Newsgroup sci.environment 109897

Directory

Steinn Sigurdsson  wrote:
> 
> > The December Scientific American has a brief note on plastic solar 
> > cells (market name of the polymer:  Lumeloid).  In theory, it could 
> > convert 75% of incident light into electricity... 
> I don't believe that. With a broadband spectrum like the solar
> spectrum it is virtually impossible to get 75% conversion 
> efficiencies.....
> It is conceivable the 75% efficiency quoted is the
> conversion efficiency from some narrow band (standard) source,
> it would not be the practical efficiency.
> 
Steinn, you're obviously ignorant of the beauty of this approach.  They get
the 75% efficiency rating by fermenting beet sugar, burning the resultant
alchohol to provide heat, converting the heat into electricity, using the
electricity to power a monochromatic light source, which then shines on the
PV cell.   A wonderfully inventive low-tech, zero-emission solution to our
energy needs.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither
equality nor freedom."
Milton Friedman 

CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk (A. Whitworth) wrote for all to see:
>In article <01bbcedc$8f0ad780$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher" 
> wrote:
>>
>>>  alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
>>> 
>>>For the umpteenth time, people don't "make" resources. 
>>> 
>I don't know exactly what some of these are made of but even 
>as a layman I feel obliged to point out the odd hole in this 
>line of reasoning....
>
>>What about computer chips, are they a resource? 
>
>Chips = silicon, a mineral
If you are worried about running out of silicon any time soon, you can
stop right now.  Rest assured that the potential supply of silicon is
enormous.
>>How about plastics? 
>
>Plastics = oil, a mineral
Not all plastics are made from oil, in fact, I am not even sure a
majority are anymore.  All plastics could be made from any organic
scrap you have laying around, coal, or from natural gas.  It would be
more expensive today than using oil cracking sludge, but there are
active research programs to reduce this expense.
Essentially, you can take a material that is not useful today, and
convert it into a useful material, the same as turning a rock into a
hoe by breaking it and tying it to a stick, just faster and easier.
Regards, Harold
----
"But I am deeply convinced that any permanent, regular, administrative 
system whose aim will be to provide for the needs of the poor will breed 
more miseries than it can cure, will deprave the population that it wants
to help and comfort, will in time reduce the rich to being no more than 
the tenant-farmers of the poor, will dry up the source of savings, will 
stop the accumulation of capital, will retard the development of trade, 
will benumb human industry and activity"
          --Alexis de Tocqueville, Memoir on Pauperism , 1835

Mason A. Clark (masonc@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 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"?
Over 99% of human history it was more or less stable.
: During recorded history
Don't be silly. This is only 1% of human history. Back to Historical 
Anthropology 101 with you...
: 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.
Yuri.
--
           **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
  -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal

dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> Hell, if we suddenly figured out an industrial
>use for iodine, gold would be a glut on the market because we'd it'd
>be a byproduct of the seawater industry. 
Iodine is mostly produced from underground brines, waste from
the oil industry, and from nitrates in Chile.  It is no longer
produced from seaweed, and there was never primary production from
plain seawater. At the current price of around $10/kg, it would be
difficult to extract it economically from seawater (where it occurs at
a concentration of 50 ppb.)
See http://minerals.er.usgs.gov:80/minerals/pubs/mcs/iodine.txt
for the current status of iodine production.  Current world
production is about 15 kilotonnes per year; the global reserve base is
nearly 10 megatonnes (not including seaweed or seawater), mostly
in Japan.
     Paul Dietz
     dietz@interaccess.com
     "If you think even briefly about what the Federal
      budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately
      realize that we are drifting inexorably toward a
      crisis"
        -- Paul Krugman, in the NY Times Book Review

i am currently in my final year of university in england.i have chosen
sustainable development and the compact city model as my project .can
anyone tell me where is a good place to access information on it.
              many thanks
                                   Dick

Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> 
> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
> 
> >       In order to achieve a 10% reduction, the investment
> > would be massive.  It requires a lot of iron, in semi-soluble
> > form, delivered to remote areas, some with particularly hostile
> > climates.
> 
> "Massive"? Depends on how clever you are at doing it.
> Sometime ago someone criticised this on cost grounds
> by assuming the fertilization would be done by hercules
> aircraft flying in "forest fire" mode.
> Since nanomolar concentrations are required, the simplest
> design would probably be a small fleet of iron rafts
> free-floating in the currents, with a GPS locator, transponder,
> and a small PV+battery system to drive Fe ions into solution.
> 
> Low raw materials cost, not much material, and you accept
> short mean raft lifetimes.
> 
> >       Plus, it's a one-time reduction with a substantial lag
> > time. Once you've saturated the surface ocean with CO2, you
> > have to wait for circulation and biology to remove the excess
> > CO2 put into the upper ocean before more can be added.  That
> > could take several years.  (This was Broecker's main objection
> > to the idea.)
> 
> Not necessarily, what you have is a new sink, with organic
> detritous falling to the sea floor and being buried at some
> asymptotic constant rate.
> So there is an impulsive draw down and then a long
> term additional sink.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here.   But it would all be
clearer if either or both of you included some numbers.  Of course, at
this point, such numbers would involve enormous uncertainties, but at
least we would have something to start talking about.   If in fact it
is not possible to come up with any meanigful numbers at all, then that
in itself would be useful information.
> 
> Added bonus is you get masively increased net primary production,
> some people will also consider that an added detriment.
Yes.  I would like those people also to comment.  If I understand the
proposal correctly, in order to make even a dent of say 10 % drop
(of current, not projected levels) would reequire very large scale
fertilization of large areas.  (As I indicated above, I don't know how
much, but would like someone also to comment on that.) What types of
effects on the oceanic ecology might result?  Wpould these be likely to
be overwhelmingly benign, in increased fish populations which could be
harvested, for example.   Or would there be significant negative effects
because of the change in the balance among existing species?   Remember
the rabbits in Australia, for example.
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

As the happy (and quite healthy, I might add) owner of a rather large
solar array, I find this whole concept quite humorous. My most
"dangerous" ocurrence having happened when I was getting a good, early
morning start rewiring and I managed to give myself a rather thorough
sunburn...
	Now granted, I realize from scanning the thread (there's been way too
much for me to read it all) that the greater focus is on larger,
industrial-sized production and the dangers inherant therein, but one
must realize that there's danger in everything - be it falling off a
rooftop or scaffold while wiring a solar array or getting irradiated
while inspecting a nuclear reactor.
	What few people realize is something that we in the (leather) Lifestyle
have come to recognize as inherant in the world - it is coloquialized by
the term "Ulgol's Law" - which simply says that for anything you can
think of trying, someone somewhere is already doing or has already tried
it and, conversely, anything that you might be a proponent of, someone
somewhere is steadfastly against.
	I'll continue to be quite happy in my solar existance. I clean the
panels whenever the rains don't do if for me and in the meantime I'll
enjoy the benefits of a nearly effortless and endless supply of
virtually free electricity.
R. Shadowfax
-- 
Shadowfax Leathercraft
P.O. Box 10451
Sarasota, Florida 34278-0451  USA
Email:  Shadowfax@mindspring.com
Web:  http://magenta.com/shadowfax (under construction)
Please include Email address with all
snail-mail correspondence. Thank you.

On 14 Nov 1996 18:09:27 GMT, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK
) wrote:
>Adam Ierymenko (api@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
>: In article <566u65$68h7@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>: 	bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
>: >: Good points, all.  Also we might note that environmentalists traditionally
>: >: want us to work harder and lower our standard of living.  It is a basic
>: >: tenet of environmentalism.
>: >
>: >Quotes here.  No-one says this except you guys parroting the
>: >"enviro-nazi" nonsense.
>: >
>: >Address the fact that the number of person-hours required to keep a home
>: >has skyrocketed in the US over the last 3 to 4 decades.
>
>: Could have something to do with the increase in energy prices.  Probably also
>: has something to do with the fact that we're dragging an increasing amount of
>: lazy freeloaders behind us, and taxes keep going up.
>
>Explain that to the working poor.  I mean people working 40 or more
>hours per week and are classified as below the poverty line.  This class
>in both absolute and relative terms is larger than at any time in
>this Century.
I simply do not believe your claim. You are saying that there are more
poor workers now than in the age of the robber barons, etc? Keep in
mind that a huge percentage of the workforce were poor farmers early
in this century.
There are lots of people who fall in the cracks between welfare and
independents. This is an area of concern. However, when you look at
the high level of taxation that any working person pays, it is no
wonder that many are poor.
>Explain why energy prices are up at all, especially when oil in constant
>dollars is very low (if not the lowest in history -- it is a point very
>often made by economic conservatives).
I don't believe energy prices ARE high in historical terms.
>
>: Notice that quite a bit of that skyrocketing has occured since the Pres.
>: Johnson created the great society hammock.. errr.. safety net.
>
>The erosion of which is causing no improvements.
WHAT erosion? We are attempting to reduce costs of one class of
welfare recipients: those who are on welfare. But how about all the
farmers and their welfare? We haven't made enough progress there. And
the biggest problem in this regard is the elderly.
But consider that there are three negative effects to social welfare
programs:
	-they reduce the incentive for working
	-the put a load on the productive
	-unless shame is associated with them (as it used to be), they
encourage a change to values such as "I have a right to my welfare!"
(true quote), and crap like that.
No one has figured out how to avoid starving people and yet at the
same time not create a bad moral environment. 

jp10@calvanet.calvacom.fr (J.R. Pelmont) wrote:
>As for the digestion of cellulose producing edible stuff (glucose,
>xylose), cellulolytic bacteria and fungi have already received much
>attention from scientists in this field. Sugars issued from plant
>polysaccharide breakdown are a much more important source of food than
>protein. Cellulolytic bacteria are not confined to the termite digestive
>tract, nor it is to the rumen in cows, but are also present in soil. The
>problem is so far the hydrolysis of cellulose by bacteria or by isolated
>enzymes. Although it is obtained experimentally, it is still difficult
>to handle on practical grounds, and no satisfactory process has been
>found yet allowing any mass production at a reasonable cost.
The US DOE is currently funding a small project to explore the
addition of cellulase genes to plants (Arabidopsis being the plant
chosen for the study, it being the model for plant genetic
engineering.)  The genes are from thermophilic bacteria, and have low
activity at normal temperature.  The idea is to grow the plant,
harvest it, then heat it up to activate the enzymes.  No separate
manufacture of enzymes or culture of microorganisms would be needed.
Their goal is to provide a cheaper feedstock for ethanol production,
but I don't see why it couldn't also be developed for use as a
foodstuff.
	Paul

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
: >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.
Nice to see you admit that you trolled.  Anyway, the US labor force is
in fact expanding... birthrate plus immigration is over replacement, and
birth rate alone (last I looked it was 1.9/couple) is pretty close by
itself.  Don't forget what demographic momentum will do with a birthrate
close to 2.0/couple.
Your focus on the white working class may be of some interest.
Elaboration is welcome.
--
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 (api@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
: In article <56fmuq$5omj@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
: 	bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
[talking about N Am natives and their treatment]
: >It is worth learning just how severe that holocaust was.  We are not
: >taught that in our schools, for obvious reasons.
: It probably should be taught, but it wouldn't do much good.  All we can do
: is make sure holocausts never happen again, unless we invent a time machine.
But it is still going on.  Read this site:
    http://dickshovel.netgate.net/Wemust.html
_That_ is why it isn't taught (sad I had to explain that...)
--
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/

Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
: [deleted]
: >Explain that to the working poor.  I mean people working 40 or more
: >hours per week and are classified as below the poverty line.  This class
: >in both absolute and relative terms is larger than at any time in
: >this Century.
: Where do you get this data from, as it is in contrast to what I have
: seen.  Do you have a source?
You first!   (see, Betsy, I told you so :-)
--
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/

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: The absolute number of malnourished people is down slightly - from 800
: million to 700 million.  The objective is to bring it down to 400
: million by 2015.
: 	      This week an expected 100 heads of state and
:      government gather in Rome for the U.N. Food and Agriculture
:      Organisation's (FAO) World Food Summit to pledge to reduce
:      the number of under-nourished to 400 million by 2015.
:  
: 	      They will agree that the world, with some 800
:      million people lacking enough food to meet their basic
:      nutritional needs, must act to increase production
:      significantly.
: The source on which I read it was down slightly is not in accordance
: with the above extract from a news story about the Rome food meeting
: going on at present.
What was the source?
--
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/

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.
:     Pollyanna environmentalists are linearity ideologues.  Oh, oh, now I've
:     insulted someone.  Sorry, my control system is non-linear today.
No, you've tagged the wrong side.  We are overshoot and crash
specialists.  Decidedly nonlinear.  Simple models which assume that all
forcing is linear (or at most quadratic) and dissipative is the sort of
garbage I am criticising.
Convince me you know what these things mean if you want to go any
further.  These are precise terms.
--
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/

Leonard Evens (len@math.nwu.edu) wrote:
: John Moore wrote:
: > 
: > Let me also point out that Idso (1989) [a historical climatologist]
: > suggested that greenhouse warming may actually decrease the frequency
: > and intensity of hurricanes. I have heard Idso speak on the topic.
: > 
: Let me suggest that you not rely on one selectively chosen source.
: If I remember correctly, Idso is one of the few `greenhouse critics', so
: while his opinion may be useful, it is worthwhile trying to get a broad
: range of opinions.   This is just the purpose of the Intergovernmental
: Panel on Climate Change.   I have just checked Chapter
: 6 of Climate Change, 1995 [...]
Further, Idso wrote that in 1989, when it was still quite reasonable to
deny global warming, even as a strong possibility.  Most of our data
(even the long term stuff) has been processed post-1992.
--
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/

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >People who deny the reality of overpopulation also prevent any action that
: >may address this problem. Thus they are responsible to a certain degree,
: >some more than others. McCarthy not to the same degree as the Pope who is
: >perhaps the biggest criminal. 
:  
: Population is under control. 
No, it's not. The population is increasing catastrophically in precisely 
the poorest countries in the world. Look for more genocide and forced 
migrations to the rich countries where the incidence of racism is likely 
to increase accordingly. Case in point: France and Le Pen. Also the rise 
of nativism in California.
Also look for increased totalitarianism in global politics -- courtesy of
fake-Libertarianism. 
: The relative birth rate has been
: delining since 1969-70,
This is statistical trickery.
: and the absolute number of births has been
: declining since 1986 or so. 
Incorrect. I heard that the net global population increase last year was
the greatest ever. 
: The number of new mothers will start to
: decline in the next five years, and the total number of possible
: mothers a few years after that.   
*If* some positive changes are happening -- you have to thank people like
Paul Ehrlich, a great benefactor of humanity. People like DLJ and other
(fake)-Libertarians are the people who did their best to counteract any
positive endeavor in this area. Rwanda, and now Zaire, are attributable 
to their efforts in no small measure.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
-- 
Yuri Kuchinsky          | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient 
Toronto ... the Earth	| and the most modern serpents."  F. Nietzsche
-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------

Michael Turton (mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw) wrote:
: 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.  
I'm hardly an energy historian, but I would think that the move in Britain
to coal from wood a few centuries back, and whale oil to crude oil in the
century, would be examples.
One of these days, I'd like to read "The Doomsday Myth : 10,000 Years of 
Economic Crises," S. Charles Maurice and Charles W. Smithson, Hoover
Institution Press, 1984. They apparently go through a number of such
episodes.
  .---.   Bill Goffe                                 bgoffe@whale.st.usm.edu
 (    |   Dept. of Econ. and International Business   office: (601) 266-4484
  )__*|   University of Southern Mississippi             fax: (601) 266-4920
    (_|   Southern Station, Box 5072
          Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5072

masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote for all to see:
>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.
I am not sure what you mean.  Much as I dislike agreeing with Yuri (he
says so much I guess he must be right occasionally, like a busted
analog clock), but, taking world population as a whole the human
population was very stable up until about 6000 BC.  Introduction of
agriculture, you know.
It grew slowly but steadily until about 1400, when it started to
increase drastically.  There was another spurt at 1800 - 1900.
Interestingly enough though, and contrary to popluar mythology, the
majority of humans who have ever lived are dead.  Estimates are from
77 to 80 billion people have lived on Earth, including today's
population.  See "Popultaion Studies", edited by K. Kammeyer, CHicago,
Rand Mcnalley, 1975.  which contains an article entitled "How Many
People Have Ever Lived on Earth?", by Anabelle Desmond.
Regards, Harold
----
"In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those 
who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."
	---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, pt. 2, 
	ch. 5 (1840).

Bob Falkiner  wrote:
 to get very very dirty.
> If you want a quick mass balance lesson, take a 1:20 mix, run it for an
> hour in a lawn mower, and compare that to your car. Then come back to me
> and we'll have another discussion about mass balances.
> not dreaming in any colour.....  this is a straight mass balance. take a
> gross emitter at 20 gm/mi HC and multiply it out yourself!!!
Gee, phrase like mass balance I might almost believe you to be a 
breathen Chem. Eng. 
> 
> When Emissions reach ULEV values the urban problems will vanish, and we
> will still be left with this massive beurocracy to support.
Why?  Local CA agencies rise and fall with budgets and whims of the
governors.  I/M programs have come and gone, suceeded and failed. Areas
have achieved Ozone attainment status and programs have been dropped.
Have more faith in the citizens, they won't fund a program that they
don't see a benefit for,  Well, not entirely true.
I cut apart of your statement about 90% of the reductions have been made
that can be made. Your very right about this.  The big reductions that
were made in the early days are behinds us.  To get further reductions
from automobiles is going to be very difficult.  Diminishing returns on
the dollar.  One of my early comments was that a new source standard
for lawnmowers was the one of the good options for biggest reduction
for the dollar.  It isn't the PVC valve in terms of reductions of tons
for an investment of $10.00, but its has a much higher tons/dollar ratio
than a extreme I/M plan.  And if we look at the politics/justice issues
its a cost being born on the purchasers of new equipment as opposed as
a cost on the owner of older vehicles, assumption is that they don't
have the ability to pay.  
So lets get a whole new arguement started.  Do any of you all know
about the carbon adsorbtion cylinders that are going to be required
on all new cars in 98 (? or 99).  Its purpose is to capture the
vapors displace during refueling, which makes stage two vapour balance
system in Cal. and others unneeded.  Me, I'm not please at this.
If you want to control these VOC's and of course reduce the publics
exposure to benzene, why not go to requiring vapour balance system
at all gas stations.  It does not make sense to me, instead of a 
moderate cost to the gas station owners (and yes, I know that this
cost will be paid eventally by the consumers), the plan is to force
the consumer to pay a larger cost for the Carbon sorbers.  And you get
less of an emission reduction, as the onboard cylindar will only reduce
the emissions from new cars.  Politics, go figure.

In article <56j7kb$5lp@news2.lakes.com>,
	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>>I predict that there will be earthquakes in the next decade.
>>I also predict hurricaines and tornadoes.  I'm not even a climatologist,
>>but I bet I'm right.
>
>>Did he say where these famines would take place?  Famines have always been
>>hitting 3rd-world poor countries.
>
>that is true, but have they always been due to an extended drought or
>desertification?
Much of the famine in the last two decades in Africa has been the result of
bad politics.  Dictator after dictator, war after war.  It's not that there
isn't enough food in the world to feed these people; it's that it isn't getting
to them because of the political situation.  The U.S. generates a surplus
of food, and if Africa had free and stable systems of government it could
probably afford to buy food from the U.S., not to mention investing in
agricultural technology to improve their own yield.

In article <56j7un$5lp@news2.lakes.com>,
	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>>>Approximately 7.5 tons of plutonium was put in the atmosphere by the
>>>atmospheric bomb tests.
>
>>Really puts the 10 pounds in the space probe into perspective.
>
>considering approx .1 gram of plutonium is enough to posion all of New
>York City. What the hell your dead and can only be killed once.
Then how did we survive the bomb tests that put *7.5 tons* of plutonium into
the atmosphere.  More people should have died of the U.S. bomb tests than in
the holocaust.  That didn't happen.
.1 gram.. do you have any idea how small that is?  Gimme a break.  Rush
Limbaugh would be proud of that one.  I don't think even he could top that
brazen and ridiculous a lie.

In article <328CBB54.7EE4@qnet.com>,
	frank tymon  writes:
>Name calling sure is fun, but it doesn't solve problems.
>Statistics prove whatever you want them to prove. Look at the polls.
I think astrology is probably more accurate than using statistics to determine
reality.  (Statistics prove it!)
The overuse and inappropriate use of statistics in this culture is frightening.

In article <56irdr$51o@news2.lakes.com>,
	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>johnie boore min erupts in shit once again
OOhhh.. ad-hominem!
[deleted]
>>>Correlation does not equal causation.  You must prove that increased CO2
>>>concentrations have led to this weather, rather than it just being a natural
>>>strange weather pattern.  Strange weather patterns have occurred before there
>>>was this much fossil-fuel burning going on.
This is what I wrote above.  I repeat it again.  You have to prove causation,
not correlation.  Here's an example (stolen from someone else in this
newsgroup):
Soft-drink consumption goes up in summer
Malaria instances go up in summer
Therefore, soft drinks cause malaria
In fact, the number of malaria mosquitoes also goes up in summer...
>>First you have to prove that the *climate* is significantly different,
>>which he failed to do.
>
>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.
I'm not a climatologist, but judging from the unwarranted hostility in your
response I would guess that he probably hit on something that's weak in
your position or that you don't know enough to refute.
>>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.
Has it ever happened before?  You have to prove that burning fossil fuels
caused it *this time*.  Wierd weather has happened before.  A whole ice-age
happened before the industrial revolution.  Unless you think the ice-age
was caused by pollution from the little grey aliens in flying saucers, you
have to concede that weather can be unpredictable and can change quite a bit
naturally.
>>He failed to do that.
>
>no the only one that failed is poor little johnie
>
>>Obviously there was one more breakdown in our educational system (a
>>very common one) which is in understanding statistical reasoning and
>>why it is important.
>
>yup you are a damn good example of that. Absolutely no science/math
>background
More publik ejucashen need us!!!

In article <01bbd3e5$52a77ba0$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher"  says:
>Steinn, you're obviously ignorant of the beauty of this approach.  They get
>the 75% efficiency rating by fermenting beet sugar, burning the resultant
>alchohol to provide heat, converting the heat into electricity, using the
>electricity to power a monochromatic light source, which then shines on the
>PV cell.   A wonderfully inventive low-tech, zero-emission solution to our
>energy needs.
>
>--
>Mike Asher
>masher@tusc.net
>
>"A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither
>equality nor freedom."
>Milton Friedman 
>
Who said that Rube Goldberg is dead?

Rod Adams wrote:
> William, do you really expect that cleaning
> solar cells will be a lucrative profession that attracts the most
> careful individuals provided with the latest and greatest in safety
> equipment?
If this is your only "energy" cost, yes. The only concession I'll make
is that the initial manufacturing/installation costs of solar panels is
not cost effective if you only account for the direct costs of nuclear
and coal. If you take into account the cost of the wars we wage, the
cost of nuclear waste disposal, the cost of security, etc. etc. I can
easily see us paying $20/hour to these solar panel cleaners and still
coming out ahead.
> William, you are dead wrong on this comment.  The amount of concrete
> needed to build a containment vessel is well documented, but even if
> it were not, you could do a rough calculation based on the size
> of the building and the thickness of the walls.
> 
> If you even attempted to run the numbers, you would find that even a
> thin layer of concrete spread over 75 acres (Solar 1) uses
> more concrete than a typical 1000 MW nuclear power plant containment
> building.  Solar 1, however, only generates about 50 MW peak power.
Why do you insist on developing Solar 1 plants? Solar one is a poorly
engineered solar plant. If you had solar cells on rooftops rather than
on dedicated land, you would already have the structural support. And
don't give me this BS about rooftops not being able to sustain such
loads.
> Again, there are numbers that refute your claim.  If you put all of
> the high level nuclear waste produced in US nuclear plants over their
> entire operating lives into approved storage containers and lined the
> containers up on a football field, you would not completely cover
> the field. (The containers are about 15 feet tall.)
Boy, I'd sure love to work at that facility.
> That material, as well as most other material often referred to as
> nuclear waste, is also just as recycleable as the cadmium needed
> in the batteries of your solar system.
> You also stated that no matter how you generate electricity, you still
> need to store it.  That is false, my friend.  
Looking back on what I stated, you are right, I am wrong. Nonetheless,
the peak load hours are during the summer, right smack in the middle of
the day, when the sun is at its peak. You will have storage
requirements, but cadmium is not necessary, because even the load
levelers used today in other countries run off lead-acid batteries just
fine.
If all the nuclear waste is recyclable as you claim it is, why the hell
are we burying it in the ground in sealed containers. That sounds more
like a land fill than a recycling plant.
William

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
> Hehehe.  Are you serious with this argument?  First of all, the total area
> of every rooftop in the country is certainly a "vast collection area".
> Secondly, falls are already the second leading cause of accidental death in
> the US.   Even if "trained individuals" did perform the cleaning, it is
> these same individuals that die by the thousands every year from falling
> off roofs.  Also, to think that most homeowners will pay someone to come
> out weekly or monthly and clean their collectors is ludicrous-- most people
> will do it themselves.
I am serious with this argument. Moreover, if you'll re-read what I
orignially wrote, I stated that rooftops do not constitute a vast
collection area "DEDICATED" to energy collection.
Why do you find it so outrageous that homeowners would be willing to
pay for someone to clean solar arrays? I won't disagree that the
initial cost of manufacturing and putting up solar cells is currently
too
costly to be a feasible replacement for coal or nuclear- that is if you
only consider the direct costs of coal and nuclear and assume that
you're
paying for the solar array coverage area. However, once up and
running, the only maintancence comes down to cleaning the arrays, and I
would argue that that is far cheaper than the price of energy today.
Suppose it was mandatory that you allow energy companies to put solar
cells on your rooftop. These companies wouldn't have to compensate you
for doing so, and the startup cost would then be considerably cheaper.
Your energy costs would come primarily from cleaning the solar arrays. 
> > The containment system for a nuclear plant uses far
> > more concrete than any equivalent-power producing solar array.
> 
> 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.
Look, I'm not saying that Solar One is a well-engineered solar plant. If
you put solar arrays  on rooftops, the structural support is already
there.
You're comparing a system that's been around for some time (nuclear)
with a beaurcratic prototype of a system that hasn't even been adopted
in
this country. There are better ways to go about solar energy collection
than Solar One.
William

Ron Jeremy wrote:
> 
....del
> 
> FYI, 1997 DOE fiscal projections (I'm sure the actual numbers are out now
> if anyone really cares)
> 
> LWR research                            $40 million
> Nuclear R&D;                             $30 million
> 
> Energy efficiency and renewables        $369 million
> Energy conservation                     $760 million
> 
I ask:
What were '96 DOE expenditures in these areas?  What were '86 
expenditures?

REQUEST FOR COLLABORATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
We make research and actually we are completly financed by a committent.
For new researches we would like to have the collaboration of Industrial
Partners, interested in introducing advanced items in their market.
Every item is patented or can be patented.  
In Europe there is the possibility for Partners to have E.C.C. founds to
whom we are not interested in any way. We are looking for financial
Partners and for laboratories too in order to realize practically and
industrially our discoveries.
	These are some of the fields we are working in :
1 - INDUSTRIAL INSULATION
	The subtitution of the actual insulating materials ( plastic foams,
rock wool ) generally known to have long term defects and ecological
problems with new insulating elements e.g. special foamed and not foamed
and dense glass or ceramic elements, ecologically perfect and lasting 20
- 50 year
and recycling possibility.
2 - METAL PRODUCTION
	We have developed a new metal-organic ecological route to obtain
metals; e.g. magnesium, titanium, zirconium, silicon, aluminium, so
saving energy.
3 - High temperature service development of a stable SELF EXTINGUISHING
epoxy resin with electrical high insulation power 
	Epoxy resins and epoxy foams for long term usage at 200° C / 250° C for
continuos service.
4 - RAPID ULTRAVIOLET PRODUCTION OF SPECIAL URETHANE - ACRILATE
	Abrasion resistant, excellent flexibility and stability for films,
flooring protection, car protection, paper protection, metal and mortar
protection. Unlimited applications for item protection.
5 - NEW RESINS
	High temperature, oil, grease, water, solvent resistant till 300° C.
	We are engaged in many types of researches, from plastic to ceramic, to
ceramic superconductors etc.
If You think to have the same interest in our researches, or if You have
specific items to subject us along with our type of research, or if You
are interested in financing, receiving an eventual license or if You are
interested in a local collaboration with us,
please send an E-MAIL and we would be glad to answer You
scienza@pianeta.it

bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
>: The relative birth rate has been
>: delining since 1969-70,
>
>This is statistical trickery.
Nope.  It's a plain fact.
>: and the absolute number of births has been
>: declining since 1986 or so. 
>
>Incorrect. I heard that the net global population increase last year was
>the greatest ever. 
The two are not contradictory: there are now more old folk than ever
before.  Total increase will stay flat for the next few years, because
declines in births will continue for a while to be matched by declines
in deaths from increases in life expectancy among the very old.
>: The number of new mothers will start to
>: decline in the next five years, and the total number of possible
>: mothers a few years after that.   
>
>*If* some positive changes are happening -- you have to thank people like
>Paul Ehrlich, a great benefactor of humanity. People like DLJ and other
>(fake)-Libertarians are the people who did their best to counteract any
>positive endeavor in this area. Rwanda, and now Zaire, are attributable 
>to their efforts in no small measure.
I doubt that Paul Ehrlich has ever been in Zaire inhis life, and he
has certainly had nothing to do with the drop in birth rate there.
The main things causing the deline in birth rates are the decline in
death rates and the increase in television, cosmetics, and variety in
clothing, all of which make people aware of and desirous of modern
styles of life.
                                         -dlj.

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>I am not sure what you mean.  Much as I dislike agreeing with Yuri (he
>says so much I guess he must be right occasionally, like a busted
>analog clock), but, taking world population as a whole the human
>population was very stable up until about 6000 BC.  Introduction of
>agriculture, you know.
The way I look at it, this was the information revolution.  People
started categorizing stuff: animals by which ones were tame enough to
keep, which ones you should kill before they killed you or got away;
plants by which ones would grown if you planted them.  Arithmetic: how
much seed will give us how much food, leaves how much that it's safe
to eat now?
The agricultural revolution, because it is more knowledge intensive
than steam and electric power, ships, trade, or war, is the _last_ of
all things to develop.  It's happening now, made possible by electron
microspcopy and molecular biology, satellite land surveys and
hydrology, derivatives-based pricing, and so on.  
This is why the most advanced countries have agricultural surpluses,
and import their manufactured goods from less advanced countries.
                                  -dlj.

Matt Regan wrote:
> 
> I have a simple solution to overpopulation
> 
> 1) No more aid to impovershed countries.. Aid is what allows people
> who should die off to procreate
> 
> 2) Allow wars to go on unhindered wars kill, an excellent limit to
> growth
> 
> 3) Deny immumnizations to a certain percentage of the population.
> Allow diesease to take its normal place in the life cycle
> 
charliew wrote:
> 
> Unless you plan to kill a few billion
> people, there is *nothing* you can do about this problem.
> Education will help people make an informed decision, but it
> will not necessarily stop them from having large families.
I voted for Ralph Nader, but I agree with Matt and Charlie.
We cannot reduce human population, but we can colonize the
outer space for a fraction of NASA budget. Do you have
enough brains to comprehend technology of space colonization?

I am currently attempting to model the use of ground (table) water in
California by considering its sources of replenishment (precipitation,
runoff, etc.) and the various ways in which it is utilized in agriculture,
industry, residential areas, etc.  I have found a wealth of information
regarding the ways in which we use ground water, but have been unable to
locate any data on the rate at which our water table is falling, how much
water does our annual rainfall contribute, how much water is California
estimated to have in its water table, what is the agricultural impact
on the water table, is our ground water expected to run out within the 
next century(ies), etc, etc. I would appreciate any and all information on
this topic. Please e-mail responses to:
bhbonner@ucdavis.edu
Thanks!
Brigette Bonner

Ron Jeremy (tooie@sover.net) wrote:
: Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: : David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: : 
: : : The total number of deaths from all civilian nuclear power does not
: : : add up to a single school-bus crash, from 1945 to the present, except
: : : for the foul-up at Cernobyl.  This may have killed several dozen, or
: : : perhaps a few hundred.  Even if we take the number as a few hundred,
: : : it does not approach the danger of a few hundred thousand Saturday
: : : afternoon repairmen clambering around on their roofs and windmills.
: : 
: : I would wait about 20 years before making any serious claim regarding
: : this number, if I were you.  We haven't seen all the cancer deaths,
: : yet. 
: Bruce, you can wait *a lot* longer than that and still see nothing.  Here 
: in the US we have over 30 years of history and no correaltion has been 
: found.  See the following; http://www-dceg.ims.nci.goc/reb/nuclear.html 
: for more details on the National Cancer Institue study on cancer rates 
: near nuclear power plants.  Even if TMI-2 caused a cancer (very 
: doubtful), it would be lost in the noise.  Since he left Chernobyl out of 
: the equation, I'm curious to exactly what cancer deaths you are referring to?
Nonsense.  Go and look to note that I have Chernobyl in mind.
--
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/

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: In article <56fkpe$5omj@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
:  > 
:  > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
:  > 
:  > : One consequence of the economists' disdain for technology, more
:  > : broadly a disdain for specifics, is that it is apparently impossible
:  > : to get input-output matrices for the American economy these days.  If
:  > : someone knows where they might be available, please let me know.
:  > 
:  > Are you really assuming the relationship between them is linear??
:  > 
:  > As you well know, if it is not, then you cannot define a matrix except
:  > for infinitesimal departures from equilibrium.  I think we are very
:  > definitely in the "non-LTE" state.  How about you?
: 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.
So Professor McCarthy thinks the economy has a dominantly linear
response to forcing.  I'll file this for future reference.  If you think
the first sentence here is a mis-characterisation of your position,
please clarify.
I'd like to see anybody endure the intellectual contortions required to
explain that the world fishing system is linear.  Same for oil.
--
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/

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
: >Perhaps, then, you can offer a principled discussion of the scientific
: >literature on ozone and the effect on it of CFCs.
:  
: Scott seems to think this is a witty remark to make about wolves and
: caribou.  Go figger.
:  
: I am not up to date on the latest ozone-CFC findins: there seems to be
: some feeling around that the Treaty of Montreal was overkill, and that
: the ozone hole may be a result of natural volcanism.
This is long-since debunked.  Read the FAQ.  My point was to respond to
the claim that all this environment warning is all pollyanna crap with
no science.  Say that about Ozone and you're talking nonsense.
[rest tossed]
--
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/

Scott Susin (ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
: Mason A. Clark (masonc@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: :    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.
Most resources are not fixed.  Land is one of the few that is.  Land
multiplied by natural productivity is decidedly not.
--
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/

Brian Liedtke wrote:
> 
....
> 
> Actually you mentioned it twice.
> 
I reply;
Uh-oh.  I did?  Where?

Don Staples wrote:
> 
> 
> Yeh, but then where else can I compare my normal, boring, mundane
> existance with one like yours, useless.
I reply:
I see.  Bye.

INTERNET
Some people prefear to go on thinking that the Einstein’s relativity
theory is right , thinking that  matter cannot reach and substain light
velocity, because in this case  matter would have an infinitive mass ,
and it would be necessary to transfer to it an infinitive quantity of
energy to reach light velocity.
At the same time the physics substain that at elemental material level
the time does not exist and that in normal conditions it is not possible
to travel in the time.
As opposite to what mentioned before, the writer, after 20 years of
research out of the pubblic ufficial circuit of the physical research, 
can prove that things  are different.
Some examples of his  theories follows:
-The conception of time and space given by Einstein Relativity  is
completly inconsistent applied to the case of light velocity of the
matter and the time is translated by some physical, heavy consistent
material particles but normally invisible.
In many cases the theories substained by the physics are uncomplete or
inadeguated to describe the reality, but  because of their lack to give
an explanation to the real phenomenons; they continue to substain that
their concepts is the only truth, thing that is false in the reality.
- The Writer gives some information about: 1) travels of matter at light
velocity in present time, 2) the explanation of the natural composition
of the elemental particles that translate the time in the matter, 3) the
explanation of the forces unification, where it is explained the natural
formation in the sub-elemental particles of the electricity, of the
magnetism and the gravity, 4) explanation of matter at null temperature,
where the quarks can be visible and free, because they are stopped in
the space, expanded and enlarged 10(18 ) times or 1 billion of billions
of times and they are freely visible at naked eyes for about 10 minutes
and they reveal their true physical nature as physical particles.
The Writer brings explanations and  ascertained cases which confutate
the Einstein’s relativity theory substaining that the matter can not
travel at light velocity. 
The contrary is possible. It is given the right explanation of the whole
physical world (included that the real physical structure of the space
is " not "empty" , but it has a completly different structure  
" normally " not ascertainable ").
End of December 1996 it will be ready a book , entitled "THE
QUADRIDIMENTIONAL UNIVERSE", where  in about 420 pages with colour
photos and pictures , the writer explains these theories and many other
concepts  not already reached by the officials science.
Shipment: per Airmail.
Possible markets: All countries except for  Italy , Switzerland , Japan,
Cina , C.S.I.  and related Countries 
DEPOSITED AND PROTECTED CONTENTS SINCE 1994
PLEASE REPLY FOR MORE INFOS OR TO READ FURTHER PAGES:
scienza@pianeta.it

In article <328BA23D.70D3@isd.net>, Andrew Nowicki  writes...
>http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/13/food.summit.update/index.html
Yes, and of these 200 million are children.  Global capitalism at work...
                                            On With the Revolution,
                                               James Benthall
                                               Green Party/Houston