Newsgroup sci.environment 109778

Directory

What puzzled me about the article on iron fertilization is: I thought 
this was tried four or five years ago and _it didn't work_!
The Times piece seemed to indicate that some test (date undefined) 
showed that it _did_ work.  Anybody know the full story?
	Stewart Rowe srowe@tso.cin.ix.net
In a previous article, len@math.nwu.edu (Leonard Evens) says:
>I think I may be opening a Pandora's box here of clashing ideologies,
>but the matter is important enough to start a thread.  I hope it goes
>somewhere productive, and I can learn something.
>
>The New York Science Times had a long article on the possible use of
>iron fertilization to curb the growth of CO_2 in the atmosphere.  This
>idea has been kicking around for a while and has been discussed before
>in sci.environment.   Unfortunately, our recycling is done on Wednesday,
>and I didn't ask my wife to save the article, so I am going by memory,
>which may not be quite accurate.
>
>The basic idea is that there are areas of the ocean where productivity
>of plankton is limited by nutrients, a major one being iron.   If these
>areas were fertilized by iron, it is suggested that there would be
>blooms which would decrease the Carbon concentration in the ocean and
>thereby result in the ocean taking up more CO_2 from the atmosphere.
>There have been some trial experiments along these lines.   The first
>ones had equivocal results, but more recent experiments have been much
>more successful.
>
>Various claims and counterclaims have been made about the effectiveness
>of massive iron fertilization of remote ocean areas, particularly in the
>Antarctic Ocean, but, according to the article, it is agreed by
>proponents and critics alike that the range of decrease of atmospheric
>CO_2 would be in the range of  6 to 21 percent, I assume, at current
>levels.   The article says that the most up to date estimates place it
>at about 10 percent.
>
>There are some very interesting questions that this possiblity raises.
>
>One advantage of such a procedure is that it would very quickly reduce
>CO_2 concentrations, so under appropriate circumstances, it could be
>thought of as an option to use in a wait and see mode.   That is we
>could let CO_2 levels rise for a while and see if anything seemed to be
>happening to climate and then use iron fertilization to compensate
>almost immediately.   (I am not enough of a climatologist to be sure
>that is an accurate reading of the situation, since there are lag times
>related to heating of the oceans which would not be effected rapidly
>by CO_2 atmsopheric concentration.)  On the other hand, the projections
>for growth in CO_2 concentration, assuming business as usual, are for
>doubling or worse by the middle of the next century.  Again because of
>lag times in response, it is not clear that iron fertilization could be
>brought into play in time to be more than a minor factor.   Finally,
>iron fertilization would certainly lead to massive changes in the
>ecology of the oceans, and the cure could be worse than the disease.
>
>In any case, it does seem reasonable that measures of this kind should
>be studied.  Of course, to do so would require even more sophisticated
>modelling than we are capable of now, since effects on the biosphere are
>very hard to include in models.   However,  in the end I suspect,
>despite the inherent dangers, something like this may be necessary
>if climate changes occur at the move pessimistic end of the IPCC scale
>of predictions.
>
>Note also that use of such measures is not a substitute for limiting
>the growth in the use of fossil fuels, since the numbers apparently
>don't work out that way.  However, it may be a useful supplement to such
>measures.    One imponderable is that to be effective, this method would
>probably, according to the article, require ongoing use of iron on a
>yearly basis, and it is not at all clear how that could be organized.
>Presumably it would require extensive international agreements and
>cooperation. 
>
>I would be interested in several types of comments.   How would massive
>iron fertilization work as far as climate change is concerned?   How
>would it likely change the ecology of the oceans if done on a massive
>scale?  And how much would it be likely to cost?
> 
>Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
>Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
>Evanston Illinois
>

*****************************************************************
              Ottawa '97, JOINT ANNUAL MEETING
              Geological Association of Canada
            Mineralogical Association of Canada
                     MAY 19-21, 1997
                 Ottawa Congress Centre
                Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
*****************************************************************
*****!!! NEW !!! On-line Abstract Submission*****
http://www.NRCan.gc.ca/~ottawa97/abstract1.html
Get full details including our complete "First Circular" via:
*****Website*****
http://www.NRCan.gc.ca/~ottawa97/
*****E-mail*****
ottawa97@NRCan.gc.ca
Put AUTOHELP in the subject line to get automated help!
*****Snail-mail*****
Geological Survey of Canada
Rm 757, 601 Booth Street
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0E8  Canada
*****Phone/Fax*****
613-947-7649 phone
613-947-7650 fax
THIS CONFERENCE IS AN OUTSTANDING OPPORTUNITY for all persons
interested in the earth sciences to learn and exchange
ideas about new discoveries and developments with some of the
leading scientists in the world.  There will be pre- and
post-conference field trips, an extensive technical program,
poster sessions and exhibits.  Social events will celebrate the
50th anniversary of the Geological Association of Canada.
Accompanying persons will have an opportunity to visit the
historical and cultural sites of Canada's Capital.
The meeting will take place at the Ottawa Congress Centre,
located on the scenic Rideau Canal in the heart of the city,
within walking distance of hotels, restaurants, shopping, and
numerous cultural attractions.
We invite you to attend and participate!
Charles Smith, Chairman 
Gina LeCheminant, Vice-Chair

John McCarthy  wrote:
> 
> ..  In fact there is as much energy
> available as mankind is likely to want.  Bernard Cohen has calculated
> that the uranium  from the sea at reasonable extraction costs can
> supply humanity for 5 billion years.
Since environmentalists are so deadset against us adding uranium to the
sea, I wonder how they'll react to us trying to take some out.  I can
already hear the calls for impact studies to ensure no fish will be harmed
by lower uranium levels....
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand
miles from the cornfield." 
Eisenhower

1. Has anyone come across any research on growing animal cancer cells
in a plant nutrient as a meat product subtitute, producing cheaper meat
for humanity and stopping slaughter of our animals.
2. Has anyone come across any research on the utilization on mountain
goat gut bacteria for the purpose of turning plant cellulose into
human digestible carbohydrates, allowing manking to utilize 100% of
trees as a human food source.
Please contact  Victor Pierobon at 416 221-2340

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Steinn Sigurdsson  writes:
: > ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: > > : 	BF		FF		FI
: > > : 	p	q	p	q
: > > 
: > > : 1995    2	20	10	1	100
: > > 
: > > : 1996    2	15	11	5	170 <- WRONG: 102 is correct.
: > I'd like to see that calculation explicitly.
: Ah, I see, your index is  
: Sum_i (New price_i * Old Quantity_i)/Sum_i (Old price_i*Old Quantity_i)
Thanks for giving me the credit, but I didn't invent the concept
of a price index.  _Everybody_ who's ever calculated one knows that
the idea is to hold the quantity constant, and measure only the change
in price.  Your method doesn't do this, and so it's _wrong_.  This is
not a matter of opinion.   Most of you criticisms of the fish CPI rest
on your confusion of prices and quantities and so they are wrong too.
: That does indeed give a 2% year-year increase in the CPI,
: which is quite reasonable, and I would think the natural
: response of FF price in response to sharply rising demand
: is that it go up - where as your example assumed it went down
: with rising demand...  Whence Econ 101 there?
No.  My example assumed that people bought more and at the same
time, the price went down.  This is consistent with the supply
curve shifting out.  It is also consistent with both curves
shifting at the same time.  In general, data about prices
and quantities tells us _nothing_ about supply and 
demand.  If you ever take econ 1, this question will be on
the test.
: > My assumption was  FI = 100*(2*15+11*5)/(2*20+10*1)=170
: > I assumed the price of fancy fish would rise a little
: > due to increased demand, but that most of the
: > price difference reflects labour intensive value
: > added (ie BF and FF are the same raw fish, but FF
: > has value added as it is, say spiced&ready; to cook,
: > while BF is just a plain fillet).
: > 
: > > : 1997    2	10	12	11	178(since1996)
: > > : 					304(since 1995)			
: 	With the (correct) CPI calculation the 1996-1997 
: increase is now 6%, and 12% over 1995. Note the quantity
: of raw material in demand is still not increasing.
: > > You really should understand the basics before you make esoteric
: > > criticisms.  A price index holds the bundle of goods constant over
: > > time.  This is the whole point.  Because you don't understand this,
: > > your calculations are wrong.
: My apologies, I misunderstood your defined index. You are mistaken
: if you believe there is unique definition of a price index,
There is more than one way, yes, but _all_ of them hold the 
quantities constant between two years.  Your method doesn't do this,
and so it is not a price index.
: indeed there is continued dispute over just how to
: allow for the change in composition of the value of
: goods weighed in your typical index.
: > > I've corrected your 1996 value.  You've calculated a 70% increase in
: > > _expenditures_ on fish, but this is not the same as an increase in
: > > price.  The increase in expenditures mostly occurred because quantity
: > > increased.  The _price_ only rose 2%.
: > Ah, the quantity in the above calculation actually
: > _decreased_ from 1995 to 1996, there 21 units
: > of "fish" sold in 1995, and 20 units in 1996.
: > That was a deliberate assumption - and a realistic
: > one. The mean retail cost of fish in this example
: > increases sharply because of value added at the retail
: > level, not because of a supply-demand response.
In your example, the price index goes up because people have
switched to something whose price was increasing.  It
is irrelevant that they switched to something with more "value
added" and a higher price.
Suppose processed fish is more expensive, but its price is rising
at a slower rate.  Then if people buy more processed fish and 
less fresh fish, the CPI won't rise as fast.  In fact, 
this is what has happened.  The price of fresh and frozen fish
has risen much faster than the price of processed fish.
: > Since the basket or retail good used to calculate
: > consumer price indices includes specifically
: > processed, value added goods, not generally wholesale
: > raw materials, some of the variation in the index
: > must be due to this. 
: > As it happens this actually happened with fish
: > sold in the US over the period where you noted
: > a CPI rise above inflation. They sold cod in both
: > 1970 and 1995, but in 1995 the cod was more likely
: > to be frozen, breaded and ready to nuke.
: This point remains.
And this made the CPI rise _less_ than it otherwise would have.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

I wrote
> 
> : Since you are the first and only one to bring up objections to mining
> : the moon, you must be trying to create dissent.
> 
Gregg wrote:
>         Unsupportable statement..........
I note:
Hardly, if you're referring to my statement.  McCarthy claims:
 'Those with an a priori objection to humanity's progress will find
something wrong with mining the moon'.
He is the only one to note even the possibility that someone may 
object.  Based on this observation, the conclusion he draws must be 
based on his own imagination as no other person is involved.
Yet his statement is general, stating unequivocally that others >will< 
object, i.e. find something wrong, and further that they will object 
if they have a specific attitude toward his poorly-defined concept of 
'progress'.  From newsgroup responses many object to his 
interpretation of 'progress', hence by his statement these people find 
something wrong with mining the moon.  He thus creates dissenters to 
moon mining without any other person actually dissenting.  If 
anything, my statement wasn't strong enough.
> 
>  Dissent can only have
> : the consequence of interfering with efforts to mine the moon,
> : therefore (assuming you're able to figure the above out on your own)
> : you must find something wrong with mining the moon.
Gregg continues:
> 
>         And therefore all of this is garbage
> 
I note:
McCarthy's statement is surely garbage, meant to stir the ants.

Mason A. Clark (masonc@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 15 Nov 1996 17:23:22 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
: > The amount of steel required to make cars is indeed linear in the
: > number of cars being made.  Linear relationships dominate the economy,
: > except in a few areas like semiconductor memory which are dominated by
: > capital costs and design costs.
: > 
:   Here lies the most common fallacy in economics:  linearity.
:   Linearity is valid ONLY for short time intervals.   And time is of 
:   the essence, e.g. "the number of cars being made" is a time variable.
:   There are NO linear relationships in economics over long time intervals.
:    Classical and neo-classical economics are polluted with linearity 
:    assumptions.
This simply isn't so.  A more usual assumption is diminishing marginal
returns, which is often justified as the result of some factor being
in fixed supply, like land.  I think you'd like it.
:     Pollyanna environmentalists are linearity ideologues.  Oh, oh, now I've
:     insulted someone.  Sorry, my control system is non-linear today.
: ---------------------------------------
: Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
:   www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
:  
: or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
: Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
: The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
: ---------------------------------
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

Alastair McKinstry  wrote:
dlj wrote, about energy: 
>> Not a problem.
>
>But it is a problem. A major cause of misunderstanding in this debate
>is whether you do the calculations based on the rest of the world wanting
>an American (or European) scale of consumption. If you do allow for the
>rest of the worlds' aspirations, then we don't have hundreds of years
>worth of gas,oil,coal,etc; we can't build fission reactors fast enough
>(to western safety standards, at least) and fusion will not be here
>near fast enough. 
>
Of course we can.  We built nuclear reactors by the dozen off assembly
lines int he fifties and sixties.  Those were the engines for the cold
war submarines on all sides.  Some of the assembly lines are still in
existence, and others can easily be built, and just as fast as the
previous ones.
As soon as the price of oil rises to the price of uranium, per
terajoule, we'll simply crank the process up again.  McKinstry is
simply being silly.
                                    -dlj.

In article <56da4v$omm@usenet.Hydro.ON.CA>,
   Dwight Zerkee  wrote:
>Most technologies are in widespread use as they are the most efficient 
compromise
>available at the time. If oil becomes too expensive due to decreasing supply, 
some other
>energy source will become the most efficient compromise (cost vs. energy 
content).
>Until that happens, there is no economic incentive for firms, individuals, 
etc. to 
>invest money in making the alternative technology more efficient in its use 
of that
>energy source.
>
>dz.
	Unfortunately, there is no support from the history of technology
for this point of view.  For any given set of competing technologies, the
reasons for the emergence of one technology is the result of a complex
of factors involving market clout, government subsidies, social preferences,
political power/connections and so forth.  "Efficiency" is a relative value,
not an absolutely discursive measure of performance.  Take the history of
automobiles.  Around the turn of the century, there were a number of competing 
powerplants for automobiles,and good arguments to be made for steam and 
electric cars.  Yet gasoline emerged triumphant.  Or take computers.  Was the
IBM PC better than the Mac and Amiga?  Of the three, it had the worst 
interface, the worst multimedia capabilities and the worst memory-management
system, yet due to IBM's perspicacious decision to allow clones to be made
and to its incredible market clout and reputation, and to the values of
businessmen (who would not buy colorful Amigas because anything with color
*must* be a toy) the PC is now the most dominant.  I won't even bother to
discuss MS-DOS......I could multiply examples from other fields.  Check out
Mackenzie and Wajcman, J. _The Social Shaping of Technology_ for other
examples. 
	Getting back to wind vs. nuclear.  Your info is a little out of date.
Most of the prairie states in the west could generate many times their 
consumption of energy with wind power even at current levels of technology; 
North Dakota could generate 40% of the US electricity supply (Citing DOE 
publications; there are many. See _Renewable resourcesn in the US electricity
Supply_).  You are right about economic incentives, however.  As the nuclear 
and fossil industries get much larger subsidies than solar or wind, they
remain the market leaders.  "Efficiency" is pretty much a calculus of the
subsidy regime, the political clout of the industries and firms, historical
accidents (lots of oil in the US), US military policy and so forth. There's no 
objective value out there we can turn to to determine which technology is the 
most efficient -- heck, light water reactors are not even the most efficient 
design; yet they won out because of decisions made by Rickover (see Morone and 
Woodhouse _The Demise of Nuclear Power?_.) which had nothing to do with needs
for civilian power generation.  So, when the political calculus underlying
nuclear power's claims of efficiency changes, so will the current energy 
regime in the US.
Mike Turton

On 15 Nov 1996 14:38:27 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Would you like to explain why your suspicion should be valid? It seems to 
> me that for many thousands of years when the global population was stable, 
> the ecological impact was also stable.
> 
Over what chosen time interval was the human population ever "stable"?
During recorded history there were ecological impacts of population expansion,
over-grazing, natural disasters (such as floods), and militaristic expansions led 
by demagogues (Attilla?)  Humanity and stability don't go together.
The more it changes the more it stays the same.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

In article <56hojq$gs9@ddi2.digital.net>, Rod Adams   wrote:
>
>Most readers on this board probably have a car.  If so, they know how
>dirty it can get in a city or suburb, even if there is rain and even if
>the car simply sits in the driveway.  Some of the dirt is easily
>removed, while other components are more difficult, especially if
>you happen to live in a reasonably industrialized city.
Locally, Caltrans installed PV powered emergency call boxes
along most highways. If you have the same, ask yourself when
was the last time you saw someone cleaning the panels. Ditto
for hot water heating (A more likely source of any 1983
statistics than photo-voltaic).
>My car will also operate if dirty.  It just does not operate
> very well.
My PV panels were last washed ~7 years ago, and continue to
work reasonably well. My truck windshield gets cleaned occasionally
because I need optical clarity. I note that when parked, it still
gets pretty hot inside even through a dirty windshield. The rest of
truck gets washed once a year or so whether it needs it or not,
but this does not seem to improve its operation.
I doubt if washing panels is a show stopper.
>Rod Adams
>Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
>http://www.opennet.com/AAE

victor pierobon wrote:
> 
> 1. Has anyone come across any research on growing animal cancer cells
> in a plant nutrient as a meat product subtitute, producing cheaper meat
> for humanity and stopping slaughter of our animals.
I think you have an unrealistic view of cancer.
However, there are a variety of yeast and fungus organisms that
do very much this.  Common examples are chease and bread.
If this were a real problem, we could easily work out more.
> 2. Has anyone come across any research on the utilization on mountain
> goat gut bacteria for the purpose of turning plant cellulose into
> human digestible carbohydrates, allowing manking to utilize 100% of
> trees as a human food source.
Yes indeed.  The method is called "goats."
Converting plant matter into food for humans is not a technically
difficult problem.  The problem is not getting food energy out
of trees, it's getting balanced diets out of trees.
Humans already grow enough food to feed everybody.  With quite
a bit to spare.  In fact, in nearly every part of the world,
if there were adequate storage facilities which prevented
most insect and rodent and fungal damage, nearly every place
in the world would be able to feed themselves self sufficiently
nearly all of the time.  And, the remaining extra long droughts
or overly long wet seasons or unusual conditions of whatever
kind could nearly always be made up for in trade.  The real
loss of food in most places is due to insect and rodent
damage, and spoilage of food that is not kept properly.
Most of the places where this is not true are due to things
like violence (examples abound in Bosnia and Africa) or
government that does grotesque things.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
I have made use of a junkmail address. To mail me, change
junkmail to dan.evens in my return address.
Dan Evens

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
: >Making energy efficiency a general goal is foolish.  What counts is
: >the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
: >population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
: >Even yield/hectare is much less important than yield/man-hour.
: >American farms are typically less efficient than European in
: >yield/hectare and more efficient in yield/man-hour.
:  
: Which reminds me: if we've got a population surplus, howcome the price
: of labour is going up _everywhere_?
In the Thai toy industry, it is going down, due to competition from
China.  At least that was the case at the end of 1994.  China has
hundreds of millions of itinerant surplus laborers.
Labor cost has also dropped significantly in both the US and UK, due to
erosion of social protection.  At least that is true for people who
produce things.  I don't know about the service industry, but the
anecdotal bits I hear from the US are not inspiring of hope.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> 
....del
> 
> A welfare system is created to help the poor.  Business is taxed to >pay for it.  This creates more unemployment and lower wages, which >creates greater demand for welfare, which requires more taxes, and so >on.  Eventually a critical mass
> of welfare recipients vs. workers is reached and the system goes >bankrupt.
I ask:
What do you think is really happening in society today?  I see lots of 
businesses jetisoning highly trained and experienced people who would 
like nothing better than to work.  They end up in a market where jobs 
are scarce and cost of living is high.  Meanwhile, the value of shares 
and the compensation of top corporate executives continues to 
skyrocket.  I don't think this trend was caused by taxes on 
businesses.

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
> 
> hey stupid do you know anything about the global warming theory. The
> answer is of course not, but that won't keep you from shooting your
> mouth off and make an ass of yourself in the process.
>    Every on of those events are statistically significant.
> 
> >To do that you have to show that the weather is unusual in a
> >statistically significant manner
> .
>  just stated that above. Now moron do you realize that a rainfall of 3
> inches is statistically significant.
You've proven that the weather will be statistically significantly
bizarre and abnormal at certain times in some places.  This is why
records are continually broken.
You haven't proven that this is caused by global warming.  You haven't
proved that global warming exists.  You haven't proven that if the earth
is growing warmer than it results from human intervention.

In article <328CB84D.783B@hookup.net>,
   victor pierobon  wrote:
>1. Has anyone come across any research on growing animal 
cancer cells
>in a plant nutrient as a meat product subtitute, producing 
cheaper meat
>for humanity and stopping slaughter of our animals.
>
>2. Has anyone come across any research on the utilization 
on mountain
>goat gut bacteria for the purpose of turning plant 
cellulose into
>human digestible carbohydrates, allowing manking to utilize 
100% of
>trees as a human food source.
>
>Please contact  Victor Pierobon at 416 221-2340
Assuming the goat gut bacteria are anything like the 
bacteria in the stomachs of termites, the answer is very 
likely to be no.  For the termite case, there seems to be a 
big symbiosis going on.  The bacteria choose the termites'	
stomachs as their "environment", and the termites live off 
of the excess or waste products from the bacteria.  It is 
probably impossible to separate the termite bacteria from 
their natural habitat in order to do the bidding of humans
(at least, it is presently impossible).
BTW, don't you think that the "tree lovers" would hate to 
see this as much as you hate seeing animals used for food?
Also, do you seriously expect people to stop eating animal 
protein just because there is a new source of plant protein 
available?

In article <56i293$6r0_003@pm1-75.hal-pc.org>, charliew@hal-pc.org
(charliew) wrote:
A reasonable criticism of   Dave  "...> In addition, I doubt that the "toxicity" of a refrigerant 
> can be put into the simple terms that you [Dave] describe.  
> Assuming that all carbon-chlorine bonds will be broken by 
> exposure to sunlight high in the atmosphere may be an 
> invalid assumption.
My understanding of the breakdown of CFCs is that it was originally
expected to take place in a gaseous state in the upper atmosphere. This
would be the gas phase reaction. 
The big surprise was heterogeneous reactions in the lower stratosphere:
that is,  that reactive chlorine could be more efficiently liberated after
being transformed through a series of chemical reactions on the surfaces
of ice, frozen acids ,liquid aerosols and other substrates. While uv is
ultimately involved, the halogen carbon bond is not broken by uv in this
process which is faster and much more efficient. 
Jim Scanlon
Below is the complete post.
> 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
> >
> >3. R-134a, the "environmentally safe" substitute is 
> Cl2Fl2C:   Fl
> >                                                       
>         |
> >                                                       
> Cl------C------Fl
> >                                                       
>         |
> >                                                           
>    Cl
> >
> >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.
> >
> >5. R-12 used to sell for about $1.50 for a 12oz bottle.
> >
> >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
> 
> Dave,
> 
> you need to verify your facts a bit better.  Flourine has a 
> chemical symbol of "F".  R-12 is chemically known as 
> dichloro-diflouro-methane, which is C-Cl2-F2.  I'm not sure 
> what the chemical structure of R134a is.
> 
> In addition, I doubt that the "toxicity" of a refrigerant 
> can be put into the simple terms that you describe.  
> Assuming that all carbon-chlorine bonds will be broken by 
> exposure to sunlight high in the atmosphere may be an 
> invalid assumption.
-- 
199 Canal St #8
San Rafael CA
94901
415-485-0540

In article <01bbc12f$7b0a0ae0$3b7713cc@default>, ccf@mtl.net says...
>
>
>
>John A. Keslick, Jr.  a écrit dans l'article
><326AC81F.7FCB@pond.com>...
>> 1.) Do you recycle? 
Yes, I recycle trees with my chain-saw, they make excellent firewood!

In article <328CA3B4.2FD6@infrared.csc.ti.com>,
	Dwight U. Bartholomew  wrote:
>
>Yeah, I was paraphrasing a bit too much about the genesis verse but, as
>I read it, my thoughts were still the same:
>"Here's a verse that says God has given everything to man.  Sounds like
>carte blanche to me."
>
>Thanks for your opinions.  I didn't intend my views to be a millimeter
>thick.  It was just a quick post.  My original post was more about my
>fear of people who take the Bible too literally.
You're definitely right - we all should be deathly afraid of people who
take half a dozen sentences in the Bible literally and ignore the rest.
It happened during the Crusades, and thousands of men, women, and
children paid the price when their town was razed and they were rounded
up and executed by zealous Crusaders.
	-Mike Pelletier.

In article <56iau8$8cd@news.one.net>,
	Adam Ierymenko  wrote:
>This is where I think nuclear may have a big niche.  We could power all
>automobiles, trucks, and even some aircraft off nuclear energy this way, and
>have zero CO2 (and other smog) emissions.  Would make L.A. a lot cleaner.
>Just use nuclear energy to split water and produce hydrogen in a centralized
>plant and convert the natural gas pipelines over to carrying hydrogen.
From what I understand, though, there would be a huge capital investment
involved in converting gas pipelines to carry hydrogen.  Hydrogen
molecules are considerably smaller than natural gas molecules, and so
would be more prone to leak past existing seals and gaskets.
	-Mike Pelletier.

In article <328ce6fa.2606136@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
 > On 15 Nov 1996 17:23:22 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > > The amount of steel required to make cars is indeed linear in the
 > > number of cars being made.  Linear relationships dominate the economy,
 > > except in a few areas like semiconductor memory which are dominated by
 > > capital costs and design costs.
 > > 
 >   Here lies the most common fallacy in economics:  linearity.
 > 
 >   Linearity is valid ONLY for short time intervals.   And time is of 
 >   the essence, e.g. "the number of cars being made" is a time variable.
 > 
 >   There are NO linear relationships in economics over long time intervals.
 > 
 >    Classical and neo-classical economics are polluted with linearity 
 >    assumptions.
It relieves me that in arguing with Mason Clark I am not arguing with
the economics profession as a whole. 
Indeed input-output matrices are valid only over relatively short time
intervals.  That's why it would be nice to have the Commerce
Department publish a new one every year.
While the number of cars produced fluctuates rapidly, the amount of
steel used per cars changes very slowly between major model changes
and still changes slowly across model changes.
There are exceptions to this slow change.  For example, Coca-Cola can
switch among corn syrup and beet or cane sugar very rapidly as prices
fluctuate.  Refineries can switch their output mix rapidly and do so
according to demand. 
-- 
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 <328ceb99.3788781@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
 > 
 > On 15 Nov 1996 06:39:04 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
 > 
 > > In their fixation with energy as the measure of value, they were
 > > precursors of the energy religion of today.  I don't think they
 > > imagined that there was a shortage, however, so they weren't quite as
 > > dumb.
 > 
 >   All are dumb but me and ye, and I've doubts about ye.
 > ---------------------------------------
 > Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
I would be surprised if any large fraction of the economics profession
has fallen for the energy religion.
-- 
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.

On 15 Nov 1996 17:23:22 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
> The amount of steel required to make cars is indeed linear in the
> number of cars being made.  Linear relationships dominate the economy,
> except in a few areas like semiconductor memory which are dominated by
> capital costs and design costs.
> 
  Here lies the most common fallacy in economics:  linearity.
  Linearity is valid ONLY for short time intervals.   And time is of 
  the essence, e.g. "the number of cars being made" is a time variable.
  There are NO linear relationships in economics over long time intervals.
   Classical and neo-classical economics are polluted with linearity 
   assumptions.
    Pollyanna environmentalists are linearity ideologues.  Oh, oh, now I've
    insulted someone.  Sorry, my control system is non-linear today.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

george p swanton  wrote:
> 
> This is really getting rather silly. Noone has argued that PV 
> is a panacea to be blanked-deployed accross _everyone's_ rooftop.
This is exactly what has been argued...which was the motivation for my
original post.  But even with 100% coverage of every roof in the country,
it still doesn't cover but a small fraction of our energy needs.
> .. Many homes/business could effectively host a PV array.
Agreed.   Please tell me what the subsidiary power source will be, however?
 Or are you seriously suggesting such an array would fill the entire energy
load?
>  Areas not having good solar access often benefit from good
> wind resources.
Yes, wind farms have worked so well in the past.  The example of Southern
Cal Edision, who spent thirty million for a 2MW plant leaps to mind.  It
was sold for scrap a few years later, for $51,000.  Or the windfarm in
Alameda Country, California?  The operators have had to buy out all nearby
homeowners, as the noise is unbelievable.  And they've also been the
subject of two (that I know of) lawsuits over the deaths from birds flying
into the vanes...included eagles and other protected species.   I believe
the cost per megawatt there is around $16,000.  Thats five times the cost
of  a coal or nuclear plant.
Some smaller wind turbines have been very succesful.  However, to claim
these can any significant fraction of demand is ludicrous.
> Those that couldn't might
> cooperate with a nearby site with better access to enlarge its array
Excuse me?  When that 'nearby site' isn't filling its own requirements? 
And how are they going to shuttle the electricity back and forth?  Run
cables from building to building?  Any idea of how much retrofitting power
cables would cost? 
> >>> The environmental damage from solar power comes from the vast amount
of
> >>> material required to build it: aluminum, concrete, copper, steels,
glass,
> >>> chromium, cadmium, etc, etc-- far more than a corresponding nuclear
or coal
> >>> plant requires.
> 
> >>Of course, Mike presents no data to support his allegation.
Presented, posted already.  Are the posts not reaching you?  
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France 

On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
> "D. Braun"  writes:
> 
> >  Destruction of primary forests, and the rise in fossil fuel
> >burning, has paralleled the gain in atmospheric carbon.  Noting the rate
> >of carbon fixation in planatations is merely fact-based propaganda, as it
> >is used here, to "justify" logging "decadent" "rotting" old-growth.
> >Puhhlleease. 
> 
> While your basic assumption that logging products necessarily go up in
> flames is solid scientific fact and not a tendentious twisting of facts
> to be able to prove your own pre-determined conclusions, I presume ?
> 
> >Complete and utter horse manure.   Your ignorance about forest ecology is
> >only matched by your willingness to spread it around the world to
> >thousands of readers laughing at your incompetent propaganda. 
> 
> While such lucid and convincing rebuttal of others will open the eyes of
> all readers and immediately convince them the truth of your stand.
> 
> George Antony
So you disagree; but where is your rebuttal? Where is the rest of my
rather long post? I can understand if you don't want to put in the time; I
spend too much of it on the 'net.
		Dave Braun
> 
> 

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: 
: Wrong.  A 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor requires approximately 4000 tons of
: concrete.  We've never been able to build a 1000 megawatt solar plant but
: the ten megawatt plant "Solar One" required almost 20,000 tons of concrete.
:  Five times as much material, for 1/100 the power output....and Solar One
: is only online during the _daytime_.   I will add that, during its short
: period of operation, Solar One managed to catch fire and burn, seriously
: injuring two workers.   So, in a couple of years of operation, a 10 MW
: solar plant managed to cause more human injury than decades of operation by
: over 100 domestic nuclear reactors.  But solar power *is* safe, because we
: think it to be so.
As I stated in another thread, the pro-nuclear crowd must carefully and 
precisely state the "health effects" from commercial nuclear power.  
There have been industrial deaths to *workers* employed by the nuclear 
industry.  The industrial safety rate for commercial nuclear power is 
better than the US average.  Nothing harms an arguement more than 
zealously promoting your point at the expense of the facts.
Cheers,
tooie

On 15 Nov 1996 18:38:59 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >Precisely my point. Genocide has zero economic benefit. But the
> >"economism" of people like you is what brings this about. 
>  
> This is false.  Genocide is the result not of any "economism,"
> whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic racisms. In
> Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient tribalism.
>  
>                                      -dlj.
This is simply not correct, sorry.  The problem in Bosnia, Rwanda, 
Burundi, Azerbajan, Los Angeles and many other places is that a 
relatively affluent minority rules.  As in the French and Russian 
revolutions, a point comes when the majority revolts and sets about
killing off the minority.  This is political economics, not tribalism.
The tribal differences are historic and lie behind the minority rule 
but are not the cause of the revolt.
             Mason
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

The New York Times article is yet to be posted on the Times website,but
the 10 October issue of Nature online has the original paper.

On 15 Nov 1996, Mike Asher wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky  wrote:
> > 
> > : It would also be my guess that at the turn of the century there were
> > : 800 million hungry out of a population of a billion.
> > 
> > How do you know this? The number of hungry people on the planet is now 
> > greater than ever!
> > 
> 
> The FAO figures you quote indicate "malnourished" people.  FAO classifies
> people with sufficient caloric intake, but with a diet 'insufficiently
> varied' as malnourished as well.   Still a problem, of course, but please
> define it properly.
> 
> In Medieval times, 90+% of the population was chronically malnourished.  A
> man was deemed well off if he ate meat once a week.  Most children suffered
> from rickets and other defiency conditions.  Many castles and manor homes
> tossed trenchers (crusts of bread) and other dinner-table scraps to hungry
> people who clustered outside, who fought bitterly for line rights.  Often,
> a government official would, upon their yearly visit to a village, find
> that starvation and disease had wiped out the entire populace sometime in
> the past year, with none the wiser.
> 
> Beer was widely consumed, by children and adults, as water was too
> dangerous to drink.  When you did drink river water, you were taught to
> "strain" it between your teeth to remove the larger creatures found
> naturally in it.
> 
> Even the wealthy had their problems.  Food poisoning was endemic, fruits
> and vegetables were unknown out of season, seafood was impossible unless
> you lived near the coast, and at thirty-five, you needed soft food as your
> teeth had all rotted out...unless an abcessed tooth killed you, as was
> quite common.
> 
> This is the true world of 'organic' farming, biomass power, and
> deindustrialization many environmentalists would have us return to.  I'd
> prefer to work out our problems and stay here.
Mike, your description of medieval times was interesting, but does nothing
to buttress your last paragraph. It is complete fabrication.  The question
is, why do yuo persist in such poor attempts at propaganda? Is every issue
merely entertainment for you? Are you surprised that you get a lot of
replies that are all sarcasm and invective? Did you laugh when Bush called
Al Gore "Captain Ozone"? Do you want anyone to take you seriously outside
of a small circle of ideologically rigid compatriots? Do you see that I am
reduced to asking rhetorical questions, becasue substantive debate with
you is apparently impossible?.
		Dave Braun
> 
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
> 
> "We must make this an insecure an uninhabitable place for capitalists and
> their projects.  This is the best contribution we can make towards
> protecting the earth."
>    - Environmental organization 'Ecotage', Earth First! offshoot.
> 
> 
> 

William Royea  wrote:
>Mike Asher wrote:
>> 
>> Michael Turton wrote:
>> 
>> >>Unfortunately, this is true.   Risk analysis studies rate solar
>> >> power as more dangerous than coal or nuclear.
>> >
>> >This is hilarious!  Solar power more dangerous than
>> >nuclear power.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
>> 
>> My source is "Energy Risk Assessment" Herbert Inhaber, 1983,  Gordon &
>> Breach.  Solar power is rated far more dangerous than nuclear, and even
>> more so than coal, with its deaths from lung disease and mining accidents.
>> 
>> --
>> Mike Asher
>> masher@tusc.net
>Can you please elaborate on the argument presented in this reference?
>William Royea
Oh my God.  I remember the Inhaber article from 1983 and it was flawed
then and even more so now.  As I recall (and I may be wrong) it based
part of its assumptions on the fact that solar would need fossil fuel
back ups when it was not in operation.  that was assumed to be heavily
coal fired and thus a lot of the deaths were attributed to that.  
With uitlity competition coming as well as some future greenhouse gas
restrictions,  most of that article would be obsolete
Regards,
Joel N. Gordes

In article <56i6kd$7gj@service3.uky.edu>,
TL ADAMS   wrote:
[...]
>I would further expand on the arguement that was touched on briefly,
>and that is the perception of influenceable vs uncontrollable risks.
>Falling off of a ladder while cleaning a gutter is a high risk, but
>will be a low preception of risk because the ind. has belief that he
>has control over the risk.  
>
>Another three mile island is an event that I have no control, and have
>lost my preceived abillity to control my own fate.
>
>Therefore, the preception will always be that the controllable is less of
>a risk than the uncontrollable.
You ability to control risks like cutter cleaning are irrelevant to a
discussion of the relative dangers of various means of generating
electricity.
[...]
>But back to the initial discussion, would the comparative risk numbers
>compare at all if on the nuclear side of the risk equation if the implied
>risk from the construction of high tension lines for the power equipement
>were included.  What about the risk incurred from the spraying of 
>defoliants under the power distribution grids.  What about the risks
>from the production of the steel of the towers, the copper and almu.
>of the transmission wires.  (Are all wires made from alum?)  And what
>about the risks of injury from powerline accidents, the fires and transformer
>stations.  Should we include the PCBs lurking in transformers (no,we
>shouldn't).  Takes alot defoliant to spray under those transmission lines.
The risk of maintaining power lines is relevant only where central
power stations are concerned. Thus, it might be necessary to consider
backyard solar and central solar separately.
[...]
>7) Not admitting that you have a secret relationship with a sheep.
You just lost your claim to rationality. I was starting to take you
seriously.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
>: Which reminds me: if we've got a population surplus, howcome the price
>: of labour is going up _everywhere_?
>
>In the Thai toy industry, it is going down, due to competition from
>China.  At least that was the case at the end of 1994.  China has
>hundreds of millions of itinerant surplus laborers.
This word "everywhere" is a great troll for instructive exceptions,
innit?  Anyway, I stand corrected, though not on Thailand.  Toy
assemblers will just move over to the next expanding industry, and
Chinese peasants will start oving up pretty soon.
>Labor cost has also dropped significantly in both the US and UK, due to
>erosion of social protection.  At least that is true for people who
>produce things.  I don't know about the service industry, but the
>anecdotal bits I hear from the US are not inspiring of hope.
Here I stand corrected, and it's a fun example: America does not have
a population crisis in anybody's books.  The white working class,
whose incomes were dropping in real terms for the decade ending second
quarter '96, are not even breeding at replacement rates.
                                    -dlj.

- agriculture ng's trimmed -
On 15 Nov 1996 18:38:59 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
wrote:
>This is false.  Genocide is the result not of any "economism,"
>whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic racisms. In
>Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient tribalism.
> 
>                                     -dlj.
As in Germany? Hitler was elected with the mandate that he 'get rid
of'  those who people blamed for taking their jobs and losing the war,
(thereby driving them into economic turmoil). The rise in popular
support for these racist actions was definitely economically driven.
Sound familiar?
As far as Rwanda, do you think the Hutus systematically murdered
hundreds of thousands simply out of hatred, or was it out of greed for
the land, resources and the benefits of a smaller population?
The fact that Mobutu, Zaire's dictator, has gradually built up a $7
billion personal empire from his country's wealth is reason enough to
spark rebellion. Rebellion which Mobutu has attempted keep down in
part by supporting the Hutus genocide. Just another expense of
maintaining his empire I guess.
Jason McGinnis

In article <328ce6fa.2606136@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, masonc@ix.netcom.com 
(Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>
>On 15 Nov 1996 17:23:22 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) 
wrote:
>> The amount of steel required to make cars is indeed linear in the
>> number of cars being made.  Linear relationships dominate the economy,
>> except in a few areas like semiconductor memory which are dominated by
>> capital costs and design costs.
>> 
>  Here lies the most common fallacy in economics:  linearity.
Of course, this is only a fallacy that nono-economists interpret into
economics when mouthing off about it without the merest factual
knowledge.  After all, economics seems to be the one professional 
area that anybody knows perfectly well without any qualifications.
>  Linearity is valid ONLY for short time intervals.   And time is of 
>  the essence, e.g. "the number of cars being made" is a time variable.
>
>  There are NO linear relationships in economics over long time 
intervals.
Congratulations, you have just invented the wheel.
>   Classical and neo-classical economics are polluted with linearity 
>   assumptions.
Do try to immerse yourself in economics a little bit more than leafing
through a textbook used for introducing concepts to absolute beginners
via greatly simplified figures.  You may find that the models that 
economists actually use are far from all being linear.
George Antony

On 14 Nov 1996 17:19:23 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>Yuri Kuchinsky includes:
>
>     World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people
>     are starving on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink
>     glasses.
>
>I'm sure that "starving" isn't the word that was used by the World
>Food Organization.  If 800 million were starving, and the report was
>from last year, we would expect them to be dead by now.  Would
>Kuchinsky tell us what actually happened or will happen in the next
>year or two?
You want to know what's happening? Can you face the truth?
U.N. World Food Council documents:
-------
Every day around the world 40,000 people die of hunger. That's 28
human beings every minute, and three out of four of them
are children under the age of five.
The number of hungry people increased five times faster in the 1980s
than in the previous decade. By 1989, 550 million people filled the
ranks of the malnourished or hungry.
-------
This shows quite plainly that things are not getting better. Since
1989 the number of people facing famine has almost doubled. These
people are not simply upset that they have to live on swill instead of
a Big Mac and fries, they're dying.
If everyone produced and consumed food as North Americans do, there
would only be enough food on the planet to feed 2.5 Billion people. On
the other hand if Americans reduced their meat consumption by just
10%, it would free up 12 million tons of grain anually - more than
enough to feed all those facing famine.
Jason McGinnis

Andrew H. Bond wrote:
> 
> In article <01bbc12f$7b0a0ae0$3b7713cc@default>, ccf@mtl.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> >John A. Keslick, Jr.  a écrit dans l'article
> ><326AC81F.7FCB@pond.com>...
> >> 1.) Do you recycle?
> 
> Yes, I recycle trees with my chain-saw, they make excellent firewood!
We recycle people.Andrew H. Bond wrote:
> 
> In article <01bbc12f$7b0a0ae0$3b7713cc@default>, ccf@mtl.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> >John A. Keslick, Jr.  a écrit dans l'article
> ><326AC81F.7FCB@pond.com>...
> >> 1.) Do you recycle?
> 
> Yes, I recycle trees with my chain-saw, they make excellent firewood!
-- 
John A. Keslick Jr.              If you are not OUTRAGED you're not  
Tree Anatomist & Tree Biologist                   paying attention.
Phone: 610-696-5353                    Support ORGANIC FARMERS.
organic tree treatment web site: 
http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/  OR  http://www.ccil.org/~kenm/env/

Energy from the Environment.
It is conceded that the extraction and conversion of the 
Thermal Energy ( K) of the environment, to Potential 
Energy, i.e. the ability to perform work, is a concept that 
is generally considered unacceptable.
Nevertheless, a means of achieving such a conversion, is 
established in nature, which circumvents the restrictions 
of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, without 
contravening them, and offers an unprecedented 
opportunity to secure a practical energy conversion, with 
the most profound and immediate potential benefit.
The theory upon which this concept is based, is unique to 
conversion from a thermal reservoir in the absence of a 
natural temperature gradient A thermal reservoir such as 
this exists only in this context, and therefore, is not 
relevant to any other application. An analogy may be 
drawn with the concept of the geo-stationary satellite, in 
its' unique application.
This concept  can actually be demonstrated by a 
currently unexplained, but factual example.
This claim, specifically, does NOT relate to the "heat 
pump", which does realise thermal energy from the 
thermal environment, and specifically, does NOT relate 
to  potential energy converted from existing NATURAL 
thermal gradients, in selected areas, ie. OTEC.
These new proposals offer conversion within a 
UNIVERSAL environment, where ever an accessible 
energy source is sufficient to sustain the requisite energy 
drain. The thermal storage capacity of this source, is the 
only limiting factor to the amount of energy that can be 
extracted.
The profound implications of such a breakthrough are 
most obvious to the discerning physicist. It is of 
particular note, that the massive capacity of oceans, to 
absorb and retain, the radiated heat from the sun, coupled 
with Oceans' thermal convection and physical flow 
characteristics, make an ideal source of virtually 
unlimited renewable unpolluting energy, within the 
context of our planets' composition.
There are also countless other components in the earth's 
environment which have extremely important practical 
applications, not the least of which, is the transient 
thermal energy in the ambient air or water of a moving 
vehicle or vessel.
The conviction that there IS an indirect route, via old and 
largely neglected technology, to the realisation of energy 
from the environment, has been received, not 
surprisingly, with profound derision, impatience and an 
unwillingness to consider such a possibility.
Over many years, however this criticism has only served 
to engender even more effort to substantiate the 
conviction.
Now in the evening of his retirement from a life time of 
substantial scientific involvement, the author is anxious 
that the perceived value of his concept will not be lost

THE KILLING OF THE SEA’S MAJESTIC MARAUDERS AT DAWN
JAPAN HAS BEEN CONDEMNED OVER WHALE HUNTING.  NOW IT IS ALLOWING DOLPHIN
HUNTING, REPORTS HERALD CORRESPONDENT RUSSELL SKELTON.
Tokyo: The slaughter season started at first light, soon after the first
golden streaks of a new day broke across the sky in the small fishing
port of Futo.
By nightfall the waters of the port were red with the blood of 75
bottle-nosed dolphins.  It was a crude and brutal end for the majestic
marauders of the sea.
The dolphin were herded into nets, dragged from the water by crane and
beheaded with a chainsaw.  The carcasses were then gutted and packed in
ice for the local sashimi bars, where raw fish is eaten.
This month’s slaughter was the first in two years.  Local Government
authorities gave in to pressure from local fishermen to permit the
kill.  In an attempt to appease environmentalists the catch was
restricted to 75.
The fishermen rounded up more than 200 dolphins and eight pilot whales. 
The whales and excess dolphins were later released.
Witnesses said the trapped dolphins fought ferociously in the nets
trying to get free.  In the struggle many were lacerated on the
synthetic lines.
A spokesman for the Department of Fisheries said dolphin were fished in
waters around the world, including Australia, Canada and America.
“The fact that it occurs accidentally or deliberately should not
matter,” he said.  “The fact that they are caught does.”
Japanese fishermen needed to cut back dolphin numbers, he said, because
there were too many and they depleted fish stocks in the Sea of Japan.
“What is going on is a perfectly natural process.”
He attacked the “Western media” for publicising the dolphin hunts,
saying it was emotional journalism aimed at sensationalising the issue.
“We have all these other countries catching porpoise.  Why the focus on
Japan?”
Futo is on the coast, Shizuoka Prefecture, just south of Tokyo on the
Izu peninsula.
At the hunt divers from the local aquarium were allowed first selection
of the healthiest mammals.
Japan has drawn bitter criticism from world environmental groups for its
refusal to give up hunting and consuming whales.  But little publicity
has been given to regular dolphin culls which occur in eight of japan’s
coastal prefectures.
According to Fisheries Department statistics, Japan is the only country
that hunts dolphin.  Last year close to 14,000 dolphins were caught
between Hokkaido, in the north, and Okinawa, in the south.
By far the most popular variety of dolphin with Japan’s fishermen is
Dall porpoise, a slick species of dolphin with a perpetual “smile”.
Figures show 12,396 were caught last year.  The next most popular was
the bottle-nosed, of which 890 were caught.
In contrast, Australia reported the accidental catch of 26 dolphins last
year and the United States 70.
Greenland suspended dolphin fishing in 1993, but its last catch was just
over 1,000.
---------
PICTURE:  Fisherman watch as trapped dolphin struggle in nets.  
INSERTED PICTURE: severed head of a dolphin in a plastic crate.
CAPTION:  “In for the kill as day breaks... water turns blood-red as
fishermen herd dolphins cut on fishing nets and (right) the head of a
bottle-nosed dolphin, cut off with a chainsaw, lies in a basket.”
SYDNEY MORNING HERALD
16 NOVEMBER 1996
http://www.smh.com.au/daily/
ENDS

On 15 Nov 1996 06:39:04 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
> In their fixation with energy as the measure of value, they were
> precursors of the energy religion of today.  I don't think they
> imagined that there was a shortage, however, so they weren't quite as
> dumb.
  All are dumb but me and ye, and I've doubts about ye.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------