balance between greed and fear!
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

In article <327CB914.75C2A783@math.nwu.edu>,
   Leonard Evens  wrote:
>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
>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. 
You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion again, Len.  Go 
to sci.physics.relativity and read to your heart's content. 
There, you will find all kinds of alternate theories, 
rebuttals of currently accepted theories, etc.
(cut)
>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.
Umm... you global warming enthusiasts may not be that much 
better off than the layman.  Your continuous insistence to 
act before the data are all in, even when the experts are 
cautious regarding their conclusions, leads me to believe 
that you are prone to knee-jerk reactions.  How is this 
reaction so much better than John Q. Public?
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 19:54:53 +0000, "sdef!" 
wrote:
>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...
It is not that unusual for scientists to present a political agenda.
In that case, the scientist uses his expert status to mislead
non-scientists, which can have a significant impact on social policy.
Typically the scientist has succumbed to the God syndrome (also
frequently seen in physicians) and believes what he is saying.
 The one who comes to mind most easily is Carl Sagan, with his gloom
and doom predictions which are somewhat outside the area of his
specialty, and are consistently tinged with politics. I am still
laughing about his misprediction of the effect of the Kuwaiti Oilfield
particulates.
However, that does not invalidate the value of his science in his
field. In fact, only his peers would even be able to tell.
Scientists frequently tend to be narrow specialists, as the nature of
scientific inquiry requires people who are an inch wide and a mile
deep. When these specialists step even slightly outside their narrow
area, they may present non-scientific conclusions with the authority
of science, probably because they don't realize that their deep
authority is no longer relevant.
Furthermore, scientists, like other people, get caught up in politics
and hence have a biased view about the impact of their policies. If
you spend your life studying worms, you are likely to be far more
protective of worms from any kind of human activity then if you are a
climatologist. But that concern may very well be misplaced, and
unconsciously corrupted by self interest.
Also, the media has been very choosy in their selection of scientific
information to feed into controversy. They consistently took the worst
predictions about global warming and presented them as the  scientific
gospel - even though climatologists were in general far more careful.
As the worst case estimates were reduced, they rarely show the trend
in the prediction. They also were highly irresponsible in 1992 with
the "ozone hole over Kennebunkport" nonsense.  In general they present
the extreme pro-environmentalist side of most stories, rather than
giving any relative risk information.
Also, most americans do confuse science with technology, as do members
of the media, and politicians. Furthermore, very few people know how
science actually works, because that does not make a dramatic story,
and it is taught very poorly in schools.
What constitutes a theory? To many people, it is anything that is not
a transcendent truth, and therefore can be discarded. We see this most
visibly with the "creation science" nonsense.
With these factors, is it any wonder that people are distrustful of
science, or choose which results to listen to?
I'm a conservative. I am convinced that there is a lot of
chicken-little hysteria going on. But I also know that many
conservative spokesmen, with little grounding in science, attribute
political motives or great uncertainty where it isn't appropriate.
Rush Limbaugh, who I think is an outstanding political analyst, is
utterly clueless about science. His only contribution is to take a
polar position to that of the equally clueless and biased mass media.
But no truth is revealed by either side.

On 03 Nov 1996 19:26:05 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>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.
Solar "income" is limited by the finite surface area that sunlight
impinges on, and sunlight's intermittent & dispersed nature is what
has prevented it from being practical on a huge scale.  As for nuclear
power, the dream of fusion is always out of reach and not guaranteed
by any means (although cornucopians treat it as a given).  The
byproducts of fission are very risky and we would be unwise to put all
our eggs in that basket - which is exactly why nuclear power has been
so restricted.  Wise people are thankfully making policy decisions in
that area.
Why not try the work-smarter approach of putting at least half our
effort into *reducing demand* instead of always looking toward
increasing the supply of everything?  The assumption that we can
support 15 billion people is the wrong attitude to begin with.
- A.J.

In article <327C10C0.B60@ilhawaii.net>,
   Jay Hanson  wrote:
>charliew wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>
>Charlie,
>If you would READ, you might learn something.
>
>I cite dozens of books, yet you would have us
>believe that your uninformed opinions are a
>substitute for knowlege.
>
>Explain to us why you think ignorance is a virtue?
>
>Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
Explain to us why you think concerns over increasing entropy 
is a virtue.  If you following the preachings of 
thermodynamics, you will note that entropy has been 
increasing since the universe was born.  To date, I haven't 
seen any evidence that this is necessarily leading to our 
doom.  Just because you can cite several authors whose 
opinion you share doesn't make any of you correct.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

In article <327C9F5D.4D0B@easynet.co.uk>,
   "sdef!"  wrote:
>Yeah, life!
>When you die you will repay your debt to entropy (if it 
exists - no-one 
>knows, it is just a theory) so this doesn't invalidate the 
theory.
>Andy
It's time to add another heresy.  When I took thermodynamics 
in college, we discussed conservation of energy, which we 
were told is the 1st law of thermodynamics.  At that time, 
someone asked why you couldn't conserve energy, yet still 
extract heat from the environment to do useful work.  The 
prof told us that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevented 
this.  In other words, entropy must always increase.
My personal interpretation of this "fact" is this:
The thermodynamics types knew from personal experience that 
temperature always flows from hot to cold, and other 
processes similarly run "downhill".  Entropy was a 
convenient contrivance to add formality to these 
observations.  Entropy ensures that engineering calculations 
will give you the correct direction for energy transfer, but 
it is still just that - a mathematical contrivance.
Let the flames begin!
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html

[Posted to sci.energy]
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
>Scott Nudds wrote:
>: >  Unfortunately, the waste he is considering disposing is many times
>: >more radioactive after it has spent time in a reactor core, and the
>: >waste is no longer the uranium that was dug out of the ground.  Further,
>: >no method is offered for preventing the intrusion of ground water into
>: >the waste, and its subsequent return to the surface.
>
>(Patrick Reid) wrote:
>: Please refer to my post in the "Fossil Madness (Extremely Safe Nuclear
>: Power)" thread, made on October 25. You also recieved it by e-mail. In
>: it, I describe both re-processing to burn actinides and, if you just
>: want to throw fuel away, a justification for underground storage. I
>: find it interesting that you so carefully select your replies.
>
>Patrick Reid refers to fuel reprocessing techniques that do not exist
>anywhere in the world.  He is proposing a fantasy, for which no
>prototype exists.
The Frech re-process their fuel, removing fissionable isotopes to burn
again.
>This is not to say that reprocessing is impossible.  Far from it.  The
>vast contamination of Hanford shows that reprocessing to some degree is
>possible.  I for one, don't care to see any more facilities like Hanford
>in operation.
"Vast contamination" which has not led to one demonstrable case of
cancer or other health effects.
>After a clean reprocessing facility in the form described above by Reid,
>is built and tested, and shown to be practical, clean and economically
>viable, the future of nuclear power can be reconsidered.
... by Scott Nudds. He seems to forget that he is not Lord Commander
of the Universe.
In my original post, I described what to do until full reprocessing is
economically feasible. I reproduce the discussion below.
>I never recommend reconsidering anything based on the kinds of blue sky
>fantasies that are proposed by nuclear zealots.
... and if your recommendation meant anything, that might be
significant.
Here is a re-posting of my earlier discussion of what to do with spent
fuel:
-----------------------
The problem of waste disposal _has_ been solved (for about 2 billion
years -- see below). I assume here that you mean what most people mean
when they talk about waste disposal problems: spent fuel. The real
solution here is to hold onto the fuel for about 100 years while
extraction technology improves and becomes cheaper; then we can
re-process the spent fuel to remove the actinides, "burn" them in a
CANDU (for example), and store the non-actinide fission products for
another couple hundred years until the radioactivity has fallen to the
level of the negligible levels. If you insist on permanent disposal,
AECL has designed a permanent disposal concept which is currently
undergoing environmental review. It involves underground storage in
the Canadian Shield.
If you don't think that will work, I suggest you learn a little bit
about the Oklo natural reactor. I quote from "Introductory Nuclear
Physics", by Kenneth S. Krane, copyright 1988, published by John Wiley
& Sons:
"In 1972, a sample of uranium, mined at Oklo in what is now the
Republic of Gabon on the west coast of Africa, was analyzed by the
French Atomic Energy Commission and showed a 235-U abundance of only
0.00717, about 3 standard deviations below the accepted value. This
small deviation was enough to excite their curiosity, and analysis of
additional samples showed even smaller 235-U abundances, as low as
0.00440... the French workers theorized that a natural nuclear reactor
operated in the Oklo site about 2 x 10^9 y ago, when the 235-U
abundance was high enough (~ 3%) to permit the operation of a reactor
moderated by groundwater... it is estimated that about 5 _tons_ of
235-U were fissioned... the reactor may have operated for 10^10 h, or
10^6 y!
"Confirmation of the remarkable hypothesis of the natural reactor was
found in the observation of the abundances of fission products in the
Oklo minerals...
"One final interesting feature of the Oklo reactor should be mentioned
- the fission products were still in place in the reactor zone and had
migrated very little. Despite climactic changes, no substantial
movement of these fission products has taken place over the past 2 x
10^9 y. This suggests that there may be merit in the present schemes
for burying waste products of power reactors in geologically stable
formations."
Here we are talking about fission products sitting in the _ore_!!! The
reactor was moderated by _groundwater_, which was therefore throughout
the reactor zone!!! I think that, with an engineered system in place,
we should be able to replicate this sort of spent fuel storage system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
I reply:
Harold, sometimes you're a joke.  Of course I use ad hominem attacks, 
and if the receiver tells me he thinks they're unfair I'm perfectly 
willing to apologize, or not, as the case may be.  Mine, however, are 
always fair and that's the difference.  So what does that have to do 
with my reply above?  If you want to stretch, try touching your toes.  
It's good for your health if done correctly and won't offend anyone.

ransu@sci.fi (Miikka Raninen) wrote:
er"
> 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.
Prehaps we need to get you to explain to the EPA, OSHA and the National
Acedemia of Sciences why all of the toxicity data, tetrogenic data,
and estrogenic mimicing.  Prehaps you you want to comment on the 
EPA's draft report on dioxin.  Maybe you can make them see the error
of their ways.
Whats that I hear spewing forth from the heart of ignorance, the US.EPA
is just some pawn of radical environmentalist or just a bunch of bloated
bureaucrats trying to save their jobs,  Only the noble researchers of
industry will be there to show us unbiased science.
Son, I've got some Philip Morris stock I'd like to sell ya.
But seriously, if you think that the government has a stake in
scaring the public, then you have no idea how the EPA works.  Cutbacks
have been the order of the day for so long that every research aspects
has been over reviewed.  A hostile congress is not pleased when negative
results occur.  I'm sure funding would be better if they would just 
play along.  But the science is too strong, and there are still a few
men (and women) of honour that are trying to save your worthless lying
hide.

jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon) wrote:
>
> 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.
A common comment that I'd heard in my days of MHM is that no one does
research on third world diseases as there's no money to be made.  Look
at the research dollar spent on AIDS, look at the money spent on malaria
or whatever you call that real nasty wormy thing that wraps itself
in human antigens so it grows giagantic without a immune reponse.
Or that real nasty algae that grows under the skin in india.
(Early senility, I'm afraid, too much time in chemical plants)
Oh, I guess that there will be money enough for something like malaria,
but places where that had money to take have already controlled
with proper ag management.
Why don't we have malaria in Florida or Alabama.  Lord knows that they
have enough giant skeeters?  Old army manual mentioned the problems
of malaria in Arizona at the term of the century. 
> 
> 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.
So lets all take money away from the FDA so industry can get those wonder
drugs to the market alot quicker.  
Got to be a balance somewhere.  
> 
> Jim Scanlon
P.S Remember Jim, when posting to one of the silly threads remove
all those unwanted cross posting references.
> -- 
> 199 Canal St #8
> San Rafael CA
> 94901
> 415-485-0540

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.
JM says:
> 
> Life leads directly to corruption in practice, which is why today the
> labor unions and socialist governments are highly corrupt. Your point?
I reply:
To carry through for you, if we take both your supposition and mine as 
true it seems evident that the economic system is a secondary concern.  
What is a primary concern is a manner of conducting government which 
minimizes corruption.  Since we find that corruption can be most 
effectively carried out by those with power and wealth, as a society 
it seems we would benefit most by restricting the concentration of 
power and wealth.  The unspoken lack of constraint on accummulation of 
wealth in capitalism is apparently in conflict with the elimination of 
corruption.
I continue:
> 
> > '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.
I reply:
It is immoral.
JM conintinues:
> 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.
'
I reply:
Concentraiton of wealth through inheritance, in fact concentration of 
wealth, undermines the theoretical advantages of capitalism.  Wealth 
buys favorable laws, prevents,overcomes, and buries socially useful 
developments which threaten those controlling greater wealth, and 
treats all things as commodities with a price attatched.  In addition, 
the wealthy can greatly influence the price of a commodity undermining 
the free market.  The only chance capitalism has is, oddly enough, a 
uniform distribution of wealth.  How to achieve this and at the same 
time allow individuals to profit from their abilities and labor may be 
the greatest problem facing capitalism.
JM continues:
> 
> 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.
But again, this ignores the practical considerations of government and 
the economy.  I'm not fixed on socialism anymore than I'm a dedicated 
opponent of capitalism.  If you have a suggestion for a social system 
which can either counter the power and influence of wealth, or which 
can  spread the benefits of corruption to those lacking power and 
wealth, I'd be happy to hear it.
JM also continues:
> 
> 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.
I reply:
Sure, but I don't think that I misunderstand the concept of property 
at all.  Rather the concept of property you propose conflicts with the 
benefits of capitalism which are its only real selling points - that 
you get what you deserve, i.e. in this matter you are no longer 
supporting capitalism although you claim to do so.  It is an example 
of how wealth corrupts.
JM continues:
> 
> 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.
I reply:
First, not that I tend toward but that capitalism tends towards.  I 
really haven't talked much about my own opinions yet although it may 
appear otherwise.  Oddly enough, I'm trying to learn something from 
you. In this context I think capitalism objects to charity, which is 
one reason why welfare is being eliminated.  The difficulty arises 
because, while objecting to charity capitalism claims to reward 
individuals based on ability and effort.  Many of those accepting 
charity presumably are willing and able to exert effort for their own 
benefit, yet lack the opportunity to do so.  Providing the oportunity 
is a form of charity, hence rejecting charity is rejecting 
opportunity.  Again capitalism works against itself.
JM continues:
> 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.
I reply:
On the contrary, inheretance tends to concentrate wealth in a very 
effective manner.  One who accumulates wealth and passes it along 
provides offspring, whether one or a dozen, the opportunity to 
accumulate additional wealth based only on the wealth itself, not on 
ability, andparticularly in the case of larger fortunes.  But 
inheritance is seldom equitable among heirs to my knowlege.
The dispersion tendency you consider has been a problem to wealth for 
many millenia.  In the middle ages it was taken care of by passing the 
main holdings along only the the eldest son.  The third and lower sons 
were often penniless, if memory serves me correctly (memory of my 
studies, of course).  Very enjoyable discussion.  I look forward to 
your reply.

In <327CE5DB.3B8C@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson 
writes: 
> What does thermodynamics have to do with the
>sustainability of food production?
A good point. :-)

"Marcus Agua"  wrote:
>
> Don Baccus  wrote:
> > 
> > DDT wasn't banned in the US.
> 
> What planet are you on? 
> 
 Planet of truth, and partial truth.
DDT manufactoring was not banned, and DDT is stilled allowed for
special use situations.  We exported DDT for many years after
it became a restricted use pesticide.

H. Brashears writes:
> 
> 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?
> 
My suggestion is that you and others look at the response of real 
scientists on the internet as peer review.  This is actually doing 
great credit to most posters, since in effect it raises them to the 
rank of peer with scientist, albeit very temporarily.  To do otherwise 
while at the supporting peer review seems to involve a bit of 
hypocrasy, and we certainly don't want to be hypocrites.

[Posted to sci.energy]
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>Scott Nudds wrote:
>: >  How much has been spent on the Yucca Mountain disposal facility so
>: >far?  What fraction of the existing waste stockpile will it contain when
>: >completed?
>
>(Patrick Reid) wrote:
>: How much do you think it would cost to sequester and store the same
>: fraction of the total combustion waste products which the US has
>: produced over the same period which it has been generating nuclear
>: waste?
>
>  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.
WRONG.  To avoid all waste disposal would be outrageousely expensive,
since it would mean avoiding _any_ power production, even solar, which
involves some industrial waste. Now, to encourage efficiency will
reduce the _amount_ of waste. Sounds good to me. Please go to it. I
certainly do, in ways which seem cost-effective.
>  Members of the nuclear faith like to make it look like the only
>alternatives are coal or nuclear as a method of promoting nuclear.
>
>  This is a false choice.
Not in many of the parts of the world in which significant increases
in power production are essential in order to improve quality of life.
For example, take China. They have three options: hydroelectric (which
is just about tapped out in their country already), coal, and nuclear.
No one has approached the Chinese with a wind or solar or tidal or
geothermal plant which is cheaper than one of those three. If you
think you can do it, I urge you to contact them; you can make billions
of dollars, since they need to add many TW*h of capacity in the next
few decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Posted to sci.energy]
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(Patrick Reid) wrote:
>: Don't the French currently reprocess their fuel?
>
>Not in the manner, or to the extent you describe.
The only re-processing _I_ described was removing of actinides and
then fissioning them. David Lloyd-Jones talked about transmutation,
which is much less economical, IMHO. Please be careful with
attibutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Posted to sci.energy]
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) wrote for all to see:
>
>>In article <54ij2g$g1s@news.inforamp.net>, dlj@inforamp.net (David
>>Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>
>>> mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) wrote:
>>> 
>>> There are a dozen different things you can safely do with nuclear
>>> waste, of which the most obvious is to put it down old uranium mines
>>> where it came from in the first place.
>>>
>>Trouble with this is the nuclear waste has been transformed into much
>>more dangerous substances than when originally mined.
>
>I really do not think this is the case, at least in terms of energy.
>Actually, it is less dangerous, simply more concentrated than when in
>the ground, since energy has been extracted.  It would astonish me to
>find out that, after extracting any portion of the energy, the result
>was a more energetic material!
It is the case. In terms of radioactivity, spent fuel radiates more
than raw ore. That doesn't mean that underground disposal can't be
done. See my posts about the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in this
thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Posted to sci.environment]
bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns) wrote:
>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? 
Not really, since the limit for lifetime exposure is greater than for
a single exposure. The difference is around a factor of two. People
who recieved doses frm Chernobyl recieved less than or around the
single exposure threshold; that will almost certainly be the biggest
single exposure of their lives.
Of course, it is possible that, for a few people, their statistical
likelihood of getting cancer may be increased by a _combination_ of
Chernobyl _and_ some other, unspecified dosage; say due to NMR
diagnostic scans or some such. But you are pushing pretty hard to then
blame that solely on Chernobyl.
Also, my disagreement with the no-threshold model is not theoretical;
the presence of a threshold is attested to by epidemiological studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

TL ADAMS (coltom@west.darkside.com) wrote:
: 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,
If it has nothing to do with power generation, perhaps you would care
to educate us on what it does relate to.
: what the hell does use of nuclear usage have to do with 
: anything.
Simply put, nuclear energy is the solution (and only solution) to
pollution.  If you have a better, workable alternative, speak out!
: The problem is cities is transportation.
Yes, and energy fuels transportation.  (Hell, if you live in the 
city, you don't need a power driven lawn mower anyway.)
: 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.
Nonsense.  You are focusing on possibly 5% of the total problem.  If you,
instead, focus on 95% of the problem, you may make a contribution --
until then you are simply dreaming and masturbating.
Please elaborate.  Tell us how focusing on a source that is, perhaps,
5% of the problem will significantly help.
: Or are you willing to give up your car and take the bus?
Well, I prefer rapid transit, but in dire circumstances a bus will
do the job -- So long as the bus traverses my origin to my 
destination.  (Of course, living in the suburbs, I could validly
ask the question: What the hell is a bus?  We don't see too many 
in this locale!)
                                          Harry C.

     The following AP story appears in the Colorado Springs Gazette
Telegraph (Sunday, November 3, 1996 Section B p.5):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENVER - `Salty Arkansas River water flowing out of Colorado is
>contaminating the huge Ogallala groundwater supplies for Western Kansas
>and, unless corrected, could become part of the Kansas-Colorado water
>court case.'
`  Donald O. Whittemore, Kansas chief of geohydrology, blamed heavy
>irrigation and water storage practices in Colorado for boosting the
>river's salt content.'
`  Whittemore said if the situation remains unchecked it could
>contaminate the entire underground water supply along a 500-square-mile
>corridor of the Arkansas River in Kansas within 40 years.'
`  He said that typically, when the river largely disappears into the
>ground at Garden City, Kan., 70 miles east of the Colorado border,
>sulfate concentrations are up to 2,400 parts per million, nearly 10
>times the standard for drinking water.'
`  Colorado officials say the Arkansas River's water quality is an old
>issue being addressed by two major studies and a new water-improvement
>project for one southeastern Colorado farm district.'
`  The issue has yet to come up in the Kansas vs. Colorado water case, in
>which the U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that Colorado had violated
>the states' 1949 compact by taking more than its fair share of Arkansas
>River water.'
`  Since the court ruling, Colorado has set tight restrictions on farm
>well pumping in the river's groundwater zone that surrounds the stream.
`  Sulfate and other minerals occur naturally in the river.  But their
>concentration rises as some of the water evaporates.'

ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) writes:
To launch radioactive waste is a lousy idea since it is horrendously
expensive, rockets use to crash sometimes wich would scatter the
containers and if they have to survive that they need to be very
sturdy and heavy wich means even more cost. And as you state below,
why throw away something permamently that might be used in the future?
> I wasn't referring to a high velocity explosion. But all it takes
> are cracks in the solid fuel, or a mechanical failure of the motor,
> to cause it to release a lot of energy, in a very short period of
> time. Unless the waste is glassified, it is going to be scattered.
> Even if it is glassified, I suspect the temperatures in an SRB are
> high enough to decompose the glass.
Yes, rockets are quite fragile but they dont detonate as an explosive
when they fail. Take the Challanger space shuttle as an example, it
was not the chemical fireworks that broke up the shuttle but the
aerodynamic forces from flying sideways at a high speed in dense air.
> The rocket guidance system is another interesting issue...
> especially since it will be near a very high rad environment - not
> conducive to good functioning of electronic systems.
The waste would anyway need (heavy) shielding so that is no problem.
> As a side note, I wondered during the Gulf War if the bad guy with
> the mustache might load up a Scud with a bunch of rad waste and toss
> it towards Isreal. It's the poor man's atom bomb and requires only a
> reactor. It could easily release more radiation than a nuclear
> explosion.
It would be tough to disperse it in a way that makes it hard to keep
it out of the way for people and then sweep it up. He would have made
much more damage with nerve-gas since it can seep into buildings and
such and kill people with tiny ammounts. After such an attack there
would have been a risk for it to turn nuclear against him or prompt
heavy retalation bombardement of Baghdad by the Israeli if he killed a
lot of people. 
>> 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 agree with you there. It is energy, and it can be used for
> something... how about a beacon :-)
The most of the extractable energy is in the "unburnt" uranium and
plutonium. 
>> 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.
> I agree. Also, most of those opposed to nuclear waste seem to have the
> (possibly unconscious) assumptions:
>  (1) In the future, we won't be able to dig it up and repackage it if
>       it threatens to leak - ie, we will somehow slide back into a
>       pre-industrial society. I consider this wishful thinking on
>       their part.
The Swedish method for storing it indefinately takes this into
account. The waste is to be stored so that it is hard but managable to
get to with a large effort and the containers can then be dug out
individually since they are to be put in holes drilled in the floor of
the bedrock tunnels.
>  (2) That stuff might be handy in the future, as you point out
Yes it might be reused.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Bj�rnk�rrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINK�PING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

In <327CE7A2.4847@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson 
writes: 
>
>Ecological Economics, Entropy and Sustainable Food
Ahh, another new science. Ecological Economical Entropic Nutrition.
Good. We needed that. Not a plain EcoNut, EcoEcoEntroNut.
>All matter and energy in the universe are subject to the
>Laws of Thermodynamics. 
They are; and Upper Case makes it more Important. 
Let us try it: Chew your Sustainable Food; but do not
Swallow, because Swallowing would not be Sustainable. 
Sustainable EcoloEcono cuisine is for Sustaining, not for 
Swallowing. If you Swallow, your Enteric Entropy (Enteropy) 
will Rise, and you may not Sustain it...
Yes, Upper Case Works.
>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).
This is a good example of what your
"order" (or hors d'oeuvre, or ordure) will
be if you enter Enteropee, the home of the EcoloEcono
Sustainable Food. 
>Sustainable systems are "circular" 
And so are Sustainable postings.
>(outputs become inputs)
And such is Sustainable Food.
:-):-)

You must have BROWN eyes you shure are full of it
On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> >gdy52150 says:
> 
> >-some facts that you have deliberitly chose not to use.At the time of
> >-the ban in the US DDT was a known carcinogentic, tumorigentic,and
> >-teragentic. In addtion today it is also a known endocrine blocker,
> >-these toxins will be the next large battle and in all likelyhood be 
> >-as large a problem as ozone depletion or global warming. Being a
> >-endocrine blocker would certainl account for egg shell thining.
> >-   As for your tripe over birds not declining you have used a
> >-protected areas in another post to pretend there was no decline in
> >-populations. Now for a little fact on bird popultaions that you would
> >-like to dismiss. Grassland birds have been in a constant decline 
> >-since 1966.
> 
> >I request:
> 
> >References, please!
> DDT/DDE health effects Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial
> Materials, 8th edition 1992
> ddt/eggshellthing "Current Impact of dde on Black Crowned Night Herons
> in the Intermountain West.", J.Agr Food Chem vol 14.pp66-69 1984
> dde and reproductive success in gulls.  "Organochlorine compunds and
> treds in reproduction in Great Lakes Herring Gulls",Transactions Of
> North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Vol 44 pp
> 543-557,1979.
> DDT as endocrine blocker Science vol145 Jan 8,94 "The gender bendere
> are enviromental hormones emasculating wildlife" 
> 
> 
> 

Actinide burning is possible but undesirable.  The stuff is valuable.
-- 
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 article <32811072.4002365@news.midtown.net> alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
 > 
 > On 03 Nov 1996 19:26:05 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
 > wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > >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.
 > 
 > Solar "income" is limited by the finite surface area that sunlight
 > impinges on, and sunlight's intermittent & dispersed nature is what
 > has prevented it from being practical on a huge scale.  As for nuclear
 > power, the dream of fusion is always out of reach and not guaranteed
 > by any means (although cornucopians treat it as a given).  The
 > byproducts of fission are very risky and we would be unwise to put all
 > our eggs in that basket - which is exactly why nuclear power has been
 > so restricted.  Wise people are thankfully making policy decisions in
 > that area.
 > 
 > Why not try the work-smarter approach of putting at least half our
 > effort into *reducing demand* instead of always looking toward
 > increasing the supply of everything?  The assumption that we can
 > support 15 billion people is the wrong attitude to begin with.
 > 
 > - A.J.
There is enough available surface for solar energy to serve as our
main source.  The present problem is that fossil fuel energy is very
much cheaper now.  Nuclear energy is also cheaper and will remain so.
You can't say that wise people are making decisions - at least in the
U.S.  The nuclear energy situation today is the result of indecision.
The U.S. is willing to supply nuclear reactors to North Korea.
Congress passed a law a few years ago that eases some of the
difficulties of building nuclear plants, but waste disposal is still
being postponed.
Some other countries have stopped nuclear power completely (Austria),
others are proceeding vigorously (Japan, China) and still others are
dithering.
Some people work on reducing demand for energy and others work on
increasing supply.  "half our effort" has no definite meaning because
of this unless you mean something like bureaucratic effort.
A lot of money is going into developing more efficient motors, light
sources and heating systems.  They should be used where
cost-effective, but more energy should be used where that is
cost-effective.
-- 
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.

conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
>
> If it has nothing to do with power generation, perhaps you would care
> to educate us on what it does relate to.
The primary source of of Ozone precursors in places like LA basin
is from mobile sources.  ie cars.  
> Simply put, nuclear energy is the solution (and only solution) to
> pollution.  If you have a better, workable alternative, speak out!
What hydrogen fuel for cars, metal matrix storage.  Get real,  Or nuclear
powered speedsters.  Or the emission from painting, industry, etc will
be replaced by nuclear.  God gave ya a brain, try using it.
> 
> Nonsense.  You are focusing on possibly 5% of the total problem.  If you,
> instead, focus on 95% of the problem, you may make a contribution --
> until then you are simply dreaming and masturbating.
> 
> Please elaborate.  Tell us how focusing on a source that is, perhaps,
> 5% of the problem will significantly help.
We have improved emisions from automotive engines for the last twenty
years.  All of the easy gains have been made. 
Currently, a 12.5 horsepower engine has more emission of
VOC than a automobile, (not per mile, mind you, but total yearly emissions
based on expected usuage). 
By requiring new internal combustion engines to met standards, we reduce
all of these emissions 
So proper optimization techniques have been used.
Now, personnaly, it would be nice if we had the will to force better
mileage standards, but it aint happening.

charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>My personal interpretation of this "fact" is this:
>The thermodynamics types knew from personal experience that 
>temperature always flows from hot to cold, and other 
>processes similarly run "downhill".  Entropy was a 
>convenient contrivance to add formality to these 
>observations.  Entropy ensures that engineering calculations 
>will give you the correct direction for energy transfer, but 
>it is still just that - a mathematical contrivance.
Some contrivance!  The mathematics follows directly from the quantum
dynamics of the little atoms and their surrounding clouds of
this'n'that bumping into each other and into your all-feeling hand.
You could work up to the hot-cold thing starting from Brownian motion
if you wanted to do it that way: it's not just a number that fits the
observations; the observations it predicts work out, too.
                                       -dlj.

pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca (Patrick Reid) wrote:
>It is the case. In terms of radioactivity, spent fuel radiates more
>than raw ore. 
Of course it does.  Raw ore is mostly rock.  Since we have an adequate
supply of rock, rediluting the old fuel presents no problems
whatsoever.
>             That doesn't mean that underground disposal can't be
>done. See my posts about the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in this
>thread.
Exactly.
                                     -dlj.

(Patrick Reid) wrote:
: Please refer to my post in the "Fossil Madness (Extremely Safe Nuclear
: Power)" thread, made on October 25. You also recieved it by e-mail. In
: it, I describe both re-processing to burn actinides and, if you just
: want to throw fuel away, a justification for underground storage. I
: find it interesting that you so carefully select your replies.
Dudds displayed his usual stupidity by writing:
>Patrick Reid refers to fuel reprocessing techniques that do not exist
>anywhere in the world.  He is proposing a fantasy, for which no
>prototype exists.
Dudds you are partially correct (a first?!?)  There is no large scale 
commercial reprocessing + actinide burning.  But you are wrong about 
"simple" reprocessing, Sellafield and La Hague are two facilites in 
operation today, see;
http://www.bnfl.com/sella.htm
http://www.adit.fr/Produits/TF/Anciens/TF10a.html 
http://www.uilondon.org/uiabs93/fournier.html
For a small scale example of advanced reprocessing, i.e. removal of long 
lived isotopes such as neptunium and technetium, see;
http://inisjp.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/ACT95E/4/4-6.HTM
In addition, there is considerable research in "burning" or transmutation 
of the longer lived isotopes, including the use of accelerator.  The 
Integral Fast Reactor project (which was recently cancelled had developed 
and tested a pyromettalurgical reprocessing scheme.  In addition the IFR 
could burn the actinides, thus reducing the time needed for the waste to 
decay.
>This is not to say that reprocessing is impossible.  Far from it.  The
>vast contamination of Hanford shows that reprocessing to some degree is
>possible.  I for one, don't care to see any more facilities like Hanford
>in operation.
Why do feel you must actively deceive (worst case) or are too ignorant 
(best case) by comparing Hanford, which was built in the 1940's and 
operated with little regard for the enviroment due to WWII to current 
reprocessing facilities?  
>After a clean reprocessing facility in the form described above by Reid,
>is built and tested, and shown to be practical, clean and economically
>viable, the future of nuclear power can be reconsidered.
You mean, like Sellafield or La Hague?
>I never recommend reconsidering anything based on the kinds of blue sky
>fantasies that are proposed by nuclear zealots.
But give him the option of putting PVs over .4% (or whatever the number 
was) of the US's surface and he's all for it.  Careful Duddsie, you 
hypocrisy is showing, again.
tooie

jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>In <327d7483.339185332@news.primenet.com> ozone@primenet.com (John
>Moore) writes: 
>>
>>On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:44:28 GMT, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
>>(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>A modern myth, a factoid, a self-reproducing rumor. 
hey moron now back up yuor assine position with peer reviewed work, or
go done forever as just another loud mouth parrot spewing shit.
>But that's OK, quite OK, better than good.
>With a slight alteration, the thesis can still
>be saved: let's now say that the model never predicted more
>storms (why should it?) that there's indeed no increase in
>storms; that this is a brilliant vindication. Voila! :-)

aliocean@aol.com (AliOcean) writes:
This is a publication dedicated to bringing news from around the world on
the status of the planets oceans and waterways, expose abuses of nature
and provide WWW sites that you may want to check out regarding
environmental issues. There are also oppotunities for subscribers to write
commentaries and articles that will be published in the newsletter every
week and reach many like-minded people.
I would like to invite all to try the newsletter which is sent via e-mail
once every two weeks. There is no charge for this. The intent is to inform
and educate those who may not have the time to explore the internet as
fully, and perhaps spark some of you into action that may help our planet
to survive.
Please reply to this message with the messge "subscribe". Try it out. If
you don't like it all you have to do is tell us. (AliOcean@Aol.Com)

jw wrote:
> 
> 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.

> 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.
Er... Government and industry, of course, don't put any pressure on 
science, do they?
andy
-- 
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