Newsgroup sci.environment 108677

Directory

I'd like to draw your attention to a new low price for Flow Pro of
only $39.95 plus shipping and handling.  You can find the order form online
at http://www.europa.com/~psapps/order.htm.  
Flow Pro is a graphical water surface profile program for Windows that
solves common hydraulic design problems and produces report ready results. 
For more information visit the ProSoft Apps Software Vault at 
http://www.europa.com/~psapps/vault.htm
Sincerely,
Rick
________________________________________
Rick Palmer                                  Prosoft Apps
psapps@europa.com                       
http://www.europa.com/~psapps/    

Chris Pollard wrote:
> Then please explain how if everybody achieved "our" lifestyle that it
> would be sustainable.  I'll listen.
There is a lovely book by J.E. Pournelle called _A Step Farther Out_
that explains just that.  His breakdown of the problem is (extremely
simplified) something like this. To keep our lifestyle, and to allow
everybody on the planet who wants to share it to do so, we basically
have a small number of fundamental problems. These include, when
you follow everything back to their source, where do we get the
energy?, and where do we get the metals?
If we had huge supplies of cheap clean energy and an abundant source
of the various metals we require, we could solve basically every
problem we have. For example, pollution could in principle be
solved by using fraction distilling to pull off the noxious
chemicals before we release whatever we have to. There are
undoubtably better ways to do it for most chemicals, but the
point is, there IS a solution if we have the energy and metals.
Dr. Pournelle tells us several ways to get them without any
new technology, without creating vast wastelands of despoiled
wilderness, and without requiring anybody to stay a peasant in
a downtrodden backward country.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
I have mangled my return address. Commas to dots in the
obvious fashion.
Dan Evens

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> I seem to have hit a funnybone in suggesting that the Reagan era
> deficits might be due to Congress.  It excited personal attacks - and
> nothing else - from both Mahoney and Friesel.
> --
Disguised as a comment about personal attacks, McCarthy engages in 
personal attacks.  It's like he suddenly became aware of a new toy for 
disruption and can't wait to play with it.  Now >that< is a personal 
attack of mine directed at McCarthy.

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> This should not surprise you.  I would have to hazard the guess that
> they are both prone to such.
> 
This could be fun.  You think for some reason that I regard personal 
attacks as something to be avoided, but I don't.  There are a number 
of other, sometimes over-riding concerns, however.  There is no method 
of discourse available to you here that isn't available to everyone 
else.  Kapish?

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>I seem to have hit a funnybone in suggesting that the Reagan era
>deficits might be due to Congress.  It excited personal attacks - and
>nothing else - from both Mahoney and Friesel.
I haven't yet read Mahoney's post, but Friesel failed to point out
that David Stockman confessed that the massive accumulation of debt
was deliberate, and done in order to hobble spending on social
programs for the forseeable future.  Obviously the Democratic congress
must share the blame for the deficits, but the only persons who have
acknowledged that it was deliberate (I'll add the adjectives
irresponsible and cruel) social policy were influential Republicans.
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers.  If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu 

bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) wrote:
>Colin Campbell (colin@pacbell.net) wrote:
>: brian.harmer@vuw.ac.nz (Brian Harmer) wrote:
>: >I was wrong, I apologise. The AGT-1500 turbine engine 
>: >is a multi-fuel unit and diesel is among the fuels it can use.
>: 
>: 
>: Actually, the US army has switched over to JP-8 to fuel all its
>: vehicles.  The problem is that people like me call the stuff diesel
>: anyway.  
>O.K. how much sulphur? How much particulate emission?
JP8 ( aka AVTUR/FSII, NATO F-34, or DERD 2453 ) is essentially the
same as commercial aviation kerosine ASTM Jet-A1 ( aka AVTUR, 
NATO F-35, or DERD 2494 ), with the only differences being the
addition of an icing inhibitor, the ability to separate water, and a 
possible additional amount of static dissipator additive.
Total sulfur ( sulphur is no longer the accepted spelling  
internationally ) has the same maximum for all narrow-cut
aviation kerosines, 0.30% mass maximum. From memory it's 
typically 0.1 - 0.2, but will depend on refinery..
The particulate content of the fuel is very low, it is microfiltered
prior to loading. The amount of particulates in the exhaust will 
depend on the engine, and its management system.
           Bruce Hamilton

In article <55ege8$8qf@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones  wrote:
>First, the American case.
>In the forties when Grand Coolee and the TVA were done, they didn't
>think squat about fish.
Well, the "they" referred to still don't to a large degree.  Doesn't
mean others didn't.  The commercial fishing industry on the Columbia,
at the time quite a potent force, did protest Bonneville in the
mid-30s when it was built.  There was a certain amount of skepticism
about fish ladders, but the Corps of Engineer's professional opinion
held sway.  Since there was little scientific knowledge of the needs
of migratory salmon, there was little opportunity for opposition on
technical points.
Not really all that much different than the USFS approach to spotted
owl management until 1988.  Things really haven't changed.  The USFS
set up their owl management plans when almost nothing was known about
the ecology of the bird, then did nothing to change them when research
showed them to be woefully inadequate.
See, very similar to the Corps and salmon :)
Our knowledge of the ecology of some species is better than back then,
including salmon and spotted owls and bald eagles and the like, but
you might be surprised how little information there is on a wide variety
of species, including most neotropical migrants which breed in western
coniferous forests.  This is one reason I volunteer my time as a field
biologist working on raptor projects 3-10 weeks a year.  We need data.
Hey, though, we know a lot about ducks! :)  Thanks to duck hunters,
for any AR whackos reading this.
>Straightforward, a large river has been taken over to serve nuclear
>warfare, Hanford, plus B-29 aluminum to bomb Japan.
>This is progress?
Nope.  Progress was when we switched targets from Japan to the
USSR :) :)  
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR 
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza

jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
: 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.
  Jwas insists that there is a conspiracy among scientists who support
global warming.  As the year 2000 gets closer I suspect many more
conspiratorial loonies will become visible.
  Meanwhile, we can expect the number of global cooling denialists will
continue to decline, as the natural self correcting course of science
provides an ever improving picture of how man is altering the climate.
-- 
<---->

(Harold Brashears) wrote:
: 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".
  The explosion itself is not a problem.  Designing a container that can
withstand an impact from a speed of 20,000 mph, without dispersing its
radioactive contents is however, a rather big problem.
---
"Our planet is already warming at n increasing rate. The first signs of
climate change are already measurable and noticeable. Hence, there is NO
reason any more to delay urgently required actions." -Enquete
Commission, March 1992
-- 
<---->

<>
Maybe they're following the example set by the Wise Use groups but with
less funding.

Scott Nudds wrote:
: >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.
(Patrick Reid) wrote:
: The Frech re-process their fuel, removing fissionable isotopes to burn
: again.
  And they are left with a highly radioactive waste product.  The
process you propose to transmute this material is a fantasy, for which
no prototypes exist.
(Patrick Reid) wrote:
: "Vast contamination" which has not led to one demonstrable case of
: cancer or other health effects.
  Yes, the key word here is "demonstrable".  We hear people from the
tobacco industry making the same kinds of claims all the time.  Who do
you work for again?
Scott Nudds wrote:
: >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.
(Patrick Reid) wrote:
: ... by Scott Nudds. He seems to forget that he is not Lord Commander
: of the Universe.
  Obviously Patrick Reid has made up his mind before a prototype
facility has been built and tested.  While members of the faith worship
the new God of nuclear transmutation, more rational minds ask for proof.
-- 
<---->

: >Scott Nudds wrote:
: >  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.
(Patrick Reid) wrote:
: 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.
  Funny, I have re-read my statement (above) several times, and I don't
see where I state that all waste disposal should be avoided.
  Why are you trying to invent something that was not said Mr. Reid?
  It seems self evident to me that the cost of unnecessary resource
consumption is not only lost resources, but the cost of disposing of the
waste products produced.
  It also appears self evident to me that the cost of waste disposal,
here there is no waste is precisely zero.
: >  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.
(Patrick Reid) wrote:
: 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.
  Or they can move to improve the energy efficiency of their heavy
industries, develop a state solar program, or wind, or exploit their
geothermal resources.  But by far, the best way they can supply their
population with abundant energy is to lower the amount of energy
required for it to be considered abundant.
(Patrick Reid) wrote:
: No one has approached the Chinese with a wind or solar or tidal or
: geothermal plant which is cheaper than one of those three.
 I would advise the Chinese to ignore false choices based on false
accounting.  Minimum dollar cost is a fiction that does not reflect
reality.
-- 
<---->

(John Moore) wrote:
: Life leads directly to corruption in practice, which is why today the
: labor unions and socialist governments are highly corrupt.
  Less corrupt in general than the right wing dictatorships and puppet
governments sponsored by Capitalist governments like the U.S.
  John Moore appears to be a fatalist, in his observation that "Life
leads directly to corruption in practice."  Is John Moore promoting the
acceptance of corruption, or is he offering death as the only solution?
(John Moore) wrote:
: 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.
  Unfortunately, Capitalism is not such a system.  In a capitalistic
system hard work is not valued at all, working hard is only valued if
the work being done is valued.  Ingenuity is only valued when those doing
the evaluation are smart enough to appreciate the genius involved, and
this is often not the case.
  Under capitalist systems, laborers toil at jobs that only provide them
with a fraction of the value of their work, the rest of the value is
siphoned off by those owners who generally do not toil, do not work
hard, and who employ others who are more ingenious to make decisions for
them.
  Under capitalist systems contracts are based on the worst form of
coercion - toil at this task, move on to another equally abusive
position, or starve.
(John Moore) wrote:
: 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.
  John Moore's view of capitalism is that a system based on absolute
self interest and greed will function without government control if the
greedy and self-absorbed individuals who belong to the society are moral.
  As it is most improbable that a person who is greedy and self-absorbed
is also a moral person, we can discount his claim as an obvious
impossibility.
  John Moore offers another alternative, that the greedy and
self-absorbed society can be tamed by the rule of law.  In other words,
through coercion and threat of violence if individuals violate the laws
created by the greater society.
  I think that this is a reasonable alternative, and point out that this
is the alternative that has been implemented, and an alternative that
John Moore and his criminal Libertarian brethren refer to as "socialist"
in nature, and therefore hate.
  John Moore is correct that the definition and enforcement of law is a
socialist enterprise, as it places the welfare of society above the
welfare of the individual.
---
"To understand the probable outcome of the Libertarian vision, see any
cyberpunk B movie wherein thousands of diseased, desparate and starving
families sit around on ratty old couches on the streets watching television
while rich megalomaniacs appropriate their body parts for their personal
physical immortality." - R. U. Sirius 
-- 
<---->

jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
: 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.
  This is of course nonsense.  Jwas might as well apply this argument to
any other complex natural system, say, the human body.  Does Jwas think
that disturbing the chemistry of the human body might just as well change
the human body for the better?
  The environment, is a complex web of interaction, much like the body,
that had evolved to its present state.  Each component of the
environment has evolved to be near optimal for its environment.
Drastically altering the environment, either through chemical change,
the introduction of new predators or competing species, or the loss of
species makes the organisms that remain less optimal for their
environments.
  The probability that randomly obliterating organisms, and drastically
altering the climate will result in environmentally beneficial change,
is zero.
-- 
<---->

In article <327D9FAB.78EF@easynet.co.uk>,
	"sdef!"  writes:
>Our emissions are in addition to those already occuring naturally, I will try to 
>find out what the ratios are, this is very relevant. Hopefully someone else will 
>first...
Also, it would be relevant to find out where we get our chlorine.  Do we get
it from sources that are natural and from where it would end up in the
atmosphere anyway, or do we get it by splitting NaCl or something else like
that.
>I think what is happening is that the ozone layer is at a certain level which is 
>relatively stable, subject to fluctuation in creation and destruction. These 
>fluctuations depend on fluctuations in natural emissions and in and in the natural 
>reversion of the destruction. If natural emmissions were lower, the ozone layer 
>might be thicker and we may then have evolved to be even less uv tolerant. It 
>seems no coincidence to me that the types of uv that are most lethal are the ones 
>that are most filtered. If emmissions increase and there is no corresponding 
>increase in natural reversion it stands to reason that there will be a thinner 
>ozone layer. I don't think we will ever get proof, it's just a matter of how much 
>evidence is enough for action
>
>As Kant said in 1724: "It is often necessary to take a decision on the basis of 
>knowledge sufficient for action, but insufficient to satisfy the intellect."
This can be a dangerous principle.  Everything is dangerous to a certain
degree, so if this were followed in it's absolute then you'd have no choice
but to huddle in a fetal position and die.  So, you have to weigh risk vs.
payoff.
>> 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?
>
>Yes, but it is pretty much sure that the chemicals we release do haav the effect, 
>so they will increase the depletion regardless of any natural cycle. Also this 
>brings up the possibility that the depletion could be even worse than we think. 
>What if we are on an up part of the cycle?
True.  It would be nice if we had data going back farther.  Most natural
cycles have long periods.
>> 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?
>
>But chlorine doesn't cause an increase in the amount of sunlight arriving at the 
>atmosphere, it just causes the ozone layer to let more through. As there is less 
>03 present, a leeser quantity may be destroyed, but proportionally it would be the 
>same, assuming the same amount of sunlight reaches the atmosphere.
>
>Andy
>
>If anyone doesn't have web access I can email some text files from these.
>State of the Environment Norway website (loads about ozone depletion)is at 
>http://www.grida.no/soeno95/
I'm reading the "Ozone FAQ" right now.
>http://www.antdiv.gov.au/boards/phytoplankton_board/2.html
>is another useful page
>
>Australian Antarctic Division (for info on krill and ozone and other stuff) is:
>http://www.antdiv.gov.au/
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
: 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.
  Adam Ierymenko is  correct.  What we see posted here, and the
extreme denialist views that are being expressed all across society are
not rational and are disconnected from reality.
  There is not a day that goes by when I see someone here expressing
their views of why  is limitless, or making reference to the
origins of the universe, or speaking of man's future billions of years
from now.
  Those who employ such hyperbole are here for the purpose of
expressing, and promoting their extremist political ideologies.
(Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
: 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.
  Then you are playing into the hands of those who seek to obscure the
science of global warming because it does not mesh with their extremist
ideology.
  You seem to be sensible and aware enough to recognize that much of
what appears here is dishonest propaganda.  You may even be aware that
much of the stranger statements made here come from paid members of
conservative think tanks and with their legions of washington lobbyists.
  If you are smart enough to recognize these things, then you are smart
enough to visit your local library - an institution I have seen referred
to a socialist drop in center for state sponsored and organized theft -
to research the subject and judge for yourself who is spreading
disinformation.
  You will find, once you look at peer review literature, that the vast
bulk of disinformation that appears here comes from the extreme right of
the political spectrum.
: I do have a list of questions on both if anyone who is scientific and
: objective wants to answer.
: 1) What about chlorine from other sources such as volcanoes?
  Chlorine is highly reactive chemically, and very soluble.
Significant amounts of chlorine in the lower atmosphere does not reach
the upper atmosphere because little of it is produced, and what is
produced gets washed out or otherwise bonds chemically with other
materials in the atmosphere.
: What makes manmade chlorine different?
  Nothing.  The difference is a result of the transport mechanism.
CFC's survive the trip to the upper atmosphere without chemical change,
and disassociate when they absorb UV.
: If wind currents can carry big heavy CFC molecules up to the stratosphere,
: then they can certainly carry natural sources of chlorine
: up there.
  Wind does  carry CFC's to the upper atmosphere, and the weight of
molecule is insignificant.  CFC's percolate into the upper atmosphere
through a process called eddy diffusion, although winds undoubtedly play
a role in the lower atmosphere.
  Once CFC's become mixed with the atmosphere at the molecular level,
they no longer can be described by bulk characteristics like density.
Their motion through any small portion of air is a result of diffusion,
large scale transport occurs by wind.
: 2) How extensively have other alternatives been explored?
  Alternatives to what?  CFC's?  You will find that there were CFC
replacements available immediately for most applications.
: 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?
  No. UV absorption is not complete at the best of times, if what you
were saying was correct, then significant UV absorption would continue
all the way to the surface of the earth, and this is not the case is it?
  The Ozone layer is a layer because there is a limited region of
pressure and temperature in which it can exist.
: 1) Do we have enough fossil fuels to create enough CO2 to cause any
: significant climatological change?
  Yes.  The oil crisis was manufactured by the Oil industry.
: 2) Don't the oceans absorb CO2?  Has this been factored into climatological
: models?
  The oceans can absorb and sequester vast quantities of CO2, but there
is a limit to the rate at which they absorb CO2.
  The rate at which the ocean is absorbing CO2 is clearly insufficient
to prevent an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, since there has been
an observed increase in atmospheric CO2 levels for decades.  Direct
observation tells us that absorption rates are insufficient.
  It is also important to note that the amount of CO2 that can be held
in water  as the temperature of the water increases.  This is
one of the reasons that soda pop is kept cold, and you can confirm this
for yourself by opening two cans of soda pop and putting one on a
radiator, while keeping the other in the refrigerator.
  As a result of this characteristic we can expect the capacity of the
ocean to sequester CO2 to  as ocean temperatures rise... And
they are observed to be rising.
: 3) Doesn't increased concentration of CO2 merely trigger an increase
: in plant growth, such as photoplankton in the ocean?
  This is a question of what is the limiting nutrient available to a
plant.  In some instances increased levels of CO2 will increase the rate
of plant growth, and in other cases it will not.  Often plants limit
their own access to CO2 for the purpose of conserving water, etc.
  In the ocean, CO2 is not a limiting nutrient.  So to answer your
question... Yes, the question is being considered, and it has at least
in part been answered.
  There are some who insist that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2
will be countered by an increase rate of plant growth.  We can apply the
same logic to this as we did above for the question of ocean absorption.
  If plant growth were enhanced by enhanced CO2 levels to the extent
that the increased rate of growth could offset the increasing CO2
concentration, then this effect would be observed to be taking place
now, and we should not have seen an increase in atmospheric CO2 in the
first place.
  Think about it for a moment.  Since we have been  increases
in atmospheric CO2 levels for decades, and these increases correspond
well with our increasing levels of fossil fuel consumption, all of the
feedback mechanisms that exist to reduce CO2 levels combined  be
insufficient, to offset the production of CO2.   If they were
sufficient, there would be no  increase in the first place.
  Denialists love to ignore such realities, and invariably trot out the
same bag of long answered questions over and over again.
  Their purpose is deception...  Visit your library - the truth shall
set you free.
-- 
<---->

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> The argument here seems to be that we would all be better off living
> as a savage on the open plains or deep forest.
> 
> I will believe it when I see sdef! abandon his computer and his net
> access and go out into the plain, forest or jungle and live this "life
> of leisure".
I respond:
Can't do it.  Too many predators - and I'm not talking about wild 
ones.

Actuallly, the assesment of Christianity stating that man is the
center of the universe is wrong. GOD is the center of the universe in
traditional Christian thought. And even though genisis does give us
the basis for dominion of the earth, It does not state for us
to trash it as we see fit.  Christsianity in its pure form embraces
love of all life, but set up an order, and like it or not, we are
"kings of the mountain)
				M.Regan 

In article <55qt7q$2gc4@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
	bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
>: They all do.  Science has tons of special interests begging for it to affirm
>: their worldviews.  That's why it's hard for scientists to be objective.
>
>What too often happens is that a bunch of scientists find something and
>then talk about it.  Entities with a status-quo interest then do
>whatever it takes to marginalise the content and confuse the public.
>
>That is what happened with both the global warming and ozone issues.
One of my favorite political cartoons is the one where the scientists says
"Well, we sorta, kinda, maybe found tentative evidence pointing to the
possibility of... life on Mars." and the media is all screming "they've proven
life on Mars!!!"

In article <3282B96C.72B2@sprintmail.com>,
Dave   wrote:
>Leonard -
>	Quite simply the whole Montreal Protocol on CFC's is a sham.
>1. The ozone hole isn't a hole. It's an area near anarctica where the mean level of O3 is 10%
>   less than the "normal" average.
>
>2. R-12 refridgerant is Cl3FlC which looks like this: FL
>						      |
>						Cl----C---Cl
>						      |
>						      Cl
>
No. That is CFC-11. CFC-12 is 
   F
   |
Cl-C-Cl
   |
   F
>3. R-134a, the "environmentally safe" substitute is Cl2Fl2C:   Fl
>								|
>							Cl------C------Fl
>								|
>							       Cl
>
No. That one is CFC-12. The one we're getting rid of. HFC-134a is
  H F
  | |
F-C-C-F
  | |
  H F
Those hydrogens are very important for the atmospheric chemistry.
>4. The new stuff has 2 atoms of chlorine, which through a process changes O3 (ozone) to O2, free oxygen.
>   The old stuff had 3 atoms.  WOW, a 33% drop.
Count the chlorines now.
>
>5. R-12 used to sell for about $1.50 for a 12oz bottle.
I remember bread at $0.20 a loaf.
>
>6. R-134a sells now for about $13.50 for a 12oz bottle.
>
>7. Do the math.  Figure out which is the winner here - DuPont or the ozone layer.
>
>Dave
Paul Farrar

bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) wrote:
>: 
>: Actually, the US army has switched over to JP-8 to fuel all its
>: vehicles.  The problem is that people like me call the stuff diesel
>: anyway.  
>: 
>
>O.K. how much sulphur? How much particulate emission?
I have no idea.  My guess is: Lots.  
>
>And aren't you worried about unnecessarily stopping the natural response of 
>the lung air sacs to stopping foreign material entering?
Asthma meds do not do this.  The meds I'm on are to control the
inflamation.
>
>What is the reason for having the terminal underground? In Christchurch 
>the prestigious Park Royal Hotel has a City Council car park below it 
>but fairly open to the air. The hotel is just up a bit.
I have _no_ idea.  I live in the US and am not consulted on decisions
regarding New Zealand bus terminals.

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: John McCarthy wrote:
: > 
: > Oppenheimer was born in the U.S.
: > --
: > 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.
: 
: 
: Thanks.  There's one, and it's nice to know.
Oppenheimer, Schwinger, Feynmann, Pauling, Wheeler, Condon,
anyone care to add to the list?  
Josh Halpern
-- 

http://www.granta.com/authors/williams.html

HIV infection is spreading in Russia:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9611/07/russia.aids.ap/index.html
Rwandans are dying like flies:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/07/zaire/index.html

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Why do you ascribe the Reagan era debts to Reagan and not to the
: Democratic congresses of the era - as we admirers of Reagan do?
: -- 
: 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 in six of the eight year's of the Reagan presidency, the Republicans
controlled the Senate.  While Democrats did have majorities in the House,
you will note that more Republicans voted to pass the Reagan budgets,
than Democrats did (in the House)
The reason the budgets passed, was because of a small number 
iof House members on the Democratic side of the aisle, who were quite
conservative, and some of whom have recently crossed the aisle.
Basically, that's why
Josh Halpern

Dave  wrote:
>Leonard -
>	Quite simply the whole Montreal Protocol on CFC's is a sham.
>1. The ozone hole isn't a hole. It's an area near anarctica where the mean level of O3 is 10%
>   less than the "normal" average.
Sigh.  Column ozone depletions in the ozone hole can exceed 50%, with
depletion in the lower stratosphere there approaching 100%.
What the source for your ersatz "fact"?
	Paul

(charliew) wrote:
: 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.
  Charliew observes ever increasing entropy from the beginning of time,
and then denies that there is any evidence that ever increasing entropy
will necessarily lead to our doom.
  Has Charliew designed a perpetual motion machine?  Or can we take his
statement as proof that conservatives will even refer to a 15 billion
year trend as no evidence.
---
"The probability that the temperature increase of the last century has
NOT been influenced by the greenhouse effect is less than one percent."
-Climatologists Richard Tol and Aart de Vos, Free University of
Amsterdam, A3
-- 
<---->

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
(see prior post for context)
> 
> I would agree with your premise that power is where we are likely to
> find corruption, but disagree that restricting private wealth we will
> have any effect.
> 
> There are a couple of reasons for this, the first is that, with a
> government powerful enough to take the earnings of its citizens, we
> would invite corruption of those officials who are entrusted with this
> enormous power.
I note:
'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.'
is my statement.  Note 'power' is of equal importance.  Note 
'restrict', not eliminate, is my suggestion.
Harold continues:
  Citizens rightly feel an interest in the wealth they
> have accumulated, and would view the necessary bribery of these
> officials as simply a cruder form of taxation.  This has been the
> experience of governments around the world who have adopted the
> policies you appear to be recommending.
I reply:
I recommended an objective, not a policy.
Harold continues:
> 
> A second comment I would advance is that, if your fear is that of
> power corrupting, you are looking in the wrong place, in my
> estimation.  Private wealth in the US is dwarfed by public wealth.
> Since wealth is power, you need to look at the government as the
> probable source of corruption.  A person with a billion dollars in
> wealth is a rare being, but with a budget exceeding 1.5 Trillion
> dollars, a government official with a billion dollars to spend is
> pretty common.
I reply:
What?  Maybe the following will clarify...:
> >Corruption comes from corruptible government officials - they can be
> >corrupted with money, with power, with sex, or other enticements.
> >While extremely wealthy people are certainly more capable of creating
> >corruption than poor people, it is the nature of the government and
> >the people within it that is more important. The latter is a matter of
> >character and culture.
I reply:
So let's see
	- corruption comes from (is due to?) corruptible government 	    						
officials,
	- They can be corrupted by various 'enticements',
 - Extremely wealthy people (and corporations I might add) are 
certainly more capable of creating corruption than poor people (or the 
middle class, remember tham?)
 - It is the nature of government and the people in it that is more 
important - more important than what?
Your last statement is similar to 'any government works with the right 
people in it.  My assertion is that it is more immediately effective 
to remove the temptation while we work on human nature.  A child can 
play with a toy gun without raising too much havoc, but making a real 
gun available to children is asking for trouble.  This example seems 
to be consistent with the implications of your analysis.
Harold continues:
> 
> I do not agree with this either.  I would argue that technology serves
> to diffuse power among the citizens.  Examining most per-technological
> societies (taking the advent of the "Industrial Revolution" as the
> start of modern technology.  I assume we are not talking of bows and
> arrows as technology), we find that they are dominated, even to the
> extent of life-or-death power, by very small groups, nobility or
> priesthood.  This is no longer the case, and as we move beyond the
> Industrial Revolution to the Information Age, I expect this to change
> even more.
> 
> From a historical perspective, we observe that technology frees people
> both politically, and economically.
I respond:
I agree in part with your response to Moore.  Technology has greatly 
increased the speed of transmission of ideas and the number of ideas 
transmitted, at least among those with access to the technology, and 
in the case of many media from those with access to transmission 
technology >to< those with 'receivers' such as TV.  Also, technology 
has delivered more physical power into the hands of individuals.  
Whether there is some fractional increase in 'economic freedom' 
whatever that means, I think is a matter for discussion.  Nor am I 
certain the the fraction of society comprising groups with 
'life-or-death' power has changed in any appreciable way, nor that 
such a change would be meaningful unless there is a difference between 
the way those within such a group and those external to such a group 
are treated.
> 
> [deleted]
> 
> Regards, Harold
> ----
> "However energetically society in general may strive to make all the
> citizens equal and alike, the personal pride of each individual will
> always make him try to escape from the common level, and he will form
> some inequality somewhere to his own profit."
>         ---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3,
>         ch. 13 (1840).

In article <55ptfo$7e7@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, BRateaver
 writes
>Should?  What good does that do? Who will make China listen?
>
>B. Rateaver
China's already getting its act together better than the rest of the
Developing World... THey've got birth control laws, whihc, no matter how
ineffective, are a big STEP in the right direction
-- 
David Weinstein
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

In article <55uj7l$7p9@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
Scott Nudds  wrote:
>jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>: 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.
>
>  This is of course nonsense.  Jwas might as well apply this argument to
>any other complex natural system, say, the human body.  Does Jwas think
>that disturbing the chemistry of the human body might just as well change
>the human body for the better?
>
>  The environment, is a complex web of interaction, much like the body,
>that had evolved to its present state.  Each component of the
>environment has evolved to be near optimal for its environment.
>Drastically altering the environment, either through chemical change,
>the introduction of new predators or competing species, or the loss of
>species makes the organisms that remain less optimal for their
>environments.
You are begging your own conclusion. Nature IS the environment and
vice-versa. Whatever is, is nature and the environment. 
>  The probability that randomly obliterating organisms, and drastically
>altering the climate will result in environmentally beneficial change,
>is zero.
Beneficial to whom? An environmental change is an environmental change.
Doesn't matter whether it's caused by a comet impact in the Yucatan or
human beings messing with the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Nature is
simply nature, and doesn't care a whit about the extinctions that
occurred around the Devonian nor about the missing dinosaurs, nor will
nature care one whit if humans manage to take some action to extinct
themselves.
The reason nature doesn't care one whit is because nature isn't an
anthropomorphic being, and has no such thing as "caring". Everything
you say is simply an anthropocentric bias, and only one of many that
might be held.
On a gross statistical basis, the probability that homo sapiens might
be extincted by another celestial body impacting the earth is
surprisingly high, and if it happens, nature will go on, the
environemnt will adjust, and the earth will continue with whatever
biosphere is in existence after that.
OTOH, one should consider such interesting possibilities that might
result from , say, global warming. Sure The Netherlands and New York
City would probably cease to exist, although it would happen slowly
enough for everyone to move. But perhaps the warming might make it
possible to grow grains in what is now the Arctic tundra, thereby
making it possible to feed the ever-increasing population of the earth.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>The other question that comes to mind is: how clean are your buses,
>relative to modern emissions standards (in North America and elsewhere)?
They aren't. AFAIK, New Zealand is still deciding what emissions limits should
be in place, and ( from memory) the owner of a diesel can be compelled to clean
up continuous black smoke, but apart from that we have no formal emissions
limits. Black smoke usually means inefficient combustion, hence most operators
will service vehicles, and most urban transportation operators do have casual
guidelines on emissions during servicing, often using the manufacturers
recommendations for recent buses.  One problem is that diesel vehicles 
have long operational lifetimes, and many NZ buses were originally built on
chassis that were imported from the UK - which also had minimal emission
limits. The major problems are the light trucks, some of them still are from
the 1940s, used routinely in both the rural and urban environments. 
In 1968 I got my Heavy Trade licence driving a petrol-fuelled 7 ton1928 Reo
Speed Wagon that was the public road workhorse for the orchard I worked on 
- it may still be :-), and many of the general purpose vehicles in light
industries where I worked were diesels of similar vintage, as they died they
were replaced with diesels from the 1940s and 50s. The problem is that such
vehicles have long operational lifes in such industrial and agricultural
applications, compared to the long-haul 40 Tonne, 500 HP intercity and logging
trucks that quickly accumulate high mileage and are written off as they
are too large for alternative uses.
               Bruce Hamilton

            Methane during the past 110,000 years
During the last glaciation and deglaciation, atmospheric methane
oscillated between roughly 400 and 700 ppbv.  Methane levels were
correlated with temperature.  The methane variations amplified the
temperature changes, if only slightly.  In that respect, ice-covered
area and CO2 variations were more important.  [Raynaud] [Jouzel]
Now, a new methane record from the GISP2 Greenland ice core [Brook]
supplements former, less detailed records from Antarctica.
It turns out that the atmospheric methane level tracked most of
the sudden climatic shifts during the last glaciation.  Methane
was lower during most of the cold stadials, it was higher during
most of the over 20 interstadial warming events.
Methane presumably slightly amplified these temperature shifts,
but that is a minor point.  The major natural methane source are
wetlands, many of which are in the tropics.  The methane swings
support the notion that the frequent, still enigmatic stadials
and interstadials (also known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events)
were not just North Atlantic, but rather large-scale regional,
perhaps even global events.
On a longer time scale, orbital forcing also appears to have
a hand in the game: stadial-interstadial methane oscillations
waxed and waned with northern hemisphere summer insolation,
with a period of roughly 20,000 years.  Thus far, two links
are pondered.  Growth and shrinking of northern ice sheets
may cover and uncover northern wetlands.  Moreover, summer
insolation may affect ice-free wetlands directly: warmer and
wetter conditions tend to enhance methane emissions.  [Brook]
    [Brook]  Edward J. Brook, Todd Sowers, Joe Orchardo,   Rapid
        variations in atmospheric methane concentration during the
        past 110,000 years.   Science 273 (23 Aug 1996), 1087-1091
    [Jouzel]  J. Jouzel, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, 13 more
        authors,  Extending the Vostok ice-core record of paleoclimate
        to the penultimate glacial period.   Nature 364 (1993), 407-412
    [Raynaud]  D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, J.M. Barnola, J. Chappellaz,
        R.J. Delmas, C. Lorius,  The ice record of greenhouse gases.
        Science 259 (1993), 926-934
btw, does anyone know of any sensible notions about
what may have been behind those Dansgaard-Oeschger things ?
Paul Farrar ?  Robert Grumbine ?
Jan Schloerer
jschloer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de

Dan Evens (dan.evens@hydro.on.ca) wrote:
: There is a lovely book by J.E. Pournelle called _A Step Farther Out_
: that explains just that.  His breakdown of the problem is (extremely
: simplified) something like this. To keep our lifestyle, and to allow
: everybody on the planet who wants to share it to do so, we basically
: have a small number of fundamental problems. These include, when
: you follow everything back to their source, where do we get the
: energy?, and where do we get the metals?
: If we had huge supplies of cheap clean energy and an abundant source
: of the various metals we require, we could solve basically every
: problem we have. For example, pollution could in principle be
: solved by using fraction distilling to pull off the noxious
: chemicals before we release whatever we have to. There are
: undoubtably better ways to do it for most chemicals, but the
: point is, there IS a solution if we have the energy and metals.
Exactly how would this solve the fact that the oceans are already way over
fished and fish farming has serious side effects?

Leonard Evens  wrote:
>Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>> In article <...>,"Mike Asher"  writes:
>in response to the following quote from my posting
>
>> >> Let me point out that the policy on CFCs has been implemented, in fact
>> >> by the Reagan and Bush administrations.   This was done through the
>> >> usual poltical processes.  One important factor was that the chemical
>> >> industry itself was convinced of the validity of the science, so it did
>> >> not use its influence to prevent the actions that were taken.
Remember that the issue wasn't immediately clearcut, with some
very reputable scientists ( including James Lovelock  )  questioning
the stratospheric ozone depletion theory until compelling evidence
appeared in the 1980s. However few, if any, new CFC-11 and CFC-12 
production facilities were built from the late 1970s, because the 
CfCs were under a cloud - thus there was little recent capital 
investment that had to be recovered when the phaseout started.
>> >The chemical industry has everything to *gain* from the banning of CFCs, a
>> >cheap non-patented, easily-made compound.   Dupont, for one, has already
>> >gotten patents on (at least) three substitutes....all of which are far, far
>> >more profitable than CFCs.
Really?. I doubt it - they invested huges sums looking for acceptable
alternatives, and they built new production facilities , thus they had 
significant costs to recover. The same major players in the existing
CFC market ( DuPont, Allied Signal, ICI etc. ) transferred to the 
alternatives market. As corporations, they have a duty to their
shareholders to provide good returns, and their management 
was sufficiently technically skilled to assess the evidence and
realise they needed to invest in alternatives to maintain market
share. They were making money from CFCs, and they are making
money from the alternatives - but given the startup costs, I doubt 
that it is easy to show they are more profitable than CFCs, which
essentially had processes that had been optimised over 40 years.
>> >So much for your conspiracy theories.
>> 
>> Hmm.. that doesn't quite put an end to conspiracy theories...  They do stand
>> to make quite a bit of money from replacing CFCs, which are a cheap non-
>> patented compound, with patented expensive compounds.
You miss the point, they had to invest large sums, and just to recover
those requires a good return. The problem they face is that the change
from CFCs also gives customers ( who also have to invest in new facilities)
the opportunity to investigate alternative products and processes. The 
companies were strident in their concerns that they wouldn't have a
chance to recoup their costs when it was suggested that some of the
new alternatives should be immediately phased out because of their
contribution to ozone depletion and global warming. The agreed phase
out schedule does acknowledge and address their concerns.     
>Maybe I am forgetting how to read plain English.   Would someone other
>than either of these two gentlemen explain to me what in the world they
>are trying to say?
I think they mean that if companies are making money, then there
must be conspiracy somewhere. The problem is that neither provides
any evidence for their claim, other than the usual assertion that 
patented expensive compounds are more profitable than traditional
out-of-patent compounds - something that isn't always true. In this
case the companies had been patenting refinements to CFC 
production processes right up to the cessation anyway. Patents 
are useful at protecting intellectual property, and gaining market
share if they offer a competitive advantage that's all. Most chemicals
can be produced by several routes, but the company that wins is the
one that can meet the market price and performance requirements. 
>Is it possible that some people are responding to what I have written
>without first reading it because they assume they know what I must have
>been saying?  I am really puzzled.
You mean I'm supposed to read your post before responding?
What a novel idea, next I'll be expected to understand it as well.
              Bruce Hamilton

Q:  Has there been any new developments on/in the storage of spent fuel? 
-- 
Kate M Boersma
kboersma@iastate.edu

In article <55ri4d$s67@news-central.tiac.net>,
	conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>Try explaining that to the government of Ethiopia, who is in fact the real
>problem.  Explain to them that the astronomical wealth of those in power
>is primarily responsible for the sad plight of their people.  
The wealthy in Ethiopia who are one and the same with the government did not
earn their wealth.  There is a big difference between earned wealth and
stolen wealth.
Remember.. Robin Hood lived in an age when there was no such thing as a
capitalist.. so who were the rich?
>Explain to them that attempting to support large populations in regions
>knowingly so barren that they couldn't even support a migrant yak population
>is called genocide. 
I think they could support their population if they were unshackled.
>Explain to them that attempting to blame the plight of their population
>on nations that more effectively manage their domestic situation is no
>longer credible, or acceptable!
So it's not our fault that they're starving!#$?!!
>ps.  As I recall, it is in Ethiopia that an annual ritual involves
>     matching the Emperor's weight in gold and jewels.  Given this
>     national mind set, is it any wonder that half of its population
>     is starving?
Yup.
>pps. A hungy and wise man will ask you to show him how to grow food.  
>     An ignorant and stupid man will ask you to give him your food.
>     Which man will earn more of your help?
It is the hatred of *earned* wealth and the protection of *unearned* wealth
that keeps most of Ethiopia's population in poverty.

jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
>John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
>: Why do you ascribe the Reagan era debts to Reagan and not to the
>: Democratic congresses of the era - as we admirers of Reagan do?
>
>In in six of the eight year's of the Reagan presidency, the Republicans
>controlled the Senate.  While Democrats did have majorities in the House,
>you will note that more Republicans voted to pass the Reagan budgets,
>than Democrats did (in the House)
>
>The reason the budgets passed, was because of a small number 
>iof House members on the Democratic side of the aisle, who were quite
>conservative, and some of whom have recently crossed the aisle.
>
>Basically, that's why
And one more time:
Reagan was elected with a specific agenda, which he stated in advance,
and a specific means of achieving that agenda, which he also stated in
advance.  There was never a mystery as to his intentions with regard
to Defense spending.  He wanted to increase the size of the US Defense
establishment to the point where the USSR could no longer afford to
keep up, given its inadequate and inefficient industrial base.  
To achieve this increase in defense expenditures, Reagan required the
consent of the House leadership, since Democrats controlled Congress.
Due to House procedures at the time, no legislation could get through
the House without the consent of the legislative leadership.  He
obtained that consent by the simple expedient of trading.  He got the
military he wanted, and the Democrat leadership got the increases in
domestic programs they wanted.  The two parties share the
responsibility for the budget deficits, and the consequent increase in
the public debt.
There can be a lot of pressures on the House leadership to examine a
bill even if they do not wish to do so, but do not forget that every
part of the budget was examined in subcommittees and then full
committees, each chaired by Democrats.  Each bill can be and
frequently are taken apart, amended, changed, squeezed and beat to
death in each committee.
I realize that the reality and complexity of Washington politics can
cause consternation and heartburn, but that is the way it works.
Regards, Harold
----
"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a 
few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, 
regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
	---Ronald Reagan Address, 15 Aug. 1986, to the White House 
	Conference on Small Business.

Is anyone familiar with the Clinton administration's policy towards
funding of research projects involving energy generation by 
wind turbine?
-- 
Matthew T Johnson                        
shotgun@iastate.edu

(from Jonathan Luman)
        PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE COME TO OUR PROTEST (Press Release 
bellow)
************************************************************************
***************
*** PRESS RELEASE ***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1996
                                                CONTACT: Jonathan Luman
                                                9 Perkins Terrace
                                                Worcester, MA 01605-3706
                                                508.756.1819 - Phone
                                        LUMANS@worldnet.att.net - E-Mail
TEENS WILL PROTEST MITSUBISHI
        On November 16th a teenage environmental group, calling
themselves the Defenders Of The Rainforest, will protest Mitsubishi
Corporation's continued destruction of the world's rainforests. Teens
will start gathering in front of Gallo Mitsubishi on 70A Gold Star BLVD.
at 11:00 a.m., then they will start chanting "Save the rainforest,
boycott Mitsubishi!", holding up signs, passing out literature on
Mitsubishi, and airing up a 35 foot inflatable chain saw to march and
chant around during the protest!
        Other people from Greenpeace, Earth First!, a local chapter of
MASS PIRG, Rainforest Rescue, other Rainforest Action Groups, SEAC, and
other environmental organizations will be attending the protest!, it is
important to note that even though people from other environmental
organizations will be attending the people who are organizing this
protest are  ALL TEENAGERS!
        "If Mitsubishi Corporation doesn't stop cutting down the
rainforest, using it for disposable chopsticks, pulp for paper, and
plywood, it will not only affect countries people in countries with
rainforest that Mitsubishi is cutting down, it will affect the whole
world! Cures for diseases such as AIDS, Cancer, and Arthritis, just to
name a very few, will be lost, climate will change, there will be an
increase in droughts and famines, and because the rainforest has half of
all animal and plant species in the world they will all be lost, so
won't unique cultures of people!" says Jonathan Luman (14 yrs!), who is
the organizer of this protest.
WHEN: November 16, 1996 - 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
WHERE: Gallo Mitsubishi - 70A Gold Star BLVD., Worcester, MA
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E (Win95; U)
Received: from [207.116.41.99] by mtigwc01.worldnet.att.net
(post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA12970 for
; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:05:36
+0000
To: Jonathan_Layburn@voyager.umeres.maine.edu
From: Yvonne Luman 
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 15:03:39 -0500
Subject: Re: * Environmental Quotes * Daily...
Message-ID: <3280EF1B.6A2B@worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In article <327F600A.7C6A@ix.netcom.com>, 
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>
>> 
>> I'd have to disagree on that point.  Science and 
technology are intimatly
>> intertwined.
>
>I add:
>
>It used to be called science and engineering, but you'll 
note the noun 
>'Technology' has largely replaced 'Engineering', such as 
'Museum of 
>Science and Technology', etc., Those with Engineering 
degrees are 
>still referred to as 'engineers' thank goodness.
>
>Science and engineering have had a very constructive, if 
somewhat 
>adversarial relationship - engineers are excellent builders 
as a rule, 
>using known laws and principles to build machines and 
devices. 
I don't happen to think these roles are adversarial.  They 
are just defined somewhat differently.  In many cases, the 
engineer may have different or more constraints than the 
scientist.  Naturally, I would have to have some details 
from your own experience to get more specific.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html