Newsgroup sci.environment 110159

Directory

 (jgordes@mail.snet.net) writes:
> Oh my God.  I remember the Inhaber article from 1983 and it was flawed
> then and even more so now.  As I recall (and I may be wrong) it based
> part of its assumptions on the fact that solar would need fossil fuel
> back ups when it was not in operation.  that was assumed to be heavily
> coal fired and thus a lot of the deaths were attributed to that.  
You might want to pick up the book and read it again.  The largest source
of risk for solar technologies was materials acquisition, construction and
maintenance, I believe.
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/

In article <848355746snx@black.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Channon  wrote:
>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.
Yeah, but at a price - you can hardly buy a decent tomato at ANY time of
year.  Sigh...
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR 
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza

Thanks for your remarks-please note that I posted this to the   CO_2 and
Iron Fertilization discussion group (Q.V.), and that its separate posting 
hereresulted from a keystroke error!
If or when CO2  needs to be addressed, I think we ought to pay  attention
to its sinks as well as its sources. As we have at present a weak grasp on
the past history of irons' possible role in modulating the marine carbon
cycle it is hard to predict either the time scale of the''window'' iron
fertilization might open,or the magnitude of the ecological impact of the
present anthropogenic iron flux into the marine environment. Has anyone an
order of magnitude estimate of the total iron corrosion loss from ships at
sea and fixed platforms?
Because of the uncertainty I did not try to  quantify the  CO2 drawdown
potential , I wrote simply to exposit the  mass budget  that would be
required to extend the ~ 2 nanomole enrichment achieved in the experiment
as reported in Nature to a significantly large area, in order to provide a
starting point for interested parties of all sorts to calculate from; to
wit 100 kg Fe+++ per Km2 per (half) year. Depth of dispersion and volume
mixing ratio to be experimentally optimized, or guesstimated( no parameter
forcing please!) to the modelers taste.

Hi,
I am very grateful for your help on the solution of convection - adsorption equation:
dc/dt + a*dc/dx = 0      1)
Where, c- concentration, t - time, x - distance, a - constant.
I found the solution for the more complicated convection-diffution-adsorption
equation:
dc/dt = D* d(dc/dx)/dx - a*dc/dx         2)
But I could not find the solution for the simpler one (Eq. 1)!
Nay helps are very wellcome!!
Yunlai

Hi,
I am very grateful for your help on the solution of convection - adsorption equation:
dc/dt + a*dc/dx = 0      1)
Where, c- concentration, t - time, x - distance, a - constant.
I found the solution for the more complicated convection-diffution-adsorption
equation:
dc/dt = D* d(dc/dx)/dx - a*dc/dx         2)
But I could not find the solution for the simpler one (Eq. 1)!
Nay helps are very wellcome!!
Yunlai

Hi,
I am very grateful for your help on the solution of convection - adsorption equation:
dc/dt + a*dc/dx = 0      1)
Where, c- concentration, t - time, x - distance, a - constant.
I found the solution for the more complicated convection-diffution-adsorption
equation:
dc/dt = D* d(dc/dx)/dx - a*dc/dx         2)
But I could not find the solution for the simpler one (Eq. 1)!
Nay helps are very wellcome!!
Yunlai

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>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. 
It's really pretty boring to see Yuku categorising people according to
his own blunderbuss categories.  Just as boring seeing him loading all
the Confucian societies into the Eurocentric "statist" dumpster.
>What is it, opportunism -- or plain ignorance?
Indeed, what is it?  I'd bet on plain sloppiness.  Yuri has never had
to meet any intellectual standard higher than Future Bakery's.
                                 -dlj.

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>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 :-)
See Gloria, I told you he had no source, or he would not fail to give
it when requested!
I would not have asked if I had that specific data, I would have
simply said you were wrong, and probably given you the source.  I
asked because I wanted to know where the specific information you
posted is to be found, in order that I can compare it with other
information.  
I do have lots of other information on poverty and income in the US (I
am assuming you are not speaking about Germany, the country you are
apparently posting from).  That information is to be found is several
places, but most is US Government issue.  See the US Statistical
Abstracts, DOC, there is a new one every year, the data in "Housing
Characteristics", US Dept of Energy (the one I have access to is
1987).  
International comparisons are particularly interesting, since you are
not posting from the US.  In many ways, the person below the poverty
line in the US is likely to be materially better off the average
citizen of Europe.  FOr example, the poverty stricken (ie., below the
poverty line) homes in the US lacking indoor flush toilets are 1.8%.
In West Germany, 7% of all homes, not just poor homes, lack such a
facility.  In France and Norway it's 17% of all homes! (see
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, "Living
COnditions in OECD Countries. (Paris: OECD, 1986).  While these are
all data for 1980 census, I don't think the proportions have changed
that much.
There are other such tidbits, but I will leave them for you to find
when you look up the sources I gave.
Now, since I showed you mine first, and noted why it does not appear
in agreement with what you said,  where is your source for the
interesting information you asserted?
Regards, Harold
-----
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by 
parts."
       --- Edmund Burke, 3 April 1777, Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol.

In article ,
   antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) 
wrote:
>Jay Hanson  writes:
>>Please elaborate (cite sources).
>
>"the supply of food is fixed relative to the supply of land"
>
>In other words, no allowance for higher yields: the whole 
world's 
>agricultural productivity is frozen at the level prevailing 
when the
>paper was written (late 1960s, early 1970s perhaps).  
Food productivity per acre is going up. 
Food productivity per energy unit is dropping. 
Just stating the facts, m'lud.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John Spevacek wrote:
> 
> C++ Freak  wrote:
> >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.
The expectation is that natural gas is going to produce more
heat (or put more heat into your house) per mole of C. This
is presumably because natural gas is easier to burn, furnaces
are more efficient than fireplaces, etc.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
I have made use of a junkmail address. To mail me, change
junkmail to dan.evens in my return address.
Dan Evens

jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>: >felton@phoenix.princeton.edu (phil. Felton) wrote for all to see:
>: >>In article , jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>SNIP..
>: >First, I am delighted to see that Reagan's appointee has become a new
>: >guru of government finance.  I believe it was the MBO (management and
>: >Budget Office), by the way, not the Federal Budget Office.
>
>OMB not MBO
>: 
>: >Second, I am interested if you have seen a director of the President's
>: >Management and Budget office who has *not* falsified budget
>: >predictions.  The office has always been highly politicized.  It has
>: 
>
>Alice Rivlin.  
I do not view Ms. Rivlin as being any less partisan than past
occupants of that position.  I am inclined to credit the accuracy of
her forcasts to the help from COngress.  I have a quote from her,
which you may find interesting, at least I did.
"We are now looking at a future from here, and the future we were
looking in February now includes some of our past, and we can
incorporate the past into our forecast. Nineteen-ninety-three, the
first half, which is now the past and was the future when we issued
our first forecast, is now over."
	----Laura D'Andrea Tyson, chairman of Clinton's Council of
            Economic Advisers (Richmond Times Dispatch, 1/7/94) 
Regards, Harold
---------
"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own
money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no
right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money."
                       --Rep. Davy Crockett of Tennessee, 1827

In article <32900e01.56196708@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz says...
>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.
[snip]
>The only problem I have with my theory, is deciding which poster is
>Bill Gates, but I've got my suspicions....
Nicely done.  Your take on enviro rant'n'rave is more charitable than
mine.  Not much science found here.
-bb

Hi,
I am very grateful for your help on the solution of convection - adsorption equation:
dc/dt + a*dc/dx = 0      1)
Where, c- concentration, t - time, x - distance, a - constant.
I found the solution for the more complicated convection-diffution-adsorption
equation:
dc/dt = D* d(dc/dx)/dx - a*dc/dx         2)
But I could not find the solution for the simpler one (Eq. 1)!
Nay helps are very wellcome!!
Yunlai

Landscaping with native plants is going to be discussed tomorrow night
on a taped show of The Environment Show for public radio.  If you'd like
to ask any questions or make a comment to our discussion panel, please
e-mail me at: goich@wamc.org   OR  call us at 1-800-323-9262, ext. 182.  
The show is being taped tomorrow, Tuesday, Nov. 19th at 1pm Eastern
Time.
Hope to hear from people!

keithb wrote:
> The technology which is the basis of these
> proposals is purely an extension of the natural
> phenomena employed by nature herself, to
> derive the potential energy, (which we
> harvest with wind generators and
> hydroelectric turbines, etc.), from the world
> environment, in the Natural "Water Cycle".
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the hydro cycle of
water evapourating is indeed a heat engine and is
indeed limited by thermodynamics as to its efficiency.
And you should be very thankful for that.  Otherwise
things like thunderstorms would be far larger  and
much more powerful than they are.  The surface of the
Earth would be scowered clean.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
I have made use of a junkmail address. To mail me, change
junkmail to dan.evens in my return address.
Dan Evens

On 18 Nov 1996, John Spevacek wrote:
> 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.
     As opposed to burning coal, which simply involves stip mining of a
non-renwable resource using even bigger, heavier machines that consume
more petroleum.  The coal of course has to be cleaned and transported.  So
what is your point?  Where in the burning of wood is there any negative
impact that is not involed in the buring of coal or oil?  Lets get real
here!  If nothing else the wood is a renewable resource.  There is less
enviornmental damage with *responsbile* harvesting of wood (not clear
cutting) than with mining of coal or drilling and transporting oil (i.e.
oil spills). 
			    Brian Petroski
			Just your stereotypical
			      polysexual,
			       bisexual
			    solitary pagan
		       from St. Paul, Minnesota

mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw (Michael Turton) writes: > In article <56da4v$omm@usenet.Hydro.ON.CA>,
> 	Unfortunately, there is no support from the history of technology
> for this point of view.  For any given set of competing technologies, the
> reasons for the emergence of one technology is the result of a complex
> of factors involving market clout, government subsidies, social preferences,
> political power/connections and so forth.  "Efficiency" is a relative value,
> not an absolutely discursive measure of performance.  Take the history of
> automobiles.  Around the turn of the century, there were a number of competing 
> powerplants for automobiles,and good arguments to be made for steam and 
> electric cars.  Yet gasoline emerged triumphant.  
Because gasoline powered autos were the best solution, both in terms of the economics
of ownership, range (don't forget we were more "rural" then), etc. One could not travel
long distances in steam or electric cars then or now. Until someone makes an electric
car that can be bought for $20,000, be filled for a trip for $20 and travel 400+ on 
that fill-up, they will not be a significant portion of the automotive sales mix. When
gasoline prices increase as supplies dwindle, the electric car will become more competitive.
Unless, of course, methanol/ethanol prices are low enough to make it the second choice!
Or take computers.  Was the
> IBM PC better than the Mac and Amiga?  Of the three, it had the worst 
> interface, the worst multimedia capabilities and the worst memory-management
> system, yet due to IBM's perspicacious decision to allow clones to be made
> and to its incredible market clout and reputation, and to the values of
> businessmen (who would not buy colorful Amigas because anything with color
> *must* be a toy) the PC is now the most dominant.  
IBM's decision (more like oversight) making clones possible lowered the price of the 
computers and therefore made the IBM standard the best economic compromise. Macs and
Amigas are better (in many respects), but, they are still pricey unless you have an
application that requires them thus making the economics work.
> 	Getting back to wind vs. nuclear.  Your info is a little out of date.
> Most of the prairie states in the west could generate many times their 
> consumption of energy with wind power even at current levels of technology; 
> North Dakota could generate 40% of the US electricity supply (Citing DOE 
> publications; there are many. See _Renewable resourcesn in the US electricity
> Supply_).  
40% of the US electricity supply from windpower in North Dakota!! Whoever wrote that
at the DOE should be checked for fitness for duty. Do you realize you are talking about
generation entering into the terawatt range?
You are right about economic incentives, however.  As the nuclear 
> and fossil industries get much larger subsidies than solar or wind, they
> remain the market leaders.  "Efficiency" is pretty much a calculus of the
> subsidy regime, the political clout of the industries and firms, historical
> accidents (lots of oil in the US), US military policy and so forth. There's no 
> objective value out there we can turn to to determine which technology is the 
> most efficient -- heck, light water reactors are not even the most efficient 
> design; yet they won out because of decisions made by Rickover (see Morone and 
> Woodhouse _The Demise of Nuclear Power?_.) which had nothing to do with needs
> for civilian power generation.  So, when the political calculus underlying
> nuclear power's claims of efficiency changes, so will the current energy 
> regime in the US.
> 
> Mike Turton
Efficiency is more than thermodynamic efficiency. One can build a Carnot engine, however,
it would be hugely expensive and therefore be economically inefficient. The only objective
way to evaluate technology of any kind is to determine the entire life cycle cost. On this basis,
many so-called clean technologies such as the one's you advocate lose to the one's we are using.
dz.

Jay Hanson  wrote for all to see:
>Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> > Jay Hanson  writes:
>> >
>> > > While the dollar price of extracting minerals may have been falling,
>> > > the energy cost of extracting minerals is steadily climbing -- as
>> > > the laws of thermodynamics predict that it will.
>> 
>> Huh? The laws of thermodynamics predict no such thing! "Energy" costs
>> are really fuel costs, which are more sensitive to politics than
>> scarcity.
>
>All matter and energy in the universe are subject to the
>Laws of Thermodynamics. In the discipline of Ecological
>Economics, systems are delimited so that they are meaningful
>to our economy.
While you are quite correct in this statement, examination of your
posts reveal that this may be the only accuracy concerning
thermodynamics of which you are guilty.
Regards, Harold
----
"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions.  Trade loves 
moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.  
....  Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high 
idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their 
own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein.  Hence it makes them 
inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
	---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3, 
	ch. 21 (1840).

From: The Green Disk Journal 
     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
     >>> THE GREEN DISK ON RENEWABLE & CLEAN ENERGY <<<
     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The upcoming issue of The Green Disk -- a journal of contemporary
environmental issues published bimonthly on computer disk -- will
focus on Renewable and Clean Energy like solar, wind, and
hydrogen. Although considered 'alternative' energy sources, when
put in the context of the environmental catastrophes, wars, smog,
climate change, human rights abuses, etc. associated with the
extraction and use of fossil fuel, it is clear that renewable
energy must figure prominently in any realistic future vision.
For those unfamiliar with our publication, each issue disk is a
research compendium of articles, bibliographies, and resource
listings on one challenging environmental issue. Twenty-six have
been completed to date (see list at our WWW site). Our readers
are environmental educators, journalists, activists, and
professionals. 
This is a good opportunity to gain exposure for your project,
organization, publication, Web site, or other resource related to
renewable energy. Other sections of each issue of The Green Disk
profile new projects, publications, computer resources, etc., on
any environmental topic, and we gratefully accept descriptions,
press releases or articles through our WWW site or via email.
THE DEADLINE FOR THIS ISSUE IS NOVEMBER 30!
 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
 <>     The Green Disk Paperless Environmental Journal     <>
 <>           PO Box 32224, Washington, DC 20007           <>
 <>  EcoNet   Internet   <>
 <>              http://www.igc.org/greendisk              <>
 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
      - Please forward this message where appropriate. -

hi, for the past seven years i've been responsible for giving S.E.M 
    support for a large r&d; processing lab. i'm curious to find out
    how marketable S.E.M. skills are. also, which area and environment       
    provides the greatest demand? is there a web site that may be helpful?
    thanks for your reply!          
                         please email me your responce! (pohl@earthlink.net)
                                                      thanks!

"Mike Asher"  wrote:
>Matt Regan  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm trying to figure out yuri's hatred for the vatican......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.. 
>> About the phillipines... Is it really overpopulated?? I doubt it.
>> 
>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.
>--
 Here comes the clincher of my argument. If the people of the
phillipines want to obey the vaticans teachings.. that who are you
yuri to tell them otherwise ? The Vatican supports it position because
it belives it to be the teachings of Christ, not out of hatred, as
Yuri I believe is trying to prove. Futhermore, I am beginning to take
PERSONAL OFFENSE at yuri calling the pope a mass murderer. it is ok to
disagree on a point of perspective or position, but to call the leader
of my Religion a serial killer is taking it a wee bit too far.  You
ask for a little thinking Yuri, well i have thought, and i have come
to the conclusion that your positions are not based on logic (the
pope-murderer thing) and you may have apoint on over-pop in the
phillipines (the urban areas that is, a lot of the country is still
jungle) but the one thing I havent herad you say is a solution to the
problem, besides shoving a condom in evryones pocket. Any other ideas
tough guy???
Matt regan
Mregan26@student.manhattan.edu

>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.
>>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.
Wait'll the word gets out that wood burning produces lots of varieties of 
dioxin.  Not that the classes of compounds generically called "dioxin" are 
nearly as horrible as they're cracked up to be, but dioxins are nonetheless 
products of wood (or paper) fire when the burning takes place without excess 
air.
                                Bob Ss.

I have been spending my summers in Canada for most my life.  Every
farmer I know there and their families and the children who have moved
off to the city and all of their kids has at least one gun.  I don't
understand how you can think that Canadians don't believe in owning
guns.  As far as I can tell the differences are that Canadians are at
the point socially that America was thirty or fourty years ago (I mean
that as a compliment not an insult) and that the population density is
much lower so there are fewer social pressures.  
Just my 1.5 cents... 
-- 
1¾

mgarmstrong@gn.apc.org (Mike Armstrong) wrote:
> 
> Oh, looking at the subject, I thought it was about carrying guns to
> shoot motorists!
> 
Hey! Keep those useful suggestion on population control coming.

The Envionment Show, a nationally syndicated public radio program, is
taping an interactive forum about landscaping with native plants
tomorrow, Tuesday at 1pm.  If you would like to participate by adding
your comments or asking questions to our discussion panel, please
contact me - the associate producer - at:  goich@wamc.org   OR  call:
1-800-323-9262, ext.600
Hope to hear from some people. 
Thanks!

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
Assistant Chemical Engineer
Full-time position is available to conduct original research in the areas of coal 
gasification and in developing novel adsorbent carbons from Illinois coal for air 
separation and pollutioncontrol.  Perform experiments and analyze data; supervise and 
coordinate experimental work performed by lab technicians; prepare technical reports, 
research proposals and journal articles.
EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE:  M.S. in Chemical Engineering, Fuel Science, Environmental 
Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, or Chemistry is the minimum requirement. 
Prefer M.S. as above with 4-6 years experience beyond B.S. including supervisory 
experience duties and established scientific record.    
Skilled in conducting coal and carbon research; experience with producing activated 
carbon from coal for environmental applications, knowledge of thermal analyses methods, 
mass spectrometry and surface area determination; knowledge of coal gasification 
literature and experimental procedures.  Excellent oral and written communication 
skills; publications in areas indicated.  
CLOSING DATE:  November 29, 1996
Please send resume, transcripts, list of publications and names and phone numbers of 
three references to:
Human Resources Office
Illinois State Geological Survey
615 East Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
217-244-2401
fax 217-244-7004
e-mail walston@geoserv.isgs.uiuc.edu
Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.
ISGS is an AA/EEO/ADA employer

Harold Brashears  wrote:
> Jay Hanson  wrote for all to see:
> >
> >All matter and energy in the universe are subject to the
> >Laws of Thermodynamics. In the discipline of Ecological
> >Economics, systems are delimited so that they are meaningful
> >to our economy.
> 
> While you are quite correct in this statement, examination of your
> posts reveal that this may be the only accuracy concerning
> thermodynamics of which you are guilty.
> 
Hanson's Law of Thermodynamics:  As time passes, the entropy and chaos in
my statements will invariably increase.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials."
  - George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426

         Len Evens asked for discussion of schemes to reduce atmospheric
CO2 levels by fertilizing unproductive areas of the ocean with iron.
         One issue with such schemes which I have not seen discussed is
the effect on the earth's albedo.  I remember reading that one of the
fertilization experiments produced a dramatic change in the visual
appearance of the ocean's surface (from blue to green).  How would this
affect the ocean's albedo?  How would the climate effects of albedo
change compare to those of CO2 change if this scheme were adopted on
a wide scale.
                   James B. Shearer (email jbs@watson.ibm.com)

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:25:38 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote for all to see:
> >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.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's not the computer screen that leads to 
mis-reading.  How can one read "thousands of scientists who do research"
as "posted thousands of times"  or "quoted 'thousands of scientists' "?
But, come to think of it, Hanson-of-the-entropy may have referenced 
thousands of scientists by now.   Good for him.  Unfortunately, no one 
here reads anything but Ehrlich-of-the-doom, Simon-of-the-souls, and Pilzer.
The "thousands of scientists doing research in ecology" are ignored.
Maybe I should set about posting them "thousands of time" here?
---------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------

We justify burning wood for house heating here in Nelson, New Zealand in
at least two ways. We burn wood slabs that are a waste product of the
local timber industry. We use the wood ashes as our major source of
potassium for our largely organic garden. While we feel comfortable with
this, others may not. (We did put an efficient wood burner into a
previously open fireplace) In other words, the question mayneed
expanding to consider sources and uses of byproducts, as in other
environmental issues.
Mike

Adam Ierymenko includes:
     But I think providing family planning for poor countries is
     something just a tiny bit easier to do than space
     colonisation? Think about it...
Birth control pills are available in drug stores in the poor
countries and are being used.  I believe the market has "provided"
them.  Isn't your statement unnecessarily paternalistic?
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

In article <56mtu3$rhb@news1.io.org>,
	yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>: I voted for Ralph Nader, but I agree with Matt and Charlie.
>: We cannot reduce human population,
>
>You sound awful fatalistic -- and very wrong. I think China has made fine
>progress in this area -- something that can provide a lesson for others. 
Hmm.. and people accuse environmentalists of advocating fascism.  Why on Earth
would they say a thing like that?
You telling me that you want the goon squad to come and arrest you and your
wife if you decide to have a second child and take her for a "quick and dirty"
abortion?
>: but we can colonize the
>: outer space for a fraction of NASA budget.
>
>"jw" has finally found a partner here. But I think providing family
>planning for poor countries is something just a tiny bit easier to do than
>space colonisation? Think about it... 
Sometimes technical problems are easier to conquer than social ones.  Mars
doesn't have dictatorial regimes to negotiate with.

Andrew Taylor  wrote:
> 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"
Surely, Andrew, you can see the definition you quoted is identical to mine.
  The asymptotic value of the model is the maximum number of individuals.  
I'm much more hesitant to throw the 'ignorant' word around than you, but I
would suggest you try *thinking* instead of parroting what you only
partially understand.   The _primary_ point of my post-- which you failed
to address-- is Hanson's claim that carrying capacity somehow involves
environmental harm.  It does not.
> 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.
Vacuous?  How so?  It's perfectly correct; I defy you to state it more
correctly in as many words.
> 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.
As I noted in the original post; many newer models exhibit chaotic
behavior.  In many of these, the concept of 'carrying capacity' does not
even exist.
> 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.
Please give a reference to support this ludicrous statement.  
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

On 16 Nov 1996 21:58:01 GMT, ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
wrote:
>J McGinnis (sync@inforamp.net) wrote:
>
>: U.N. World Food Council documents:
>: -------
>: Every day around the world 40,000 people die of hunger. That's 28
>: human beings every minute, and three out of four of them
>: are children under the age of five.
>
>: The number of hungry people increased five times faster in the 1980s
>: than in the previous decade. By 1989, 550 million people filled the
>: ranks of the malnourished or hungry.
>: -------
>
>If this is so, it says nothing about the environment, since 
>world food production per capita increased over the 1980s.
>Further, food production per capita has been increasing
>on every continent except for Africa.
So we have more food per capita AND more people facing famine per
capita? Why doesn't this make me feel any better?
I have no doubts that there is enough food to go around. Maybe you
should read this last paragraph again.
>: If everyone produced and consumed food as North Americans do, there
>: would only be enough food on the planet to feed 2.5 Billion people. On
>: the other hand if Americans reduced their meat consumption by just
>: 10%, it would free up 12 million tons of grain anually - more than
>: enough to feed all those facing famine.
We in the west have no fear of going hungry, because if worst comes to
worst we can just start mining topsoil from the Amazon, or secure
precious farmlands with our armies. 
As more - and much larger - populations attempt to follow the west
down the holy road to affluence the limitations of our environment
will become apparent very quickly. (As if they aren't already).
Unfortunately, sustainable development and global economic
competition, (to see who can grow the fastest), don't mix well.
Jason McGinnis

On 15 Nov 1996 18:04:47 GMT, "Mike Asher"  wrote:
>The FAO figures you quote indicate "malnourished" people.  FAO classifies
>people with sufficient caloric intake, but with a diet 'insufficiently
>varied' as malnourished as well.   Still a problem, of course, but please
>define it properly.
800 million facing famine at this moment, twice as many as 20 years
ago. 40,000 of whom will die tomorrow, and 40,000 the next day, and...
>In Medieval times, 
-snip-
Your description of how horrible life was half a millenium ago is
quite enlightening, but proves nothing except how far back you have to
look to find a time at which things were worse, and even then were
only worse in a localized area.
The problems to which you refer resulted from the advent of
market-based economies, (actually marking the end of medieval times),
which - like most businesses still - formed with little understanding
of the impact they would have. 
For 800 years after the fall of the Roman empire up to this point,
people lived in a non-market, subsistance based economy; the land did
not belong to the people, the people belonged to the land. Very few
had reason to be hungry.
Since the primary industry of these developing markets was textiles,
the question became whether to use the land for food or sheep. No hard
choice for the aristocrats who had no fear of going hungry - so they
began to maximize the use of land for sheep to support these emerging
markets.
What happened as a result has to be one of the greatest turning points
in history.
A series of enclosure acts passed by the English parliament divided
the land and reduced it to commercial property that could be
negotiated as real estate. Hundreds of thousands of people were
displaced from the land first in England then on the continent.
The resulting famines were caused by a lack of understanding that what
minimal land could feed the people one year, might not the next year,
or ten years later. That, and the fact that the upper classes liked
their sheep too much.
This situation was probably the first hard-learned environmental
lesson which modern humankind faced, and thank you Mr. Asher for the
example. 
For the first time people realised that even large-scale resources are
finite, and balance must be achieved. As our understanding grew over
time, we've simply tried to achieve this balance between 'sheep and
food' and inhabited more land.
Only now there isn't more land. The earth and the biosphere which is
our environment is finite.  The resources which we consume are finite.
Since there is no more land, the only alternative is to work on the
balance between 'sheep and food', so to speak. The problem is, as it
was 500 years ago, that those who have both don't see the problem. Or
they don't think it's their problem.
>This is the true world of 'organic' farming, biomass power, and
>deindustrialization many environmentalists would have us return to.  I'd
>prefer to work out our problems and stay here.
No environmentalist I know would consider deindustrialization to be a
viable solution. If we could go back in time, however... 
Capitalist's solution: Consume more!
Jason McGinnis

In article <328edce2.503686675@nntp.st.usm.edu>
           brshears@whale.st.usm.edu "Harold Brashears" writes:
> >>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
> >>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
> >
> >Actually, I thought economic surplus was a by-product of freedom.
> 
> There is certainly room for disagreement there.  I think you would
> have to admit there is a very high correlation between the wealth of a
> society and freedom.
Aneurin Bevan was speaking of personal wealth and personal freedom. If you 
have no personal economic surplus you are a slave. The more economic surplus 
you have the freer you are.
-- 
Paul E. Bennett 
Transport Control Technology Ltd.
+44 (0)117-9499861
Going Forth Safely

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:19:22 GMT, pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca (Patrick Reid) wrote:
> [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.
I understand this.  The difficulty lies in collecting data.
It is almost impossible, for low exposures, to prove that
the deaths which occured were due to the radiation.
Are you willing to broadcast the claim:
 "There have been NO deaths due to radiation from commercial reactors" ??
That is the question I was addressing.
    Mason
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

Hello everybody,
Could you please post in one group only? - It is not very usual making a  
long thread with long articles out of a crossposting, so that others have  
to read those in several groups.
Thanks! Stephan.

In article <56pv7u$kn5@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
 > 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. 
May I take it that Kuchinsky grants the point that it was capitalism
and not population control that made South Korea prosperous?
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

Yuri Kuchinsky  wrote:
> 
> : 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?
> 
Two of those "tigers": Singapore and Hong Kong, are continually rated the
two most economically free countries in the world.  (The US ranks 3rd -
6th, depending on the survey).  
North and South Korea make for an excellent case study.  Both have the same
culture, and are very similar in resources and other areas.  Yet North
Korea, with perhaps the most tightly controlled economy in the world, is
starving, while a more populous South Korea prospers.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Unionism seldom, if ever, uses such power as it has to insure better work;
almost always it devotes a large part of that power to safeguarding bad
work."
- H. L. Mencken