Directory

In <328B57AB.3596@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes: 
>
>John McCarthy wrote:
>> 
>> Those with an a priori objection to humanity's progress will find
>> something wrong with mining the moon.
>
>I ask:
>
>Since you are the first and only one to bring up objections to mining 
>the moon, you must be trying to create dissent.  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.  Although this 
>does not prove that you object to humanity's progress, it is rather 
>suggestive.  Interesting.
Since, although no environmentalists have yet registered objections to
mining the moon, there are a great many people who object to
witch-hunting, guilt-by-association, and any movement that resorts to
such means, you must be trying to smear the good name of the space
movement?
Perhaps he was just warning us to anticipate obstructions on false
environmental grounds by people whose real agenda is suppressing
technology. Just as we have encountered a big movement against nuclear
power, even though it's almost the safest way to produce electricity on
a per kwh basis.
Your "objective" analysis, I'm afraid, has flawed logic.
John Savard
the sole author of this post, for which no one else is responsible

"Vincent R. Clause"  wrote:
>I would love to see the "hard statistical facts" concerning the multitudes of inept homeowners who
>clumsily sucumb to an untimely death, al la "I've Fallen and I can't get up"!  I bet there aren't
>any!
Well, it doesn't separate domestic from occuptional deaths, but the
Statistical Abstract of the United States does have a table for the
number of deaths from accidental falls.  In 1990, falls killed 12,313
people.  Of these, 3,194 were falls from one level to another,
499 were falls on the same level, and 8,620 were "fractures, cause
unspecified, and other unspecified falls."
Many of these falls were by the elderly, I suspect, especially the
last category.
Total deaths on the job from *all* causes in 1990 was 10.6 thousand.
The government has gone to great effort to reduce accident rates
in the US.  The age-adjusted non-motor-vehicle accidental death
rate has dropped from 26.3 per 100,000 in 1970 to 14.0 per
100,000 in 1990 (non-age-adjusted, the rate fell from 29.5 to 18.2).
     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

Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> 
> In article <328e14c4.391777536@news.primenet.com>
>  ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) writes:
> 
> >On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:00:27 GMT, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
> >(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> 
> >>af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> >>>(John Moore) wrote:
> >>>: Furthermore, if a powerful corporation can create a corrupt
> >>>: government, then the CITIZENS are sleeping at the switch.
> >>>  I read that in this weeks federal election in the U.S. voter turnout
> >>>was the smallest in recorded history.
> >>this one has an easy solution a mandatory voting act
> 
> >I must vigorously disagree. A mandatory voting act means lots of
> >uninformed and uncaring people will be making the choices. The
> >curreent system selects for those who care enough to vote, and such
> >people are far more likely to be informed. To me, that is an much
> >better solution.
> 
> No. Often they are only single-interest voters, such as Greens,
> Health, Education, Welfare, or Government Spending. The rest
> of the country aren't commited to such issues, and may like/dislike
> parts of the policies or the specific local candidate of the political
> parties.
> 
> >Of course, it would help us in your goal to bring us closer to the
> >society of the old USSR - they had mandatory voting also :-)
> 
> As does Australia, New Zealand has mandatory enrollment,
> but not mandatory voting. That's in part so court juries can
> be selected from the full spectrum of the population.
> 
> New Zealand has just moved from a first-past-the-post
> system ( like the US ) to a proportional-representation system ( Mixed
> Member Proportional - like Germany ), and had one of the highest voter
> turnouts ( around 90% from memory ) ever. Of course we elect the
> same bunnies as politicians, but they will have to find consensus
> far more often on important issues, as the makeup of the parliament
> is based on all the party list votes, not the local candidate votes, so
> voters can vote for a favourite local candidate and the Greens party
> nationally. [ The examples of Greens is solely used to deflect email
> about inappropriate posting from Cameron :-) )
> 
>                       Bruce Hamilton
I continue to try to bring to everyone's attention the work of my
colleague Donald Saari.  I recommend his book  `Geometry of Voting'
published by Springer.   Saari is a strong proponent of the Borda
system.   Under this system, if say you have three candidates for
presidents, you vote 2 for your first choice, 1 for your second, and 0
for your third.   The candidate with the highest vote wins.   Saari has
shown by precise mathematical arguments that the Borda system yields the
least number of paradoxical results.   I am not sure exactly how this
works out for parliamentary elections, but I will ask him.   In any
case, the system used in the US, plurality voting is one of the worst
possible systems.   According to my colleague, the Australian system is
a modified form of the Borda system, but not as good.  It was apparently
designed by a mathematician, but I am not sure of that.
In any case, it is important that people realize that the voting system
often determines the results and certainly strongly affects political
behavior.  All of this is purely the results of the way the
combinatorics works out.  Indeed if you just think a bit about how the
US system works, it becomes clear exactly why we have the screwy
politics we have where everyone complains about the politicians but we
never seem to be able to replace them with a decent lot.  It also
explains why cnadidates of the major parties are chosen by minorities
with agendas and then have to move to the center to get elected, thereby
necessarily practicing hypocrisy.
Of course money and power play a very important role in American
politics, but I think this is excacerbated by the nature of the system.
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

Brian Liedtke wrote:
> 
> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Don Staples wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I promised myself I would not answer any of your crap,
> >
> > I note:
> >
> > You broke your promise and you're about to pay for it.  Do this often?
> >
> > He continues:
> >
> > > but, you seem hung
> > > on the idea that hunters, guns, foresters, etc, are all republican, or
> > > what ever.
> >
> > I reply:
> >
> > No, just the conceited, the selfish, the thoughtless, the ignorant,
> > those who >like< to be told to hurt themselves, and the generally
> > unintelligent.  I think hunters have their place, I think guns are
> > useful but dangerous tools and should not be given to children, and I
> > think good foresters are a national asset.  I won't pick on you for
> > implying that a gun could be Republican, a simple mistake when you're
> > worked up.
> >
> > He continues:
> >
> > >  The quy described a group of outlaws, they dont vote, nor
> > > probably, do you.
> >
> > I reply:
> >
> > Actually, I vote all of the time, at every election, and I urge others
> > to do the same.  You'll notice I didn't mention Republicans in my
> > message, not once.  Think about it.
> 
> Actually you mentioned it twice.
> 
> Brian Liedtke
Nice trick, you cut out all the message and said
"I did? where"
Well let me repost your message and see if you can find two instances
of 'Republicans' in your message.
Brian Liedtke

		* Environmental Quotes * Daily...
	"Whatever befalls the earth
	 befalls the sons and daughters of the earth
	 We did not weave the web of life;
	 We are merely a strand in it.
	 Whatever we do to the web,
	 We do to ourselves. . . . "
		- Chief Seattle
	Thanks for reading.
	Love to get feedback...Please send replies to my mailbox only...thank
you...
Jonathan Layburn
Founder - * Environmental Quotes * Daily...

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: Michael Turton  wrote:
: 
: > 	Mike, your claim that no workers have died in nuclear plants is 
: > absurd.  There have been a large number of deaths worldwide including a
: > number in the US, beginning with the three killed at Idaho Falls in
: > 1960....
: 
: You're off-base here.  My claim was for commercial power generation.  Idaho
: Falls is home to the US National Reactor Testing Station, a research
: facility also involved with military waste reprocessing.  A site further
: removed from commercial nuclear power would be hard to find.  By the way,
: the accident you're referring to was January 3, 1961, not 1960.    The
: incident occurred at the SL-1 *experimental* reactor (emphasis mine), and
: was a steam explosion caused by a power excursion.  Two of the three
: workers killed were active-duty Navy personnel.   
So far so good...
: As for "a number in the US, beginning with...", I reiterate, there have
: been no fatal accidents at commercial reactors.  The SL-1 accident is,
: according to the US DOE, the ONLY fatal accident at any type of reactor:
: commercial, military, or experimental.
8/21/1945 Los Alamos - Reflector fell onto plutonium assembly making it 
prompt critical, 1 death
5/21/1946 Los Alamos - Another prompt criticality involving beryllium 
reflectors, 1 death
10/15/1958 Vinca facility, Yugoslavia - Irradiation, 1 death
9/23/1983 RA-3 facility, Argentina - Criticality excursion, 1 death
As far a industrial deaths during operation at commercial plants, I can 
come up with at least 10 off the top of my head.  Mike, if you are 
going to throw bombs like "there have been no fatal accidents at US 
commercial reactors", either *clearly* state what exactly you are 
refering to, i.e. how the deaths ocurred, etc. or take your lumps like a 
man.  Sorry to take to you to task but sloppy posting isn't going to help 
promote nuclear power.
tooie

Friendly San wrote:
> I may be misinformed, but it's my understanding that an electrical spark
> creates the gas ozone.  If that is true, why can't we make giant ozone
> generators to supplement problem areas in the ozone layer?
The problem is that a single chlorine atom can catalyze the
destruction of 10^5 or so ozone molecules, IIRC.  So, the release of
megatons of CFCs would require the production (integrated over
some future period as the CFC molecules reach the stratosphere
and break down) of hundreds of gigatons of ozone.  The energy
cost would be prohibitive, far in excess of the cost of replacing CFCs
with non-ozone-depleting substitutes.
     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

On 17 Nov 1996 22:20:51 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
> 
> >The U.S. had the misfortune of being first in the development of nuclear
> >power.  The disadvantage of being first is that you get committed to a way 
> >of doing things. (The resolution of U.S.  TV is lower than the European.)
> 
> The first civilian nuclear power station was the British Calder Hall,
> opened by the Queen in 1953.
>  
And the British have had accidents.  And as usual, David, glibly writes --
missing the point of the post.  Go back and print it out on paper so you 
can read it.
---------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------

jvanm@juno.com (Van) wrote:
>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) banged out:
>>api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
>>>In article <56ecvi$tjh@news2.lakes.com>,
>>>	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>>>>nice try at being a spin doc but you failed. As this past season was
>>>>proof as the first huuricane of the season proved.Going back to the
>>>>beginning of the century there are only 3 other cases of a hurricane
>>>>hitting the mainland that early. But the fact of the matter is
>>>>hurricanes are not the only storms to be considered.Looking back over
>>>>the past year for this location(so. Minnesota) we had record cold and
>>>>hight temps last winter, july brought a record rainfall 8 inches in 24
>>>>hrs,record high and low temps in oct along with 2 torandos in Oct a
>>>>very highly unusal event.
>>>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.
>>one of the first observables predicted for global warming is an
>>increase in storms
>Makes sense,  Adding energy to a closed system should increase
>turbulence.  Wider variance in temperature and icreased range would
>show up sooner than actual definable rise in global temperature.
>Sounds reasonable to this layman.
thanks I'll add the following as further evidence.Melting polar
caps(on the Antartic penninsula 800 sq mile ice shelf has disappeared)
Changing forest. Pine forest in Finland are dramatically advancing
north(one of many speciesadvancing north in many locations). And El
Nino that doesn't quit.
>Van
>--
>************************************************************
>        SCREW the EPA!!    SCREW OSHA!!
>Mark them oxygen canisters empty and ship 'em!
>************************************************************

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: Louis Schmittroth  wrote:
: >  and if we have to vote on who is the
: > biggest criminal, I agree with Yuri that the Pope is worse than McCarthy.
McCarthy must be quite relieved?
: Sloppy use of language seems to be inherent among certain philosophical
: groups.   Personally, I think Roman Catholicism does man a great
: disservice, however, to claim the Pope is a criminal is sheer blather.  You
: may call him immoral, unethical, ignorant, anachronistic, or even evil, if
: you wish.  But criminality requires transgression of a law, which seems to
: be missing in this case.  
How about complicity in the cover-up of the murder of his predecessor,
John-Paul I, who died in extremely strange circumstances after 33 days in
office? 
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

Laura Ellis or Cotting wrote:
> Both of you might be interested in reading recent work published by Reed
> Noss, about nature reserve design.  The concept: core areas of pristine
> (or restored as close as possible to pristine) habitat, surrounded by
> buffer zones of habitat, which permit increasing levels of human
> disturbance.  These core areas are connected to one another by buffered
> corridors of pristine or restored habitat to facilitate movement of
> wildlife species between core areas.
Yes, _Saving Nature's Legacy_. I have read it, & put it on my list of
"Required Reading for the Entire Planet"
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
....
> 
> I was hoping Friesel had put me in his kill file.
> 
Nah, you're too much fun.  Besides, a kill file is like sticking your 
head in the sand.  Better to refrain from replying but know what's 
going on than to not know what's going on.
You say:
> First, I didn't ever say "trace minerals".  I referred to minerals at their
> concentration in random rock.  This is not the way the term "trace" is
> used.
I note:
Random rock covers a lot of territory, so to speak.  But that's ok.  
Still an engineering job to make it feasible.
You continue:
> 
> Second, what my file
> 
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/thermo.html
> 
> shows is that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't forbid use of
> low concentration ores.  It doesn't offer a way of doing it
> economically, but only refutes those who claimed that the second law
> forbids it.
I note:
Well, I hope you got a professional to do your analysis.  I like your 
picture, by the way - so dignified and refined.  I can't post mine 
because the scars ar ekind of embarrassing.  From my point of view, of 
course the second law wouldn't forbid the use of low concentration 
ores.  It's just without a major engineering breakthrough or two your 
going to spend an awful lot of time breaking ore with hammers, 
floating it in aqua regia, and waiting for a lightening storm to power 
your Ishkawazi reactor.
You continue:
> 
> My opinion is that we will eventually use low concentration ores, but
> the ways of doing so are unlikely to be developed as long as there are
> plenty of rich ores.  There are also the land fills which may be
> richer in many useful elements than random rock.
I note:
Probably, and I suggest we cancel part of the national debt and use it 
for research into doing just this.  No point in ignoring safe solar 
either, so let's cancel a bit more as well.
You continue:
> 
> Some of my research is oriented to robotics.  Robots will indeed be
> able to maintain solar arrays without hazard to humans.
I reply:
Sure, I believe this too although it will probably be overkill, and 
trying to maintain robots for such a simple task would probably 
involve greater labor and perhaps risk then just maintaining the array 
yourself - if properly engineered.  I've also noted more and more our 
economy seems to have no real use for or ability to support robots and 
things like this, so I think there's a real chance that robotics is 
about to go the way of our other R&D.;  Sure, there's some use in 
industry, but the robots needed are pretty stupid and are supplied by 
Japan.  I tried (along with some other engineers) to get Battelle 
interested in building a robotic surgical assistant, but they wouldn't 
touch it with a ten-foot pole.  It's not that it's unfeasible, quite 
the contrary, but it's beyond their managerial skill and vision.  I 
don't think that they alone have this deficiency - I think it's a 
social disease that is well established in all levels of U.S. 
management.
You continue:
> 
> The people who put solar array and solar panels on their roofs today
> are taking their chances at present levels of hazard of roof work.
I note:
Yeah, my grandfather recently fell off his roof and hurt himself.  
He's 78 and was cleaning his gutters.
You continue:
> Not a large risk, but apparently larger than that of working in
> nuclear power plant.  Of course, amateurs run higher risks than
> professionals.
I reply:
Relatively simple engineering problem I'd think.
You finish...
> 
> I believe OSHA has a fair amount to say about working on roofs.
I note:
eh.  OSHA is a target for the deregulators.  How long do you think it 
will be effective?  By the way, I enjoyed our pleasant chat.

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
>
>: Jay,
>:  
>: I think you're losing it.  It is finally sinking in on you that all
>: your pseudo-science impresses nobody -- particularly nobody in the
>: fields into which you intrude as a loud poseur.  As a result you
>: thrash around as above, without logic, without manners, without
>: dignity.
>
>This is totally unfair, David. How about talking about substance and 
>leaving personalities alone?
The substance here is Jay's previous post, which you have mercifully
snipped.
>Pseudo-science is in the eye of the beholder, surely. Jay always bases his 
>views on substantial research.
This is not true.  Jay's footnotes are often phrased in a way which
makes it appear that a named person is an author when in fact the name
given is the title of another screed by Jay himself.  I.e. the
"substantial research" is merely the repetition of his earlier
opinions.
>                                There must be a way to disagree with 
>someone and yet respect them as an individual.
It is very difficult to respect a propagandist as single-mindedly
dishonest as Hanson.  Such a person deserves an individually crafted
disrespect.
                                      -dlj.