Newsgroup sci.environment 110120

Directory

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
> Mark, you're looking at two different situations.  In discussing growth
> limits, we routinely posit additional technology.  In the case of solar
> power, we're discussing what is available *today*.  If you or anyone else
> suggests that solar power might become practical in the future, I won't
> dispute it.
> 
I reply:
Good! Then if we opt to ignore solar because it is not currently safe 
enough, then in order to be consistent we must also opt to limit our 
growth because we currently do not have the means to support it.  
Quite reasonable.  It's reasonable to engineer safer solar, then 
implement it in a manner consistent with our social goals, and to 
engineer support technology for growth, then allow growth in a manner 
consistent with our social goals.  That makes sense.  We certainly 
don't want to implement some social program that we lack the ability 
to support, whether solar or growth, right?

rmg3@access4.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>  I'm back for one of my increasingly infrequent looks at sci.environment.
>(Actually, I'll be off-net the next week as well).  
Well, I've been carefully assessing the content of sci.environment,
and I believe I may have discovered what the purpose of sci.env.
really is. It's the beta version of the new Microsoft Science 
- Environmental Option, home study course.
Reasons?
1. The Subject lines and actual posted content have the 
    same accuracy as those advertisements describing MS Windows
    as a robust home computer operating system. 
2. The ability of some posters to completely lose the thread and produce
    an UAE ( Uninformative, Abuse-filled, Epic ) which is completely
    unrelated to the issue under discussion, but which totally precludes
    recovery or rediscovery of important information.
3. The same errors appear with increasing frequency, and no amount
    of Ctrl-Alt-Deleting will annihilate them. A good boot is required.
4. The ability of posters to redefine all the errors in their posts as
    features, and for the masses to actually purchase that story.... 
5. As the user base increases, the technical support decreases. 
    ( If you were stupid enough to purchase MS Windows, the TS staff
    *know* it's going to be hell helping you to install it. A three hour 
     wait ( or a 100 post thread ) tends to eliminate the less committed ).
6. When asked to perform two tasks ( like read and comprehend ), the
     system locks up.... A full reboot is required with all useful infomation
    naturally lost forever.
7.  Important dates of upcoming events ( like the exhaustion of a 
    resource, or the arrival of viable EVs ) have similar resemblance
    to reality as Microsoft annoucements of final product availability.
8. The advocacy of committed posters ( and they should be committed
     permanently ) is no less than that observed in the MS Windows
     and OS/2 advocacy groups.
9. More people are using it than ever before, despite the availability
    of more comprehensive, cheaper, and more accurate information
    elsewhere.
The only problem I have with my theory, is deciding which poster is
Bill Gates, but I've got my suspicions....
             Bruce Hamilton

TL ADAMS  wrote:
>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.
I wrote a sci.environment article on this a couple of years
ago - based on an article I read somewhere. There was a 
huge lobbying battle between those two huge industrial 
enterprises that are always concerned about their 
environmental  responsibilities, unfortunately each was
keen to give the other the wonderful opportunity to reduce 
refuelling VOCs. Yes. it was the automobile manufacturers 
and the oil companies. It was a long hard fought battle, but 
the oil companies won, and so the car companies get the
priviledge. As I recall, the main rationale was that the
car system can easily purge the cannister into the ICE
intake and dispose of the organics, whereas the service
station would require additional safety equipment to
dispose of the vapours, or condense them. I suspect
the determining factor was the quality of lobbying, rather
than a technical one.   
       Bruce Hamilton

Recently information leading people to believe that something large is
trailing behind the Hale-Bopp Comet has been sweeping the US.  This mis-
information has been causing some folks to panic and otherwise, encure
undue stress needlessly.  For the full story and all the facts, truths
included , go to the following web site below.
                    http://www.halebopp.com/
Please note that this site has been put together by people who know what
they are doing two of these folks happen to be Hale and Bopp.
Have A Good One,
Tamsen
tamsen@empnet.com

To increase the ambient concentration of iron in the southern ocean (~44
to ~64 degrees south over 150 degrees of latitude) to ~ 2 nanomoles for
the duration of the five months of long sunlight duration  entails the
sustained addition ofa total of about 100 Kg fe to ~ 25,000,000 Km2 of sea
surface, assuming a depth of enrichment of 50 meters. 
This integrates to about 5 million tonnes of iron sulfate equivalent. As a
30 Km swathe  per dispersing vessell seems possible in the light of the
Ironex II results , doing it might require a flotila of a few thousand
vessells of a few thousand tons displacement, continuously resupplied by a
dozen large tankers a week.
The obvious synthetic route for the iron sulfate is the oxidation of
pyrite to prodoce sulfuric acid and the subsequent solution of the
byproduct iron oxide- at present prices the cost would be ~$150 a tonne.
this yields a  soluble iron cost of less than a billion dollars a year for
the Southern Ocean,and a systems cost for its delivery on the order of $
ten billion a year.
Compared to any of the fossil fuel reduction scenarios contemplated by the
IPCC this is a very cheap undertaking, and hence it is worthwile to
endeavour to sort out the profound biogeochemical and ecological
complexities that arise from the mere observation that Martin's basic
hypothesis was correct.After they are deconvoluted ,we can return to the
subject of wether or not to do something about it, but it should be
asserted at the subject's inception that  , at a dollar per capita
globally, its marginal cost effectiveness (if it works benignly) is not at
issue.
Rusell Seitz

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 04:08:41 GMT, hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
> In article <328fcc9c.14429346@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Mason A. Clark  wrote:
>  
> >There is a fatal (excuse the pun) misunderstanding about the nature of 
> >radiation.  The reported exposure of the populace to radiation caused by
> >the Three-Mile Island accident was well measured and by conservative 
> >calculation killed at least three people.  We don't know who they are (or 
> >were or will be) and we don't know when they died (or will die).
> 
> Do you have a cite for that "three people" figure?
> 
Three-mile Island mess was long ago.  I read the data published at the time
and do not have a reference at hand.  Your librarian can help you search the
news archives or look for reports that emanated (radiated?) from the accident.
> 
> >The fact that there have been few deaths, less than in coal mines and 
> >gas and oil fields, is beside the point here.
> 
> Far, far, fewer. Even than in actual fossil power plants. Coal,
> especially, tends to be dangerous, and this is particularly true of
> modern plants that use pulverization and blown fuel.
> 
The point was the statement(s) that "there have been no deaths caused
by consumer nuclear power stations."  Can we stick to the point for a 
few seconds?  The explanation given above with the Three-Mile Island
example extendes to other accidents, a fortiori to the Chernobyl disaster
for which the number of deaths is much larger.
Look, I'm not entering the argument about the relative merits of energy
sources.  All I'm doing is trying to stamp out blatant misinformation.  
That is the point.  Address it or start a new thread.  Sheeeezz, I get annoyed
here.
Who's sig quotes who thus?:  "The total intelligence on the Internet 
is constant, but the number of participants is increasing exponentially." 
That's not an insult.  If you want an insult, e-mail me junk mail.
---------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------

My name is Stephen Bedford Clark and for the past three years I have
been working as Director of Freshwater Ecology on a landmark United
Kingdom project called 'The Earth Centre'.
The centre is dedicated to the promotion of the values of Sustainable
Development via the medium of popular education.
This 125 million UK sterling project has taken six years of development
and will begin the first phase of construction in 1997 with the park and
pavilions completed by the year 2000.
Further info can be accessed at http://www.shef.ac.uk/~ec
I have been greatly heartened by the progression of Sustainable
Development and related conservation in Australia and I work like in my
capacity as a self-employed consultant to visit your country, for the
purposes of networking/new opportunities and just spreading the word!.
So, I am contemplating visiting before Christmas 1996 and would like to
enquire whether there are interested organisations/associations that
would like to host a lecture by myself.
My topics would include "The Earth Centre Story", specific subjects such
as Freshwater Ecology and Aquaculture and their role in Sustainable
Development and an exciting area of ecotechnology known as Waste
Utilisation (see http://www.fishace.demon.co.uk/)
I would not expect any fees for such a lecture but would only ask for
accomodation and a contribution to local travel expenses.
If there are any interested organisations, please contact me at the
email address below as soon as possible so that I may compose my
itinerary. My present rough schedule would include visits to Sydney,
Melbourne and Hobart but could consider 'detours' if funding allows.
With thanks
Stephen 
SBC & Associates
Sustainable Freshwater Ecology & Aquaculture Consultancy Services
7 Ballam Avenue
Scawthorpe
Doncaster
United Kingdom DN5 9DY
Tel: + 44 (0)1302 782597
Fax: + 44 (0)1302 782597
email: sbc@fishace.demon.co.uk
A list of services and experience are available at:
http://www.fishace.demon.co.uk/

In article <563dpp$8uo@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
jw  wrote:
>"Ecological productivity" is meaningless.
>Planets do not produce, people do.
Biological productivity refers to the amount of organic matter (usually
expressed in terms of the energy involved) produced in certain area in a
certain time.
Any intro biology text should explain this.
Andrew Taylor

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:33:04 GMT, George_Thomas@mindspring.com (George Thomas) wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >For good reason-- we're discussing commercial power generation. 
> >Furthermore, I confined my remarks to North America, though I know of no
> >fatalities in Europe or Asia.  Your objection is thus doubly inappropriate.
> 
There is a fatal (excuse the pun) misunderstanding about the nature of 
radiation.  The reported exposure of the populace to radiation caused by
the Three-Mile Island accident was well measured and by conservative 
calculation killed at least three people.  We don't know who they are (or 
were or will be) and we don't know when they died (or will die).
Unlike a fall down a coal-mine shaft, radiation exposure kills later and
the cause of death probably will not be attributed to radiation when it occurs.
Nevertheless, the relation between exposure and fatal radiation-induced 
illness has been the subject of much research and reasonable estimates
can be made.
It is simply erroneous and mis-leading to claim there have been no deaths
caused by commercial nuclear power radiation.  
The fact that there have been few deaths, less than in coal mines and 
gas and oil fields, is beside the point here.
To claim no deaths from commercial nuclear power radiation is like 
claiming that no one dies from smoking cigarettes.  The death comes
years later.
---------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------

I am a teacher running a project for pupils at school.
Can you tell me the answers to these questions, or an organisation that can?
What is the cost / unit of nuclear power? What about other sources?
What percentage of the UKs power comes from Nuclear?
How does this compare to other countries?
How many small accidents / leaks happen every year?
What are the chances of a major accident happening now?
	(In 1975 the Rassmussen Report estimated it at 1 in 3 million)
Cheers!

 Subject: Iron fertilization parameters
From: mnestheus@aol.com
Date: 18 Nov 1996 02:38:58 GMT
Message-ID: <19961118024100.VAA19296@ladder01.news.aol.com>
To increase the ambient concentration of iron in the southern ocean (~44
to ~64 degrees south over 150 degrees of latitude) to ~ 2 nanomoles for
the duration of the five months of long sunlight duration  entails the
sustained addition ofa total of about 100 Kg fe to ~ 25,000,000 Km2 of sea
surface, assuming a depth of enrichment of 50 meters. 
This integrates to about 5 million tonnes of iron sulfate equivalent. As a
30 Km swathe  per dispersing vessell seems possible in the light of the
Ironex II results , doing it might require a flotila of a few thousand
vessells of a few thousand tons displacement, continuously resupplied by a
dozen large tankers a week.
The obvious synthetic route for the iron sulfate is the oxidation of
pyrite to prodoce sulfuric acid and the subsequent solution of the
byproduct iron oxide- at present prices the cost would be ~$150 a tonne.
this yields a  soluble iron cost of less than a billion dollars a year for
the Southern Ocean,and a systems cost for its delivery on the order of $
ten billion a year.
Compared to any of the fossil fuel reduction scenarios contemplated by the
IPCC this is a very cheap undertaking, and hence it is worthwile to
endeavour to sort out the profound biogeochemical and ecological
complexities that arise from the mere observation that Martin's basic
hypothesis was correct.After they are deconvoluted ,we can return to the
subject of wether or not to do something about it, but it should be
asserted at the subject's inception that  , at a dollar per capita
globally, its marginal cost effectiveness (if it works benignly) is not at
issue.
Rusell Seitz

Friendly San wrote:
> I may be misinformed,
You are
> 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?  Anyone know
> about this?
Well, we not only CAN make ozone, we DO make ozone very effectively.
It's called smog. (well, kinda something like that)
Only problem is, how to get it up into the ozone layer, and keep it
there. The ozone layer is very high and it would cost way too much
energy and money to do such a thing. It's very much more effective
not to spoil CFK's and other ozone depleting agents.
Leon

Friendly San wrote:
> I may be misinformed,
You are
> 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?  Anyone know
> about this?
Well, we not only CAN make ozone, we DO make ozone very effectively.
It's called smog. (well, kinda something like that)
Only problem is, how to get it up into the ozone layer, and keep it
there. The ozone layer is very high and it would cost way too much
energy and money to do such a thing. It's very much more effective
not to spoil CFK's and other ozone depleting agents.
Leon

mnestheus@aol.com wrote:
> 
> To increase the ambient concentration of iron in the southern ocean (~44
> to ~64 degrees south over 150 degrees of latitude) to ~ 2 nanomoles for
> the duration of the five months of long sunlight duration  entails the
> sustained addition ofa total of about 100 Kg fe to ~ 25,000,000 Km2 of sea
> surface, assuming a depth of enrichment of 50 meters.
> This integrates to about 5 million tonnes of iron sulfate equivalent. As a
> 30 Km swathe  per dispersing vessell seems possible in the light of the
> Ironex II results , doing it might require a flotila of a few thousand
> vessells of a few thousand tons displacement, continuously resupplied by a
> dozen large tankers a week.
> The obvious synthetic route for the iron sulfate is the oxidation of
> pyrite to prodoce sulfuric acid and the subsequent solution of the
> byproduct iron oxide- at present prices the cost would be ~$150 a tonne.
> this yields a  soluble iron cost of less than a billion dollars a year for
> the Southern Ocean,and a systems cost for its delivery on the order of $
> ten billion a year.
Thak you for providing your estimates.   I would be interested in other
estimates also, since as we have seen in all discussions of climate
change, or even just the Carbon cycle, there are usually significant
uncertainties involved.
> Compared to any of the fossil fuel reduction scenarios contemplated by the
> IPCC this is a very cheap undertaking,
I am not exactly sure what you have in mind here.   If I understand the
recent results and the articles in Nature, which my colleague Robert
Michaelson sent to me,  the expected reduction in atmospheric CO_2
concentration is estimated to be between 6 and 21 %.   I am a bit nclear
if this means a percent of the ambient concentration at any time or of
the current concentration, but it appears to me to mean the current
concentration.  I would think extensive modelling studies would be
needed to further refine these estimates, but there would still be large
uncertainites. It seems clear that a 6 to 21 % reduction in CO_2
atmospheric concentrations could be accomplished with relatively simple
means, including mainly energy conservation measures.  Many have even
argued that such measures would lead to positive economic gain.  Indeed,
the total increase in concentration of CO_2 since the beginning of the
industrial revolution has only been about 28%, and we have clearly been
able to live with that.  So it is not clear that any measures whatsoever
would be necessary to accomplish a goal of reduction in concentrations
of the magnitude the studies suggest.   On the other hand, it is
certainly true that efforts to keep CO_2 emissions from doubling over
current levels will be extremely difficult, at least in the short run.
I think this is unfortunate because  it seems plausible that some time
in the next couple of centuries, fossil fuels will economically be
replaced by renewable fuels, so the problem as I see it is adopting
strategies which are not likely to result in large scale climate change
or at least minimizing that climate change in the interim.  In so doing,
a mix of measures may be required which certainly will include both
limits on the growth of fossil fuel use and possibly remedial actions
like iron fertilization.   However, I am still unclear on what kind of
plausible time table could be implemented for the introduction of the
latter.   It seems too early to start now when it might do the most good
because we don't yet know the consequences to the oceanic ecology.   If
done after CO_2levels had doubled and if unfavorable climate change were
obvious, it would seem as if it would not come close to solving the
problems at that time.  Also, it does not seem plausible that such
intervention would be poitically feasible on an international level in
the near term without extensive preparation and negotiation.   I would
be very intrested in any sort of scenario on these lines which seem
sensible to you.
> and hence it is worthwile to
> endeavour to sort out the profound biogeochemical and ecological
> complexities that arise from the mere observation that Martin's basic
> hypothesis was correct.After they are deconvoluted ,we can return to the
> subject of wether or not to do something about it, but it should be
> asserted at the subject's inception that  , at a dollar per capita
> globally, its marginal cost effectiveness (if it works benignly) is not at
> issue.
If you mean that we should not reject this idea at the very beginning
because of possible cost, I agree with you there.   Still it helps to
put things in perspective to know something about that.   I certainly
agree that this and other methods of controlling climate change should
be studied.  However, I must admit that being relatively conservative in
such matters, my prejudice is not to remedy one large perturbation of
the earth's systems by another, particularly if the consequences are not
thoroughly understood.   Be that as it may, like many people who have
tried to understand these matters as best they can, I am not doctrinaire
about my conservatism and an willing to entertain relatively radical
moves if the underslying science is proved to be sound.
My reading of the N. Y. Times article, which included quotes from you,
indicated that the debate seems to be at least partly one of which
projects are funded.   I would say that all these projects should be
funded, and I don't see the cost as being extremely high.   However,
with some of the leaders in Congress having called for reductions for
funding in modelling, which would certainly be necessary for any
understanding of the effects of iron fertilization, it is possible that
not much funding will be available.  Hence, rather than fighting among
yourselves over who gets what, it would be incumbent on all of you to
make clear to the political forces in power that it is in no one's
interest for Congress to set the research agenda and that funding should
be adequate to support all scientifically valid studies.
> Rusell Seitz
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> Somehow I would think that a man who claims we will be able to extract 
> trace minerals from rock economically could come up with a way to 
> minimize the work necessary to maintain a solar array.  If this is too 
> much to ask, what isn't?
Mark, you're looking at two different situations.  In discussing growth
limits, we routinely posit additional technology.  In the case of solar
power, we're discussing what is available *today*.  If you or anyone else
suggests that solar power might become practical in the future, I won't
dispute it.  
--
Mike Asher 
masher@tusc.net

There are different opinions on the environmental impact of
woodstoves. (I am talking about a complete burning of dry, unpainted
wood).
Some say that they produce far more PAH's than coal or gas or produce
more cee-o-two (CO2) than natural gas.
The second is true, but, assumed, enough wood is renewed by planting new
trees, this is not a problem.
And the PAH's (and the toxic CO) are only produced when not enough air
is added (air inlet is choked too much).
Burning of other stuff (painted wood, plastic, trash) is only 
environmentally friendly if the combustion temperature is over
2000 C.
But burning of biomass should be environmentally sound.
Any ideas or opinions on this ?
Thanks,
Klaas

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> 
> 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
Perhaps it would be easier just to increase the ultraviolet output of
the Sun, although that might have other uninended consequences. :-)
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

[Posted to sci.energy]
masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>There is a fatal (excuse the pun) misunderstanding about the nature of 
>radiation.  The reported exposure of the populace to radiation caused by
>the Three-Mile Island accident was well measured and by conservative 
>calculation killed at least three people.  We don't know who they are (or 
>were or will be) and we don't know when they died (or will die).
Those predictions are presumably based on the commonly used
no-threshold hyposthesis. There is no evidence of radiogenic cancer at
exposures below about 10-20 rem; ICRP just extrapolates higher dose
response to these low levels.
>Nevertheless, the relation between exposure and fatal radiation-induced 
>illness has been the subject of much research and reasonable estimates
>can be made.
That's right; they can be made. However, in the low dose range, they
are not made, because so many are marriedto the "cover your ass"
ICRP/BEIR low dose response assumptions.
>It is simply erroneous and mis-leading to claim there have been no deaths
>caused by commercial nuclear power radiation.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Posted to sci.environment]
"David Prime"  wrote:
>This is not a highly conservative view. It is the view of radiation
>scientists based on examination of the best evidence. This evidence is
>reviewed by two internationally renowned groups namely The National Academy
>of Science (the BEIR reports) and the United Nations Scientific Committee
>on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
If you examine the shape of the fose-response curve at high dose
levels, simple extrapolation down to low dose levels does not pass
through the origin; i.e. a threshold is indicated. Studies on nuclear
shipyard workers and radium watch dial painters among others, have
shown no effects. The 800,000 "Liquidators" who recieved doses up to
about the threshold of 10-20 rem have thus far shown no excess
cancers.
The dose-response curves' primary application is to predict the number
of excess fatalities as the result of a _postulated_ accident which is
analysed as part of the licensing process of a nuclear reactor. The
nuke industry is pathologically conservative in these regards. These
curves are designed to overpredict fatalities to such a degree that no
regulatory agency anywhere in the world could even _question_ them.
However, at least one regulatory agency is questioning them. The US
NRC. However, what they are questioning is whether their dose-response
curves should invoke a low dose threshold. They have instituted a
comprehensive review of all the data with a view to instituting a low
dose threshold if they feel it warranted.
>There are always minority views and persons and groups believing in a
>threshold for cancer induction are one of them.
>The problem with the threshold view is that it does not easily fit in with
>basic cancer studies.
>Most tumours are thought to have a single cell origin. The best evidence
>indicates that radiation act as an initiating agent. The possible
>mechanisms are as follows
I do not argue as to whether cancer has a single cell origin. I don't
know and don't care: it is immaterial to my argument. My argument is
that the body has natural protections against cellular damage both by
radiation and other chemical sources. These defenses were evolved
millions of years ago, when background radiation levels were much
higher than today.
Here are a few statements made by Ted Rockwell, who was using them in
an ANS presentation:
-The human body has about 10^14 (a hundred trillion) cells, and each
-one of these cells routinely suffers about 240,000 DNA alterations
-each day, just from the action of free radicals created in the normal
-process of cellular metabolism.  In addition, there are 60,000
-different kinds of genes in the body, and one of each gene is in each
-cell.  Each of the 60,000 kinds of genes undergoes about 400,000
-replication mutations each day.  Now, if any single break in the DNA
-were to cause cancer, we would never make it past the first day of
-our life.  What saves us?  After all, the world we first evolved in,
-eons ago, was even more naturally radioactive than it is today.  We
-are protected by a number of cellular processes of damage prevention,
-damage repair, and damage removal. These are the critical mechanisms
-that protect us from cancer.
-How does radiation damage compare with the natural damage caused by
-everyday living?  We know that one rad (or one centigray) of
-radiation causes about 20 DNA alterations total in the body.  The
-average natural background radiation level is about one-third of a
-rad per year, so we get about 7 DNA alterations in a year from
-background radiation, of which only about 2% are double-strand
-breaks.  The NCRP limit for the general public is O.1 rad, which
-would cause about 2 DNA breaks.  The important point here is that the
-damage from radiation is indistinguishable, at the cellular level,
-from the damage routinely experienced without regard to radiation.
-There is no difference.  So we are being "protected" from 2 DNA
-breaks per year, among 90,000,000 breaks of the same kind.
[snip]
>If you examine the epidemiological data you can only detect cancers above a
>background if there is sufficient collective dose in the study population.
>That is why the Atomic Bomb Survivors is so important - there is sufficient
>collective dose. Because you cannot see an excess of cancers in a
>population by normal statistical tests does mean that some agent is not
>causing cancers, it means that your study does not have sufficient
>statistical power to detect an excess. Studies on small groups of workers
>or others exposed to radiation do not have sufficient statistical power to
>detect effect - you cannot conclude from these that cancer initiation
>requires a threshold radiation dose.
It appears that many health physicists disagree with you, at least in
the US, since their professional association has endorsed the idea of
a threshold at around 10-20 rem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>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's apology for his American chauvinism is noted.
                                      -dlj.

Justin Lancaster wrote:
> 
 The insurance industry has perhaps been feeling this
> reality during the last fifteen years of rapid warming.
Exactly what "rapid warming" are you referring to? In the 
period between 1979-1988, the average global temperature has 
barely budged. At least according to NASA scientist Roy Spencer.
Has his work been disproved yet?
Bob Evans
-- 
______________________________________
all opinions expressed are mine and
mine alone.
______________________________________

B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
> I wrote a sci.environment article on this a couple of years
> ago - based on an article I read somewhere. There was a 
> huge lobbying battle between those two huge industrial 
> enterprises that are always concerned about their 
> environmental  responsibilities, unfortunately each was
> keen to give the other the wonderful opportunity to reduce 
> refuelling VOCs. Yes. it was the automobile manufacturers 
> and the oil companies. It was a long hard fought battle, but 
> the oil companies won, and so the car companies get the
> priviledge. As I recall, the main rationale was that the
> car system can easily purge the cannister into the ICE
> intake and dispose of the organics, whereas the service
> station would require additional safety equipment to
> dispose of the vapours, or condense them. I suspect
> the determining factor was the quality of lobbying, rather
> than a technical one.   
> 
>        Bruce Hamilton
Agreement, complete and total.  
And this will add alot more cost to the consumer than some basic 
2/4 cycle engine requirements.
Just hope we don't have some high profile deaths from carbon
combustions/collisions.

C++ Freak  wrote:
ough air
> But burning of biomass should be environmentally sound.
> 
> Any ideas or opinions on this ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Klaas
> 
AAARG.   NOT AGAIN.
My opinion, yes.  But use a newer forced air, catyl screen/ EPA
standard wood stove,  Greatly reduces PAH and CO.
You have more of a risk of house fire with wood, so take care
of the chimney.  And, you might hire a professional chimney sweep
so that you don't fall of the roof when you clean the chimney.
(Or your solar panels, :-)
Cut green wood, allow it to season for 8-12 months.
Don't live in Denver.

>I am interested in finding information on the mathematical modelling
>of activated sludge wastewater treatment plants and how much success
>has been achieved in replicating real activated sludge plants. 
We have had a great deal of success with modelling of wastewater
treatment plants.  We have used two products, BioWin from EnviroSim
Associates and STOAT from WRc.  We are very happy with BioWin and have
extensively tested it around the world.  We are not so happy with STOAT.
It all depends on what you need:
If you need a comprehensive package that covers a multitude of unit
processes, then you should look at GPS-X by Hydromantis.  It is now
available under NT.  It is expensive, but good value for your money if
it meets your needs.  I thinkthe professional version is USD 22 950 and
the standard version is USD 13 450.  You must also cost in other
software that the program requires.
If you need a specialist product for Activated Sludge and Biological
Nutrient Removal that provides good flexibility and models biological
nutrient removal accurately, then try BioWin.  It runs under Windows
3.11 and 95.  The cost is (I think) between USD 8 000 and USD 10 000.
If you are the type of person who likes building their own, then look at
EAWAG's AquaSim.  It costs about 1000 swiss francs.  It works on the
concept of compartments.  Another words, you input the rate equations
and it solves the mass balance.  It also has an excellent BioFilm
compartment. It also does sensitivity testing and parameter fitting.  It
is not a commercial product in the sense that there is help lines etc,
it is a research tool that the Swiss Federal Institute share for a
nominal cost.  
The other product that you may want to look at is SIMBA (DHV).  It is
similar to BioWin (but I am predjudiced to BioWin).  
How to get a hold of people:
Hydromantis has web page (good one) and a wastewater modelling users
group.  Try www.hydromantis.com
For EnviroSim, send a FAX to 905 338 5817 or contact me privately and
I'll give an email address.
For SIMBA, contact DHV
For Aquasim, go to www.eawag.ch 
For all these porducts, you need to know what your needs are and what
you budget is. 
I hope that helps.
Patrick Coleman
Reid Crowther Consulting LImited
10 Hitching Court, Blacklands Way
Abingdon, OXON, UK OX14 1RG
tel: 44 (0) 1235 536 120
fax: 44 (0) 1235 536 121
e-mail: Patrick@rccl.demon.co.uk

In article <01bbd192$c0ab41e0$89d0d6cc@masher>,
Mike Asher  wrote:
>...  Carrying capacity, however, has a
>clear, rigorous, definition: the asymptotic value of the controlling
>population equation.  Mr. Hanson's definition of CC as "population of a
>given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without
>permanently damaging the ecosystem" is fallacious.
Given Mike's ignorance has attracted a wave of support its worth pointing
out that he is wrong.
My Chambers Biology Dictionary defines carrying capacity as:
"Maximum number of individuals of species which can live on an area
of land, usually calculated from food requirements"
This fits the biological uses of the term I can recall seeing.
Mike Asher's is garbling pre-70s theoretical population biology.
Carrying capacity is typically an input to simple single species
population models.  Before the 70s most simple population models
explored by theoretical biologists were such that population size would
converge fairly smoothly on the carrying capacity.  For these models,
Mike Asher's definition is correct but vacuous.
In the 1970s an Australian, Robert May, revolutionised this area by
showing very simple single-species population models could exhibit
arbitrary dynamic behaviour (e.g. [1]).  Carrying capacity was still an
input to May's models but the population's size did not converge to it.
I don't think Jay Hanson's definition of the term "carrying capacity"
would be useful in a purely biological context.  His use is however is
quite reasonable in contexts with an artifical component, and similar
use is common in agricultural contexts in this country.
Andrew Taylor
[1] R. M. May, Biological Populations with Non-Overlapping Generations:
Stable Points, Stable Cycles and Chaos,  Science, 186: 645-647, 1974.

C++ Freak  wrote:
>There are different opinions on the environmental impact of
>woodstoves. (I am talking about a complete burning of dry, unpainted
>wood).
>Some say that they produce far more PAH's than coal or gas or produce
>more cee-o-two (CO2) than natural gas.
>The second is true, but, assumed, enough wood is renewed by planting new
>trees, this is not a problem.
Explain this to me. C + O2 --> CO2. One mole of C always produces 1 mole 
of CO2 regardless of the fuel source.
>And the PAH's (and the toxic CO) are only produced when not enough air
>is added (air inlet is choked too much).
>
>Burning of other stuff (painted wood, plastic, trash) is only 
>environmentally friendly if the combustion temperature is over
>2000 C.
>But burning of biomass should be environmentally sound.
Wood burning stoves are notoriously bad for producing clean emissions. If 
you really want to judge environmental soundness, look at the complete 
process for each option. Wood burning involves planting, growing, 
harvesting, drying and trimming of the trees. Each of these steps involve 
the use of energy obtained from petroleum sources, and the use of 
equipment made from metal ores (stripped mined?), hydrocarbon sources 
(for the plastic, rubber, paint, ...). and so forth. Jee, that all look 
wonderfully friendly to the environment doesn't it.
There are no simple answers.
John

NNTP-Posting-Host: zoppo.ilp.physik.uni-essen.de
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de talk.politics.misc:616013 talk.environment:79672 sci.environment:110814 alt.save.the.earth:26927 sci.energy:57760 alt.activism:240503 talk.politics.libertarian:186793 sci.agriculture:16434
John Moore (ozone@primenet.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:20:18 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >John Moore wrote:
: >> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:45:21 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
SNIP...
: >>Also,
: >> employess are getting more and more expensive, between increasing
: >> government mandated spending (per employee) and rising costs of
: >> healthcare.
: >I ask:
: >This must be why the U.S. has dropped from first to thirteenth in the 
: >category of employee compensation.  Government mandated spending per 
: >employee?  Please explain.
: AFDA, SSI, Medicare, OSHA, EPA, etc
: 
: Some of these are good things, but they DO increase the costs. OSHA,
: EPA and AFDA force companies to go to ridiculous extremes.
EPA regulations at best have only a weak relationship to
employee compensation costs.  As for the rest of the items
that you cite, they are all higher for the twelve countries
that rank above the US in employee compensation, indeed, as
a rule for our competitors in the 'first world' (Europe, Japan,
Canada, etc.)  Is the point to drive these costs down to
'third' world (China, Kenya, Bolivia) levels?  What do you 
think your level of compensation will be then?
: >He continues:
: >> 
: >> I would also point out that there are many consultants out there who
: >> are filling these slots, and they make a lot more than employees.
: >
: >I reply:
: >
: >What slots?  Give me some examples:
: 
: Over 25% of our software developers at my employer's. It is a STRONG
: trend in the software industry. One reason is that there is such
: demand that consultants can make more than employees with greater
: freedoms. For employers, it is useful when it is difficult to forecast
: demand. In other words, it the free market innovating ways to make
: more efficient use of resources, to the benefit of both parties.
It is also a dodge to get around paying FICA, unemployment insurance,
health benefits, etc. Since in the long run, someone is going to
pay for these folks social security, etc. it is basically theft.
Josh Halpern

> The days of each generation achieving more than the previous one is over.
My generation has achieved more and we're not dead yet, so how is it possible
for you to be so certain?
I think that discussing what you mean by achieving would be useful.
Both of us are using a communication medium which is pretty new. When I grew up
television was rare, few had telephones, just to mention two.
I can remember the difficulty of international telephone calls, or even
national calls over hundreds of miles of overhead lines and through mechanical
exchanges.
You can easily buy fresh fruit at any time of the year. When I was about 7 I 
remember being given an orange - I didn't know what to do with it.
Something that hasn't changed is wishing for earlier and better times, yet
that's dreaming and forgetting. It's not possible to pick and choose, so you
can't just take the good bits and ignore the horrible bits you'd forgotten.
There's plenty more on the way, some of which I'm forging and I expect you in
turn to do your bit.
Wages mean nothing in isolation.
I think an old saw is apt: You don't know how lucky you are.
  TC. 
    E-mail: tchannon@black.demon.co.uk or tchannon@cix.compulink.co.uk

Brian Liedtke wrote:
> 
....
> 
> 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
I reply:
Man, you even use the same terminology.  But it's no trick.  Please do 
repost the message I was referring to.

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: In the interests of honest, Yuri has a point with the Philippines.  I've
: been there five times; the country is definitely overpopulated, given its
: current infrastructure and technology base.  It is arguably the most
: devoutly Catholic country in the world, and the average Filipino does not
: believe in birth control.
Thanks, Mike. You've just proved that you're not a one-trick-pony and have
some depth in your vision.
I've spent some time in the Philippines myself over the years (my first
trip there was when Marcos was still in power) and often got very angry at
the pernicious effects of the Vatican propaganda there.
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

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: I remember when the ads urging aid to starving children had pictures
: of South Korean children and when those who had opposed defeating the
: North Korean conquest complained about South Korean workers being paid
: $25 per month.  Now labor costs in South Korea are $1500 per month,
: and a South Korean company built a factory in Hanoi to make TV tubes.
: In Hanoi the workers make $50 per month and never strike.
: What made South Korea prosperous was capitalism, not population
: control. 
It is always amusing when Libertarians praise an extremely statist
economic system such as the one in South Korea, or of the other "Tigers" 
that are only recently becoming less statist. 
What is it, opportunism -- or plain ignorance?
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

test

William Royea  wrote:on you do.
> 
> Instead of glibly saying that you want me to calculate these costs, why
> don't you give me the figures for all the indirect costs of nuclear and
> coal? How much does a human life cost?
In other words, you won't, or you can't.  You've had no problem challenging
the other side to produce facts and figures, of which I have done.  The
"indirect costs" of nuclear is a concept I refute-- if you believe so
passionately in it, support your claim.
> It's a no win situation: you either give up a right to some portion of
> your private property (namely, your rooftop) for lower energy costs, or
> you tear up giant tracts of land and pay more.
Fallacious twice over.  With present technology, solar power generation is
far more expensive and dangerous than nuclear.  I also fail to see vast
tracts of land being torn up for uranium mines.   
Your rooftop generation scheme can only supply a portion of residential
needs.  Industrial power is the big problem, and-- with solar-- can only be
solved by covering hundreds of square miles with some sort of collection
mechanism.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"In my own country, the UK, I like to point out that the average
Englishman's garden occupies 1/10 of an acre.  By digging down 1 meter, we
can extract six kilograms of thorium, two kilograms of uranium, and 7,000
kilograms of potassium, all of them radioactive.  In a sense, all of that
is radioactive waste, not man-made, but the residue left over when God
created the planet."
   - Walter, Lord Marshall of Goring, head of CEGB.

jaspevacek@mmm.com (John Spevacek) wrote:
>
>
> Explain this to me. C + O2 --> CO2. One mole of C always produces 1 mole 
> of CO2 regardless of the fuel source.
Not an engineer, are ya.
When looking production of CO2, the only rational basis is lbs CO2/Btu.
Wood does not look good on this basis.
Wood stoves are not the best delivery system for trasfering the Btu 
produced to residential comfort heat.
But you don't have the huge energy loss associated with electrical
power transmission.
> 
> Wood burning stoves are notoriously bad for producing clean emissions. If 
> you really want to judge environmental soundness, look at the complete 
> process for each option. Wood burning involves planting, growing, 
> harvesting, drying and trimming of the trees. Each of these steps involve 
> the use of energy obtained from petroleum sources, and the use of 
> equipment made from metal ores (stripped mined?), hydrocarbon sources 
> (for the plastic, rubber, paint, ...). and so forth. Jee, that all look 
> wonderfully friendly to the environment doesn't it.
> 
Excuss me?  Planting growing drying can be done with out a wit
of petroleum usuage.  Its called being a farmer.  Besides, some of us
burn only what we cut from land clearing (ie fence row creap), for
from lumber harvest by-products. (ie big branches)

In article <568a88$skk@sun3.uni-essen.de>, 
jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <327EB473.5D69@easynet.co.uk> "sdef!" 
 writes:
>: >A. Whitworth wrote:
I wrote absolutely none of the words quoted below. In fact I 
have already strongly disagreed with the author. Please be 
more careful to whom you attribute bullshit. 
>SNIP...
>: 
>: To draw this conclusion, one must vastly exaggerate the
>: importance of natural resources.
>: 
>: The mineral resources of the third, or underdeveloped,
>: or backward, or poor, world, were given to it by the
>: advanced West - which found the minerals, found
>: the proper ways of extracting them, and found
>: profitable uses for them.
>
>Disproof by counterexample:  China, India, North Africa,
>the Incan empire, the Aztec empire, Thialand, Indonesian,
>most of the near east, the Turkish empire... (limited only
>by my willingness to go to the library and learn more.)
>
>In short, you are an ignoramous.
>
>josh halpern
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There's only one... WAY of life... and that's your
own, that's your own, that's your own"
(15,000 people simultaneously at every Levellers gig)
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

test

Matt Regan (mregan26@student.manhattan.edu) wrote:
: I'm trying to figure out yuri's hatred for the vatican......
Simple. I do hate mass-murderers and those who create the conditions for
mass-murder.
: and im
: also wondering why she didn't respond to my statement that most of the
: overpopulated countries do not recognize the pope's authority.. 
1. It's a he.
2. I replied to this vacuous argument before in this thread. The
pernicious influence of the Vatican is perhaps more pernicious as an
indirect influence that sabotages any efforts in the world bodies such as
the UN to address the problem. Case in point: the Population Conference in
Cairo recently. Also the sabotage of Foreign Aid planners who attempt to
do something about overpopulation and the poverty it causes. 
Get informed.
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

George Antony Ph 93818 (antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
: Jay Hanson  writes:
: >Mike have just joined the rest in the doghouse with jw, charliew,
: >McCarthy, dlj. You are trying to tell us that ECOLOGISTS do
: >not know the definition ecology, but some politically-motivated
: >Usenet nitwit does.
: A totally inappropriate and intemperate response to a restrained, factual
: and perfectly topical contribution to the issue at hand.  
I think it is totally appropriate to point out that ecologists know more
about Carrying Capacity and its definition than the economists whose
"economism" often blinds them to the basic realities of biology and
ecology.
Many of these lightweights that Jay mentions in his post DON'T EVEN ACCEPT
that Carrying Capacity is relevant in describing and analysing human
societies and their relationship to the environment. For THESE ideologues
of hell-bent-for-growth dogma, even to begin to challenge the fine points
of defining the Carrying Capacity is itself the height of irrelevance.
Ecologically,
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

In article <56l1un$64d@news.one.net>
api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) writes:
>>>>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
Did you believe cigarette smoking was linked to several varieties
of cancer before 1996?  I know I did.  Yet, according to you, I
would have been in error, since all that was proven was a statist-
ical correlation.
Well?  Did you, or did you not believe that cigarettes caused
cancer before, say, January of this year?
>>>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.
>
>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.
Ummm . . . ice ages are not unpredictable changes in the weather.
You seem to argue like an apologist for the tobacco industry, so
please prove me wrong and list _specifically_ what would have to
be proven before you would concede global warming as a by-product
of industrial emissions is a reality.  Simply saying that you
'have to prove that burning fossil fuels caused it *this time*'
is unacceptable for a variety of reasons, not the least is that
I suspect that the only test of such that would convince you would
be to have all such emissions cease for x number of years . . .
obviously an extremely difficult experiment to carry out in
practice.
I find it interesting as well that you refuse to concede that the
theory has made any accurate, testable predictions, which of
course it has, and unless I am greatly mistaken, the utility
of any theory rests in the power of its predictions.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."

masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote for all to see:
>Reading from a computer screen, I'm learning, is far more difficult
>than from a book.
>
>Hanson, bless his entropic soul, publishes articles by scientists who
>actually do research in ecology, then people blame Hanson for what 
>they say.  It's "what Hanson says is wrong,"  "Hanson's definition 
>makes no sense," etc. etc.  
>
>Is it possible that the thousands of scientists who do research 
>in ecology are all a bunch of ideological jerks?
I must have missed a very high percentage of his posts.  I really hope
that Hanson has not posted thousands of times, much less quoted
"thousands of scientists" in those posts.  I am curious, though,
because most of the quotes I have observed Hanson make are of himself,
in any case.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
----
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a 
chance of saving the world ecologically.   I think it's 
possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
     - Judi Barry, Earth First,"Policy Review", Jonathon Adler,
	summer 1992