Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP with SCHOOL - Short Ecology Survey!
From: abc
Date: 22 Nov 1996 12:51:44 GMT
½s¼g Joel Estes ¦¸:
> John A. Keslick, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I recycle trees with my chain-saw, they make excellent firewood!
> > Here, as in all Medicine, the first principle must be: "FIRST OF ALL DO
> > NO HARM!" This implies, of course, a thorough understanding of the
> > healthy organism i.e. in this case, the tree biology. >
>
> ------------------------------snip------------------------------
>
> > How does season long systemic and injections effect protected wildlife
> > like sap suckers? -
> >
> > John A. Keslick Jr. If you are not OUTRAGED you're not
> > Tree Anatomist & Tree Biologist paying attention.
> > Phone: 610-696-5353 Support ORGANIC FARMERS.
> > organic tree treatment web site:
> > http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/ OR http://www.ccil.org/~kenm/env/
>
> This nonsense does _not_ belong in comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
>
> It is a computer s/w development environment discussion news
> group, not an environmental discussion news group!
>
> Regardz(tm),
> Joel Estes
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:13:08 -0600
Mike Asher wrote:
>
> John Moore wrote:
> >"Mike Asher" wrote:
> >
> > >Agreed. And observations on ice sheets in Greenland show unmistakable
> > >growth-- although Greenlandic ice, or Nothern Polar ice, for that
> matter,
> > >will have no effect on sea levels.
> >
> > mmmm... Greenland ice is on land, so melting it SHOULD have impact on
> > sea level.
>
> True, but the Greenlandic sheets that are growing, are doing so over open
> water, unlike the Antarctic sheets, most of which are on top of rock
> shelves.
>
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
>
> (sig line randomizer temporarily unavailable)
Could we have some references for these assertions? The last I
remember reading in the IPCC reports and in what Bob Brumbine has posted
is that the Greenland ice cap's melting would be expected to add to sea
level rise under enhanced greenhouse warming while the antarctic cap
might very well subtract from sea level because of increased
precipitation. And of course, all the references I have seen mention
the possibility of catastrophic collapse of the west antarctic ice cap
although this is not considered likely in the relatively short run.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: Rod Adams
Date: 22 Nov 1996 12:17:01 GMT
TL ADAMS wrote:
>redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>>
>> "John H. Alderman III" writes:
>>
>> > Based on Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion ?
>>
>> Please describe it and give us a few references.
>>
>
>Whatever happened to that test project that was supposed to be
>done off of Florida. As any diver will tell you, there is a
>thermocline in ocean water. Warm less dense water over a layer
>of colder water. Any engineer can tell you that you can run a Carnot
>engine off of any temperature gradient. The project was also suppose
>to improve sea farming as it would bring up nutrients from the bottom
>to the upper growing zone (sorry, not a marine bio).
>
>Although, you can't get much efficiency from a 30F gradient.
>
An engineer can tell you that the thermal efficiency of the cycle would
be on the order of 3-6% depending on losses.
He would also be able to tell you that even if the energy is "free"
collecting the energy and turning it into a useful form would require
very long pipes (the distance between the thermocline and the surface
water is normally about 1000 feet), very deep water near shore, and
large diameter turbines (a conversion efficiency of 6% means that
you have to move a tremendous amount of vapor per unit power
produced.)
The engineer would also have to tell you that the cycle would require
the use of a working fluid with a significantly lower boiling point
than water, since the Th (high temperature portion of the Carnot
cycle) is only about 85-90 F. The normal choice is ammonia, a fluid
with its share of hazards.
Finally, the engineer would have to tell you that the OTEC would
probably be limited to a few places in the world that meet the critera
of having lots of capital, access to deep water, equatorial type
surface water temperatures, and sufficient electrical power demand to
make the investment potentially worthwhile. Taiwan, for example, has
done quite a bit of work in this area, but has not yet been able to
make the economics work well enough to attract investors.
Source - Wu, Chih "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion" (Unfortunately,
I do not know the publisher, but I do know that the book came out in
about 1990.)
Dr. Wu teaches a course at the Naval Academy titled Energy
Conversion. He also occasionally takes on students for advanced work
in the field, even if they are no longer officially students. I had the
opportunity to study under him for about 18 months in 1991-1993.
We studied OTEC in addition to solar, wind, thermoelectrics,
magnetohydrodynamics, and other alternative energy sources.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:03:09 GMT
sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote for all to see:
>On 20 Nov 1996 13:56:44 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
>wrote:
>
>>I'm doubtful about James McGinnis's statement that the number of
>>people facing starvation has doubled since 1989. Which people are
>>being discussed.
>
>>At the other end of the scale,
>
>I assume that's the poor : rich scale?
>
>>the number with the opportunity to buy
>>Big Macs has probably doubled since 1989, since McDonalds is now in
>>100 countries.
>
>I'll say it again. If all the world produced and consumed food as
>North Americans do, we could only provide enough food for 2.5 Billion
>people. The world population is expected to pass 8 Billion within 30
>years.
>In other words, the number of people eating Big Macs is a cause of the
>problem, not a sign of improvement.
I will respond, just once here, to point out that you have a hidden
assumption that ruins your argument, at least for me. I do not expect
you to see it.
You make the assumption that the world could not readily increase in
production of food. This is not the case. I think that, given even
rudimentary economic freedom and property rights, the world could
readily produce sufficient food to feed itself on the level of the
western democracies.
Africa may have the greatest unrealized potential for food anywhere in
the world. If they ever manage to attain political stability, some
economic freedom and western property rights, they will have no
problem feeding not only themselves, but a lot of the rest of the
world.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in
the effect was already in the cause."
---Henri Bergson, Philosopher (1859 - 1941)
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:19:06 GMT
Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: I understand your arguments though: It didn't work for the Soviets, or the
: East Germans, or the Chinese, or the North Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or
: Cuba, or the various African, Latin American, and European countries now
: implementing free-market reforms, but by god there is *somewhere* on the
: planet socialism will work!
Socialism is working in China very nicely right now. And it is an
eco-socialism, as their family planning system is stabilizing their
population growth and giving a chance for Nature to survive there.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------
Subject: Re: Nuclear Planes (was Re: Nuclear Safety disinformation )
From: "J. Hnat"
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:14:41 -0600
Dan Evens wrote:
>
> Mike Asher wrote:
> > Even so, this is a different niche than one for a nuclear-powered aircraft,
> > which would have (IMO) primarily military or observational applications.
>
> Keeping a plane in the air for months is probably not all that much of a
> value to the military. They would probably much rather do it by using
> shifts of bringing new planes on post, or doing mid-air refuelling if
> they have to. Bringing in new planes also means new crews. Keeping
> the same crew on post for months would be very stressful. Switching
> crews would be at least as hard as mid-air refuelling.
>
> Subs stay out for months to play secrecy games. The hope is that the
> opposition loses track of the exact location of the sub. The reason
> that is important is a sneak attack can't take out the sub by dropping
> a nuclear weapon on it closely enough to kill the sub before it can
> launch its own weapons. (I can't really tell you if this theory
> actually works.) The stress on sub crews is also significant, but
> the military makes special efforts to deal with this. These include
> selection of crews, training, and facilities aboard the sub to
> alleviate the stress to some extent.
>
> Aircraft are probably not going to be able to play such secrecy games.
> It's a lot harder to hide an aircraft in flight than it is to hide
> a submarine that is quietly sitting on the bottom of some ocean.
>
> However, it would certainly be possible to build a nuclear powered
> aircraft. There is nothing technically stopping anybody. It
> might even be economical. It's just that it is not really
> required. The fuel costs for standard air travel are not really
> all that large.
>
> --
> 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 EvensThe government has already built, flew, and tested a nuke plane. Flew it
around west Texas, east NM. Junked the plane after testing and buried the
engine at a INEL landfill. Tere probably still trying to figure out how
to remediate the landfill of all the RAD. Write them and maybe they'll
let you take it off their hands :-).......
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: purchase@cyberus.ca (Ken Purchase)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 15:33:09 GMT
> Yuri.
>
>Overpopulation? Paul Ehrlich? Wake up and smell the increased food
>production in the world. Per-capita world food production has been
>rising steadily since 1950 and is currently 40% higher than it was
>then. These are official UN figures. As proof of this realize that the
>real price of wheat has been steadily falling since 1800, and as prices
>are the best judges of scarcity, we are not facing a food shortage but a
>massive food surplus. Also do you realize that through the use of
>hydrophonics a midwestern company called PhytoFarm has built a factory
>of 50,000 square feet (about an acre) and is producing 1 ton of garden
>vegetables (like lettuce) per day.
>
>In other words, don't worry, be happy theres plenty of food for
>everyone.
>
>Max Jacobs
>
>************************************************************************
>The Bionomics Institute
>http://www.bionomics.org
>
>Viewing the economy as an ecosystem
>
>************************************************************************
I have to say that I agree with the theory that there isn't enough food, at
least not enough quality food to keep up with population growth. Sure we do
have hydroponics and we also have new chemicals and pesticides that make
things grow bigger, faster and with less interference, and we also have cancer
rates which are increasing as a result. I think this is all part of a larger
picture. We are very smart in the sense that we think we have solutions to or
can come up with solutions to alot of problems, food being one of them. Our
companies come up with these new chemicals to help with the food situation,
governments rubber stamp them after a year of testing and it's like magic.
All of the sudden we have billions more tomatoes, each one looking perfect I
might add (just think, there was a day when people would bite into a tomatoe,
bugs and all). What we don't connect with is the fact that none of these
chemicals endure long enough research to assess their contribution to the
increase of disease such as cancer. So in fact yes we may be producing more
food but we're also increasing the rate at which people die of cancer (one
example). If you step back from that maybe you will see that if it's not one
thing (food shortage) that's killing us it's something else (cancer). As far
as governments and chemical companies are concerned, mandates run between 4
and thirty years so who cares if their funky tomatoes kill people....they'll
have enjoyed their wealth by the time the numbers start coming in. This
chemical theory not only happens in food but it occurs every day in our lives.
We are constantly exposed to things that are going to eventually have an
effect on our numbers. Say it's cancer or pollution or tomatoes...it's all
really the same thing!
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 15:40:46 GMT
James G. Acker wrote:
> "Mike Asher" (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> :
> : Last I heard, observations of Antarctic ice showed increases, not
> : decreases.
>
> No, he's right. Two "smaller" ice shelves have collapsed
> or suffered severe retreat. What this indicates for the overall
> ice cap budget re: accretion or dissipation, is unknown.
Agreed. And observations on ice sheets in Greenland show unmistakable
growth-- although Greenlandic ice, or Nothern Polar ice, for that matter,
will have no effect on sea levels.
However, according to the International Association for Physical Sciences
in the Ocean:
"Mean sea level has not changed in the past century."
- Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, secretary general IAPSO.
Two questions and a statement:
One, when was this quote made / published?
Two, are you aware of the research that indicated some of
the potential rise was likely mitigated by impoundment of fresh
water in man-made lakes on the continents?
Three, sea-level rise, due to the large volume of the oceans,
is not a good indicator of the rate or potential for climate change.
In large part because it's hard to measure. What is more indicative are
changes in regional hydrology, such as glacial retreat or advance,
sea ice extent from year to year, and differences in retained
soil moisture (there are many, many more variables that could be
examined).
Global warming and climate change observations constitute
a difficult statistical problem. Everybody knows this, or should
know this. One particular phenomenon, or one out-of-context quote
concerning one difficult-to-measure variable, is barely meaningful.
For that reason, the collapse of two small ice shelves in Antarctica
or very slight increases in sea level (which is what has been
observed, Stevenson's quote notwithstanding) are not definitive.
The problem is trying to perceive and attribute a signal within
the normal variability.
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:16:57 -0600
James B. Shearer wrote:
>
> Len Evens posted:
> >Thomas Karl .et .al, using continental US weather data demonstrated an
> >statistically significant increase in two indices. One measured the
> >frequency of extreme events and the other extreme events expected in a
> >world with enhanced greenhouse warming. (The paper was in the first
> >issue of Consequences, a journal available over the internet, and you
> >can look there to see how these indices were derived.) ...
>
> I looked this up on the web (it's at http://gcrio.gcrio.org/
> CONSEQUENCES/spring95/Climate.html). I was surprised to find its
> conclusions are the opposite of what you state, there has been no
> statistically significant change in the indices. The third paragraph
> in the Conclusions section of the paper states (reformatted to
> shorten lines):
>
Mr. Shearer does indeed indicate a shortcoming in what I posted which
was largely from memory and influenced by what other sources have said
about the Karl et. al. results, including I believe commentary in Nature
or Science. That of course is no excuse for my not checking the
article first before I posted. For doing that, I think he has made a
useful contribution to this discussion. However, Mr. Shearer greatly
overstates his case. In no way does the article come to the opposite
conclusion to what I asserted. Indeed if you read below, you will see
that they estimate that the chances of changes in the indices being do
to random variation or natural variability as being in the range of 5 to
10 percent. Statistical significance is usually defined as meaning the
probability that the result is just do to chance is less than 5 percent.
One can argue about what to do if the chance is only 10 percent instead.
However, it is still 90% likely that it is not due to chance.
However, I think I can fairly maintain that the only way one could
conclude that the Karl et al paper said the exact opposite of what I
said it said is if it concluded that the results were entirely
explainable by natural variability. The paper clearly asserts that the
authors think this is unlikely, although as the accurate quotes below
indicate, they do not rule out entirely that the changes in the indices
were due to random factors or natural variability. Note that I never
said they did, although Mr. Shearer may have read what I did say as
implying that. He may have a point there in that when one uses terms
like statistical significance, then there is always the possibility that
some unsophisticated readers (and this does not include Mr. Shearer)
might misinterpret this as a statement of certainty. I will try to be
more careful in the future.
I don't like to criticize individuals, but Mr. Shearer sometimes has a
tendency to quibble about relatively minor points as though those were
the only issues of any significance. Let me remind anyone who has
followed this thread or is interested in the Karl et. al results that I
have never said that those results prove definitively that antrhopogenic
forces are responsible for observed climate change. Moreover, I even
pointed out the much stronger reservation, which one can find in the
IPCC reports that the Karl et. al. results have not been repeated for
other datasets in other areas. However, I do think a fair reading of
the evidence does not lead one to conclude that the Karl et. al results
tell us nothing about the evidence for possible human influence on
climate change.
I think it would be more useful if we stopped trying to score points
against one another in debating mode and tried to be clear about what
the current science says. Emphasizing only that this science doesn't
prove everything one would like to know without any doubt whatsoever
is an example of selecting evidence to prove a case without looking at
all the evidence that is available. In a complex situation like
climatology, one may always do this if one treats the matter as one of
putting down other people, but I at least don't find it enlightening.
> >A Climate Extremes Index, defined by an aggregate set of conventional
> >climate extremes indicators, supports the notion that the climate of
> >the U.S. has become more extreme in recent decades, yet the magnitude
> >and persistence of the changes are not now large enough to conclude
> >that the climate has systematically changed to a more extreme state.
> >Similarly, a U.S. Greenhouse Climate Response Index, composed of
> >indicators that measure the changes that are expected to follow
> >increased emissions of greenhouse gases, reflects in recent years the
> >very changes that are predicted. Still, the rate of change of the GCRI,
> >as with the CEI, is not large enough to unequivocally reject the
> >possibility that the increase in the GCRI may have resulted from other
> >factors, including natural climate variability, although statistically
> >this is but a 5 to 10% chance. Both indices increased rather abruptly
> >during the 1970s, at a time of major circulation changes over the
> >Pacific Ocean and North America. There is little doubt that the
> >increase in the indices is at least partially related to these
> >circulation variations, although the role of increased anthropogenic
> >greenhouse gas concentrations in such circulation variations is poorly
> >known.
>
> The article does not go into how statistical significance is
> computed. I doubt there is a single indisputable way of doing this.
> How does one account for the non-independence of adjacent years in the
> natural climate?
> James B. Shearer
These are questiona that could reasonably addressed to Karl and
associates.
Or one could look in the IPCC reports or the extensive literature to
see how such issues are addressed. It is certainly correct that there
is not a single indisputable way to determine statistical significance
in this very complex subject with so many factors and so much
uncertainty. So what? This is not mathematics where criteria for
truth are more or less clearly established. But it is still possible
to get some feeling for truth by the methods that people who
work in this area employ. I don't know for sure what Karl et al did in
this study, but auto correlation is a well known phenomenon among those
who do time series analysis, and I would be extremely surprised if they
did not take the issue of possible non independence of results from
adjacent years into account. Karl is highly regarded in his field, and
according to at least one article I read in Science or Nature, he has
been essentially neutral in the past about the question of whether or
not a greenhouse signal has been `detected'. I strongly doubt that he
would make an elementary error of this type.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: cz725@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jeremy Whitlock)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 14:57:36 GMT
William Royea (royea@cco.caltech.edu) writes:
>> I would suggest finding Inhaber and giving it a read.
>
> Gathering from earlier posts, it seems the studys in it are flawed in
> addition to outdated.
Inhaber's work was accused of being outdated a couple of years after its
publication: the accusation, in itself, means nothing. In point of fact,
Inhaber goes to great lengths to give developing technologies like solar
and wind the benefit of doubt. He consistently applies the most
optimistic projections for these areas, while purposely using only
contemporary parameters and pessimistic assessments for conventional
technologies like nuclear and fossil.
As for being flawed, a large part of Inhaber's book (not the original
article) is devoted to the study's flaws, and Inhaber is the first to
admit its deficiencies. I think most people having knee-jerk reactions
to the idea of high-risk solar are simply not adequately envisioning what
is involved in the construction and maintenance of a 1000 MWe,
70%-capacity solar or wind farm.
>> I was referring to Western-designed plants. And so were you, since you said:
>>
>> "If any of you believe that such an accident will never occur because
>> it's never occured in this country, there's a bridge I'd like to sell
>> you."
>
> So let me get this straight. You're referring to all types of accidents
> in this country. Are you suggesting that it is beyond the realm of
> possibility that we can have a disaster similar to Chornobyl?
More correctly: Beyond the realm of probability. Yes. The design flaws
and event sequence that led to the Chernobyl accident would not be seen in
a Western-designed reactor. The level of operator ignorance and political
machinations behind the scene are difficult to imagine here also.
>> Neither do engineers, which is why nuclear reactors are designed to be
>> one of those most forgiving technologies ever created.
>
> What exactly are you implying by "forgiving"?
What I mean is that the technology has been designed to not just withstand
the forseeable, but the unforseeable also. This was demonstrated at TMI,
where an unforseen accident sequence was ameliorated by the presence of an
adequate containment system.
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/
Subject: Re: Entropy (was Re: the economist/elephant joke)
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:46:40 -0700
Robert Parson wrote:
>
> In article <56v6er$fv2@sloth.swcp.com>, snark@swcp.com wrote:
>
> >If I put a car in a room with oxygen, insulated from heat, with some
> >water (I agree with the perilous aspect, here), will it rust, or not?
> >Robert appears to be claiming that it won't--
>
> Yes, that is what I am claiming - if you could somehow prevent the
> heat of reaction from escaping, the reaction would be unable to go
> to completion. All that excess heat would thermally decompose the
> iron oxide as it formed - sort of a self-smelting ore. This example
> is utterly unrealistic, but you do see things like this in simple
> gas-phase reactions.
I note:
Of course the car would rust. That doesn't mean that you're incorrect
since you're not, but at any practical scale even in a perfectly
isolated room, I think it can be shown that the probability that a
certain number of metal and oxygen atoms will combine to create an
oxide is much higher than the probability that sufficient energy will
become available to the oxide to decompose it. This is all that's
necessary to ensure that rust will form. As more oxide forms more
energy will become available and the probability of dissassociation
will rise.
Subject: ALERT: ICI RELEASES HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 22 Nov 1996 03:44:24 GMT
Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) recently announced the discovery of a
new firefighting agent to be used in conjunction with existing ones such as
dry powder and BCF (bromine-chlorine-flourine). Known as "WATER", it is
particularly suited for fires in buildings, timber yards, and warehouses.
Though required in large quantities, it is cheap to produce and is intended
that quantities of about a million gallons be stored in urban areas and
near other installations of high risk. BCF and dry powder are usually
stored under pressure, but WATER will be stored in open ponds or
reservoirs.
ICI's proposal is already encountering strong opposition from safety and
environmental groups. Professor Connie Barriner has pointed out that if
anyone immersed their head in a bucket of WATER, it could prove fatal in as
little as three minutes. Each of ICI's proposed reservoirs would contain
enough water to fill 500,000 buckets. As each bucket could easily be used
100 times, there is enough water in *one* reservoir to kill the entire
population of the UK. Risks of this size, said Barringer, should not be
allowed, whatever the gain. If WATER were to get out of control, the
incidents at Seveso or Bhopal would pale by comparison. What use was a
firefighting agent that could kill men as well as fire?
A local authority spokesman said he would strongly oppose planning
permission for construction of a WATER reservoir in this area, unless
stringest precautions were followed. Open pools were certainly not
acceptable. What would prevent people falling in them? What would prevent
the contents from leaking out? At the very least, the WATER would need to
be contained in a steel pressure vessel surrounded by a concrete
containment wall.
A spokesman from the fire brigades said he did not see the need for the new
agent. Dry powder and BCF could cope with most fires. The new agent would
bring risks, particularly to firemen. Did we know what would happen when
this new chemical was exposed to intense heat? Would it decompose into
something even more dangerous?
The Friends of the World said they had obtained a sample of the new
chemical WATER and found it caused clothes to shrink. If it did this to
cotton, what would it do to humans?
In the House of Commons yesterday, the Home Secretary was asked if he would
prohibit the manufacture and storage of this lethal new material. The Home
Secretary replied that local authorities would have to take advice from the
Health and Safety Executive before giving planning permission. A full
investigation is planned by the Major Hazards Group.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: "Don Dale"
Date: 22 Nov 96 10:57:39 -0500
Ken Purchase wrote,
>I have to say that I agree with the theory that there isn't enough food,
at
>least not enough quality food to keep up with population growth. Sure we
do
>have hydroponics and we also have new chemicals and pesticides that make
>things grow bigger, faster and with less interference, and we also have
cancer
>rates which are increasing as a result.
Mr. Purchase,
Congratulations! You win the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc prize of the
week! This, of course, makes you eligible for the grand prize, which is a
week's stay in the Michael Lerner Center for the Logically Challenged. We
also have some lovely parting gifts for you...
Don
Subject: Re: Nuclear Planes (was Re: Nuclear Safety disinformation )
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 22 Nov 1996 15:05:15 GMT
Dan Evens wrote:
> Mike Asher wrote:
> > Even so, this is a different niche than one for a nuclear-powered
aircraft,
> > which would have (IMO) primarily military or observational
applications.
>
> Keeping a plane in the air for months is probably not all that much of a
> value to the military. They would probably much rather do it by using
> shifts of bringing new planes on post, or doing mid-air refuelling if
> they have to. Bringing in new planes also means new crews. Keeping
> the same crew on post for months would be very stressful. Switching
> crews would be at least as hard as mid-air refuelling.
I disagree. We keep submarines on post for months at a time. A
nuclear-powered plane could be made a good bit larger than a 747. As a
command post or transport freed from the logistics of refuelling, there
would be significant value. Also, the plane could be designed with a
decreased wing area/mass ratio, *decreasing* efficiency, but thereby
increasing stability in rough weather conditions.
Another possibility: a weather observation platform. Capable of tracking a
storm center continously (you're not going to mid-air refuel in a
hurricane) and would be more stable than traditional craft.
Don't get me wrong, Dan...I think the US market for such planes would be
about 5...not that enviros will ever allow them to be built.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Blessed are the young, for they will inherit the national debt."
Herbert Hoover.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:45:33 -1000
Don Dale wrote:
> Jay Hanson wrote,
>
> >It is the advances in "depletion of natural capital" which have
> > allowed the population to grow as it has. Unfortunately, in a
> > finite world governed by the laws of thermodynamics, our
> > endowment of natural capital is rapidly being pissed-away on
> > anything that is convertible to personal power.
>
> Mr. Hanson,
>
> The earth is not a closed system. The laws of thermodynamics operate
> quite differently in open systems than in closed systems.
I am sure glad you brought this up Don, I just wrote an essay
about it (see attached). You seem like an intelligent fellow,
let's discuss it.
================================================================
THERMODYNAMICS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION
by Jay Hanson -- revised 11/19/96
"Erwin Schrodinger (1945) has described life as a system in
steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its
constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on low
entropy from its environment -- that is, by exchanging high-
entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs. The same statement
would hold verbatium as a physical description of our
economic process. A corollary of this statement is that an
organism cannot live in a medium of its own waste products."
-- Daly and Townsend
. . .
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.
What does thermodynamics have to do with the sustainability of
food production?
The two essential forms of stored thermodynamic potential are
"energy" (e.g., a barrel of oil) and "order" (e.g., clean
drinking water and deep topsoil). "Entropy" is a measure of the
unavailability of energy: the entropy of oil increases as it
burns, and the entropy of a water table increases as it falls
because more energy will be required to pump it to the surface.
Entropy can also be thought of as a measure of disorder in a
system: polluted water that requires purification has higher
entropy than the same water unpolluted, and the entropy of
topsoil increases when it erodes or is polluted by salt from
evaporating irrigation water.[1]
Sustainable systems are "circular" (outputs become inputs)
-- all linear physical systems must eventually end. Modern
agriculture is increasing entropy in both its sources (e.g.,
energy, soil, and ground water) and its sinks (e.g., water and
soil). Thus, modern agriculture is not circular -- it can not
be sustained.
Consider the most important limiting variable -- energy.[2]
There is NO substitute for energy. Although the economy
treats energy just like any other resource, it is NOT like
any other resource. Energy is the precondition for ALL other
resources and oil is the most important form of energy we
use, making up about 38 percent of the world energy supply.
NO other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of
extractablility, transpotability, versatility and cost. These
are the qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the
front-line energy source in the industrialized world in the
middle of this century, and they are as relevant today as they
were then.
40 years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert developed a method
for projecting future oil production and predicted that oil
production in the lower-48 states would peak about 1970. These
predictions have proved to be remarkably accurate. Both total and
peak yields have risen slightly compared to Hubbert's original
estimate, but the timing of the peak and the general downward
trend of production were correct.[3]
In March of this year, World Resources Institute published
a report that stated:
"Two important conclusions emerge from this discussion.
First, if growth in world demand continues at a modest 2
percent per year, production could begin declining as soon
as the year 2000. Second, even enormous (and unlikely)
increases in [estimated ultimately recoverable] oil buy the
world little more than another decade (from 2007 to 2018).
In short, unless growth in world oil demand is sharply lower
than generally projected, world oil production will probably
begin its long-term decline soon -- and certainly within the
next two decades."[4]
Well, so much for oil! Should we be alarmed? YES! Modern
agriculture -- indeed, all of modern civilization -- requires
massive, uninterrupted flows of oil-based energy. For example, the
International Energy Agency projects that world oil demand will
rise from the current 68 million barrels per day to around 76
million b/d in year 2000 and 94 million b/d in 2010.[5] What will
happen when demand for oil exceeds maximum possible production?
To really understand the underlying causes and implications
of oil depletion, one must stop thinking of the "dollar cost" of
oil, and take a look at the "energy cost" of oil. We note that
the energy cost of domestic oil has risen dramatically since
1975.[6] As oil becomes harder and harder to find and get out
of the ground, more and more energy is required to recover each
barrel. In other words, the increasing energy cost of energy is
due to increasing entropy (disorder) in our biosphere.
Optimists tend to assume that the "type" of energy we use
is not significant (e.g., liquid vs. solid), that an infinite
amount of social capital is available to search for and produce
energy, and that an infinite flow of solar energy is available
for human use. Realists know that none of these assumptions is
true.
In fact, all alternative methods of energy production
require oil-based energy inputs and are subject to the same
inevitable increases in entropy. Thus, there is NO solution to
the energy (entropy or disorder) problem, and the worldwide
energy-food crisis is inevitable.
When we can no longer subsidize modern agriculture with
massive fossil energy inputs (oil-based pesticides and
fertilizers, machine fuel, packaging, distribution, etc.), yields
will drop to what they were before the Green Revolution![7]
Moreover, billions of people could die this coming century when
the U.S. is no longer able to export food[8] and mass starvation
sweeps the Earth.
Is there nothing we can do?
We could lessen human suffering if all the people of Earth
cooperated for the common good. But as long as political systems
serve only as corporate errand boys, we're dead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. p.p. 42-43, ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY,
John Peet; Island Press, 1992. ISBN 1-55963-160-0.
Phone: 800-828-1302 or 707-983-6432; FAX: 707-983-6164
http://www.islandpress.com
2. http://www.igc.apc.org/millennium/g2000r/fig13.html
3. p. 55, BEYOND OIL, Gever et al.; Univ. Press Colorado, 1991.
303-530-5337 See also:
http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/gifs/oil_f4-5.html
4. http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/index.html
5. http://www.cnie.org/nle/eng-3.html
6. http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page20.htm
7. p. 27, Gever et al., 1991.
8. Estimated in 1994 to be about 2025 by Pimentel. See:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page40.htm
Many entropy references are archived at:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page17.htm
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: cz725@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jeremy Whitlock)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 15:26:52 GMT
William Royea (royea@cco.caltech.edu) writes:
[snip]
>> Don't believe this estimate; it is a lie. The internationally-accepted
>> estimate for deaths due to Chernobyl since the accident is three (thyroid
>> cancer cases). There have been no observed increases in any other disease.
>
> I would love to see the reference for your estimate of 3 deaths. The
> 32,000 is from Greenpeace. The number of thyroid cancer cases has
> increased 10-fold since pre-accident years.
Thyroid cancer incidence has increased many-fold; however, it is a highly
treatable/curable disease. The estimate of 3 deaths comes from the recent
international report on Chernobyl, available at:
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl.htm
As well, it is stated in the recent international Chernobyl confernence
summary, available at:
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/thisweek/preview/chernobyl/concls17.html
Greenpeace has a mandate to stop nuclear power development everywhere, and
their statements should be always viewed in this light. Only
internationally-considered summaries, like those presented in the web
sites above, should be viewed as being completely objective.
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 16:35:43 GMT
Keith F. Lynch (kfl@access2.digex.net) wrote:
: In article ,
: John McCarthy wrote:
: > A much more important date that passed almost without notice this year
: > on October 24 was the 6,000th anniversary of the creation of the
: > earth, according to the chronology of Archbishop Ussher and which is
: > included in many Bibles.
:
Thanks, I didn't see the original posting. I guess Mr. McCarthy
missed the following post. Here's the geochronology I pulled off the
'net:
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
From: mnestheus@aol.com (Mnestheus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Usshering in the Millenium
Date: 30 Sep 1996 17:55:12 -0400
Message-ID: <52pfk0$fgm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
I made a few changes in the format, and corrected some typos (and
probably missed some others), but it's otherwise unchanged. Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USSHERING IN THE MILLENNIUM
`EARTH' Magazine, Feb. 1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 6000th Anniversary of the Earths' Creation (4004 B.C.-1997 A.D.) is
about to be celebrated by congregations that revere geochronology's
founder, the good and great Archbishop Ussher. Their enthusiasm seems
bound to spill over into their Congressional Districts, with obvious
ramifications for the funding of geophysical research. So it may be
prudent to amend geochronology to fit a Biblically Correct 6000-year
format, at least for the fiscal year to come:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 Oct. 4004 BC: Encounter with Nemesis knocks Lucifer out of Oort
Cloud.
1 Nov. 4004 B.C.: Earth still largely molten; Adam and Eve invent
Asbestos waders.
3884 BC: The first biotechnologist, Cain, invents cyanobacteria.
3554 BC: Komatiites inundate earliest crust, Noah's Ark incinerated.
3264 BC: Methusaleh begins to notice passage of geological time.
3124 BC: Archaean stratiform sulfide deposits form, making Bronze age
possible.
2844 BC: Tired of reading graphic granite, Imhotep invents heiroglyphs.
2584 BC: Earliest sedimentation; Discovery of slate leads to stone
tablets.
2444 BC: Breathable atmosphere develops; first sermon preached.
2384 BC: Descendants of Tubal Cain inaugurate banded Iron Age. Sphinx
starts to fossilize.
2024 BC: Nimrod the Hunter erects the Geosyncline of Babel.
1914 BC: Advent of diapirism; Lot's wife turned into first salt dome.
1794 BC: Children of Ham split from Israelites, insisting that the Burgess
shale fauna are kosher; Chowder invented.
1704 BC: Charshumash the Hittite bitten by first vertebrate; Lawyers
emerge from slime.
1624 BC: Samson attempts Perovskite synthesis: Laboratory of the
Philistines implodes.
1444 BC: War of the Chaldean Succession, Pangaea broken up in accordance
with the Treaty of Uruk.
1334 BC: Shang Empire abandons efforts to invent compass when China drifts
over south magnetic pole.
1264 BC: Moses invents hydrofracturing, opening of Red Sea rift drowns
Egyptian army.
1194 BC: Odysseus runs aground on Gondwandan riviera; Circe founds Club
Teth.
1104 BC: Ezekiel see de Pterodactyl, 'way ub in de middle of de air.
1024 BC: Goliath stepped on by irate Barosaurus; David takes credit.
794 BC: Jonah swallowed by Carcharas Megalodon.
564 BC: Pythagoras publishes Air-Earth-Fire-Water phase diagram.
454 BC: Marble deposits form in Greece, Parthenon erected.
338 BC: Aristotle concludes that quartz is just another polymorph ofice,
like diamond or pearls; this is known as the Wisdom of the
Ancients.
64 BC: Pliny the Elder writes eyewitness account of the Alpine orogeny.
48 BC: All of Gaul is divided into three parts by the collision of Corsica
with the European plate.
The Year Zero: Nothing much happens, there being none.
AD 31: Miracle of the Loaves and Ichthyosaurs.
AD 70: Paul, formerly Saul the Tarser, undergoes identity crisis on the
road to Damascus and writes Epistle to the Cephalopods.
AD 344: Vanguard of Attila the Hun perishes when Romans breach Gibraltar
escarpment, flooding the Mediterranean Desert.
AD 494: Snakes evolve and are driven out of Ireland.
AD 974: Lief the Unlucky lost with all hands when his dragon ship is
spotted by an amorous Kronosaurus.
AD 1066: William the Conquerer invades England by walking through northern
France.
AD 1215: Magna Carta eaten by Velociraptor.
AD 1324: Gunpowder and plate armor introduced; Dinosaurs hunted to
extinction.
AD 1384: Dante Aligheri describes core-mantle boundary.
AD 1444: Flowering plants appear; Wars of the Roses commence.
AD 1484: Leonardo Da Vinci designs Archaeopteryx.
AD 1492: Mesoamerica emerges, thwarting Columbus's discovery of Japan; the
Santa Maria is attacked by Ammonites.
AD 1519: Asteroid impact shatters Aztec Empire ; Cortez mops up.
AD 1588: Spanish Armada frustrated by continuing absence of English
Channel; Shakespeare tours seacoast of Bohemia.
AD 1636: Earliest primates appear, Harvard founded.
AD 1664: An English primate becomes Primate of Ireland - Archbishop Ussher
successfully deduces last four out of ten digits of the age of
the Earth.
AD 1688: Hapsburg Iceboat Armada invades England via London-Bruges
canal; Inquisition burns Isaac Newton at the stake for alchemy.
AD 1776: General Washington's Mastedon cavalry routs Hessians at Battle of
the Hudson Canyon.
AD 1787: Gibbons evolve and author masterpieces like 'The Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire'.
AD 1835: Charles Darwin attacked by giant Rattite in Galapagos, returns
home a convinced Neptunist.
AD 1846: A milestone in ape evolution is passed - a son is born to Bishop
and Lady Wilburforce.
AD 1867: COSMOS superstar Alexander Von Humboldt wins Napoleon III Peace
Prize posthumously for sabotaging the Baltimore Gun Club's lunar
artillery program .
AD 1894: Awed by extent of glaciation, Cecil Rhodes proposes Capetown to
Cairo bobsled run.
AD 1914: Younger Dryas sea level rise unleashes U-boats into the Atlantic,
Holy Roman Empire wins World War One.
AD 1948: Harry Truman proposes using ice to contain Stalin, Cold War
begins, ending Last Interglacial.
AD 1954: Glaciers retreat from Fulda gap, General De Gaulle invades
Russia.
AD 1957: Civil Rights movement challenges Jim Cro-Magnon laws.
AD 1961: Rachel Carson links DDT to Glyptodonts' decline .
AD 1969: Last sighting of sabre-tooth tiger in Central Park; Elizabeth
Taylor divorces Proconsul.
AD 1971: Warhol paints Cambell Soup cans on walls of Lascaux caverns.
AD 1983: Australopithicus wins The America's Cup.
AD 1988: Homo Habilis volunteers to serve as Pat Robertson's running mate.
AD 1990: Last Neanderthals perish in seige of Kremlin.
AD 1991: Saddam Hussein discovers fire, Holocene tar sands form in Kuwait.
AD 1997: Citing black smoker emissions, E.P.A bans continental drift.
Thermophilis wins Nobel prize for sequencing its own DNA while
trapped in amber.
+ + +
N.B. : As all dates save the first are +- ~2.6 billion years,the author
strongly advises against using this chronology for purposes of exegesis
or dendrochronology.
Editor's note: Russell Seitz reports that the inspiration for his revised
geochronology was a remark made at a meeting of the American Geophysical
Union last spring by the late Cesare Emiliani, a renowned geophysicist and
author of the book "Planet Earth." --T.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... To satisfy himself that this spot was really the centre of the
earth, a sceptic once paid well for the privelege of ascending to the
dome of the church, to see if the sun gave him a shadow at noon. He
came down perfectly convinced. The day was very cloudy, and the sun
threw no shadows at all; but the man was satisfied that if the sun had
come out and made shadows, it would not have made any for him. ..."
-- "The Tomb of Adam" by Mark Twain
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (Humour!)
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:56:37 GMT
Will Stewart wrote:
>There are a number of strategies. For actual photographs, see;
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/pv-tour-switzerland/tour2.html#8
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/pv-tour-switzerland/tour4.html#13
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/pv-tour-switzerland/tour4.html#13
For people intested in such things, there is an interesting article
in the October 1996 IEEE Sprectum about Building Integrated
PhotoVoltaics by S.J.Strong - a prominent PV supporter.
It includes details Bill Lord's new house ( he's the founder of the above
WWW site ), and gives a good range of technical details of current
practice of BIPV. Unfortunately it glosses over several economic
aspects that any intending user would want to know more about, but
it does provide a good perception of the state of the industry.
It also notes that if PURPA is repealed ( as some are seeking ) then
the current economic viabilibity of BIPV disappears. It mandates that
utilities must purchase power from small producers, thus allowing
some consumers like Bill Lord to become net providers, while
using the Utility in place of expensive batteries. One could say
other consumers are subsidising him, and it's not surprising that
the utilities would want to have some choice before PV modules
become so low cost that consumers would be stupid not to install
them.
It also notes that Arthur D. Little has estimated the potential market
( US residential PV market was 16.47MW in 1994 ) could be as great
as 1600MW by 2010. This would represent 250,000 systems, or approx.
30% of the 818,000 high-potential adopters with the solar access.
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Last interglacial (again)
From: JSCHLOER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 18:11:37 GMT
Torben Fronval & Eystein Jansen
Rapid changes in ocean circulation and heat flux
in the Nordic seas during the last interglacial period
Nature 383 (31 Oct 1996), 806-810
The Eemian, the last interglacial between about 130,000
and 120,000 years ago, was less stable than the Holocene,
the current interglacial. In some places, at least.
In the northern North Atlantic, polewards of Iceland,
and in the Labrador sea near the southern tip of Greenland,
there is now good evidence for some major cooling events
during the Eemian. Some of these coolings may have made dents
on European climate. The Eemian climate of the central North
Atlantic, however, appears to have been fairly stable.
The Eemian climatic shifts over the Labrador and Nordic seas
suggest changes in ocean currents and wind fields. The causes
for these changes are not yet known, but they "must be sought
outside the possible influence of continental ice sheets". These
ice sheets are suspected to destabilize glacial North Atlantic
climates, they are small to absent during interglacial times.
Fronval and Eystein think that the Eemian variability differs
from the glacial Daansgard-Oeschger cycles, whose imprints extend
southwards at least to the central North Atlantic [1] [2]. The
geographic extent of the Eemian shifts appears to be more limited.
Whether and what lessons may be drawn from the Eemian unrest,
remains open. The Eemian, while probably a tad warmer than
the Holocene, isn't such a good analog for our future climate.
Earth's orbital situation was different. Sea level may have
been 5 or more metres higher than it is now. [3, p 41, 56-57]
PS For the time being, the GRIP and GISP2 Greenland ice cores
don't help. The Eemian part of both cores is probably damaged [4].
Putting Humpty Dumpty together again will, at best, take time.
By the way, can anyone point me to a halfway recent overview
on what is known or not known about Eemian sea level ?
[1] Gerard Bond, Wallace Broecker, Sigfus Johnsen, 4 more authors,
Correlations between climate records from North Atlantic
sediments and Greenland ice. Nature 365 (1993), 143-147
[2] Edward J. Brook, Todd Sowers, Joe Orchardo, Rapid variations
in atmospheric methane concentration during the past 110,000
years. Science 273 (1996), 1087-1091
[3] J.A. Eddy and H. Oeschger (eds), Global Changes in the
Perspective of the Past. Chichester, UK, Wiley 1993
[4] David A. Peel, Profiles of the past.
Nature 378 (1995), 234-235
Jan Schloerer
jschloer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 17:54:07 GMT
In article bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
> Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
>
> : I understand your arguments though: It didn't work for the Soviets, or the
> : East Germans, or the Chinese, or the North Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or
> : Cuba, or the various African, Latin American, and European countries now
> : implementing free-market reforms, but by god there is *somewhere* on the
> : planet socialism will work!
>
> Socialism is working in China very nicely right now. And it is an
> eco-socialism, as their family planning system is stabilizing their
> population growth and giving a chance for Nature to survive there.
I would like to see Kuchinsky discuss one concrete issue concerning
China. According to an article in the 1996 November _Scientific
American_, Chinese peasants say they would invest in improvements to
their land if the state would give up its power to reassign land and
give the peasants inheritable titles.
Would you object to such an additional retreat from socialism,
i.e. from "public ownership of the means of production, distribution
and exchange"?
--
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.
Subject: Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation: Setting the record straight about Golden Cross
From: Steve Stakiw
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:40:37 -0800
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation
Setting the record straight about Golden Cross
Coeur d'Alene Mines and its operations at the Golden Cross Mine
in New Zealand have been misrepresented on the Internet and
elsewhere by a group calling themselves The Coromandel Watchdog.
This is unfortunate and disappointing behavior from an organization
that purports to serve the public interest in matters of the
environment.
Coeur has always been open and above board on this issue...because
we share an environmental ethic that demands effective stewardship
of the land and its resources. Coeur is recognized as a leader in
terms of its stewardship toward the environment, as evidenced by
the dozen national and international environmental awards presented
to Coeur in the last 10 years, the most recent being the highest
environmental award from the American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers announced just two weeks ago.
With the recent engineering evaluations by ourselves and outside
consulting firms at Golden Cross, and the successful remediation
efforts at the mine, Coeur offers the following facts to set the
record straight.
What is your intention with regard to operations at Golden Cross?
Our intention has always been to remain in New Zealand. As we announced
previously, a thorough engineering evaluation was undertaken, with the
aid of several outside consultants, to determine the best course of
action at Golden Cross. That recently completed evaluation has
determined
that the dam remains safe and that we can continue to operate safely.
In addition, we have just come through the rainiest season in fifteen
years on the Coromandel peninsula and the dam has proven itself.
Is this a decision based solely on economics?
No, it is also the right thing to do environmentally. Golden Cross was
written down on the parent company books because of the increased cost
of the remedial measures. A key criteria of the engineering evaluation
which took place was the continued safety of the tailings impoundment.
How will the Coromandel Watchdog claim to invalidate the permit to raise
the tailings dam affect the continuation of operations?
Based upon the advise of New Zealand counsel, we believe that the claim
is without merit and that we will continue to operate as planned.
Watchdog has stated their goal is to shut down mining on the Coromandel
Peninsula. We expect to strongly contest this lawsuit because it is
without merit.
How do we know you won't mine as much as you can and then walk away
from Golden Cross?
We've spent NZ$20 million to stabilize a problem we did not cause.
That proves our commitment. We are committed to continuing operations
at Golden Cross at least through 1997 and will at the proper time
evaluate the continuation of operations beyond that point in time.
Why won't you agree to raise the bond to $100 million?
There is no basis for that level of bond. Golden Cross is already one
of the most highly bonded properties in New Zealand.
What are your long-term plans now for Golden Cross?
We have stated that we will continue operations according to our
consents under the RMA at least through 1997, and will evaluate
operations beyond that period. Once we conclude the operations phase at
the mine we will begin the reclamation phase. Ultimately, Golden Cross
will be reclaimed as a wildlife habitat and grazing land and our
rehabilitation planning is underway and being accrued for.
Wasn't the write-down a true reflection of Coeur's attitude
towards Golden Cross?
The write down was a determination based upon accounting guidelines
established in the United States for the treatment of assets from
the financial reporting viewpoint. Because of the increased cost of
the remedial measures, the write down became necessary to satisfy those
guidelines.
We understand the remedial work is compounding the problem of the
tailings dam.
Through the extensive remediation efforts, we have improved the safety
of the dam by ten times. We believe that as these remedial measures
continue they should further improve safety.
What about the safety and well-being of the people in the Waitekauri
Valley?
What are you going to do to protect them as they are the most
vulnerable?
Human health and private property are safe. Extensive remedial work has
helped ensure the safety of the tailings dam. We have spent many hours
in public consultation, with community groups, regional government and
civil defense groups to ensure everyone was fully informed about the
safety of the region. This has not changed.
How will events at Golden Cross affect Coeur's international reputation?
Golden Cross is another example where Coeur has tackled a tough problem
and managed it.
Will remedial measures that were undertaken still continue, and if so,
for how long?
We plan to continue remedial measures as needed for the foreseeable
future, working with the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Is the tunnel still being driven under the dam?
Yes. Over 700 meters have been completed, and the first drainage
galleries are being developed.
Is the dam still moving?
Yes, but it has slowed significantly. We are very encouraged by the
results of the remedial measures during what has been the wettest
winter
in 15 years. They have had a significant effect and this will be
improved
with future measures. We are confident of ensuring the long-term
stability
of the dam.
Will the mine continue to operate after 1997?
We will continue to monitor the operations at Golden Cross on an
ongoing
basis and will make that determination at the appropriate time.
For more information contact:
Anthony R. Ebersole
Director of Investor Relations
Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation
505 Front Street, P.O. Box I
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816-0316
Telephone: 208.667.3511
Facsimile: 208.667.2213
E-mail: tebersol@dmi.net
WWW site: http://www.coeur.com
Subject: Re: Heidelberg Appeal
From: ddeming@geophysics.scif.uoknor.edu (D. Deming)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:21:27 -0400
In article <32926661.4AEA@ix.netcom.com>, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I would note that the greatest impediment to scientific and industrial
> progress, and economic and social development, is the trickle down,
> budget axing, debt-driven, service economy ideology of the right-wing
> which has shut-down and re-oriented scientific research to the extent
> that scientists are little more than product engineers,
>
Translation: we are not getting all the free handouts we want.
>
> has impeded
> economic progress
>
Those nasty right-wingers! Surely, you would think they could
see the facts for themselves: Countries based on capitalism
and free-market economies such as Hong Kong and the US are
the poorest in the world, while those based on economic democracy
(new name for socialism) such as Cuba and Russia are the
richest in the world. How blind can these people be to not
see the truth?
>
> to the extent that prison building, gambling and
> medical treatment constitute major growth industries,
>
Imagine that. People wanting to spend their tax dollars
to selfishly lock up violent criminals instead of subsidizing
the elite.
>
> and has impeded
> social progress to the point that the social instruments put in place
> to relieve the poor and support the aged are under continual attack.
>
Yes, especially by those nasty Republicans! Imagine their nerve:
Medicare recipients (most of whom have never paid anywhere near
the cost of the benefits they receive) are only to receive 7% more
each year for FREE instead of 12%! How heartless! How selfish of
people to want to keep their money and spend it on such frivolous
things such as education and clothes for their children! These
right-wingers are so cold and selfish, its incredible!
_
Subject: Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:39:36 -1000
George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
> It also misses the possibility of not putting forward such a
> general hierarchy and deciding on issues of conflict between
> conservation and economic activity on a case-by-case basis.
> Which, incidentally, is the way it works in practice.
Please explain how the problem of OVERSHOOT -- which is an
AGGREGATE PROBLEM -- can be solved on a case by case basis?
A worldwide problem can only be solved at the worldwide level
(e.g., The Montreal Protocol).
I include a synopsis of Hardin's TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS for
your reference.
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
Garrett Hardin's essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1968),
is a modern classic in environmental literature. The "commons"
refers to the common resources that are owned by everyone. The
"tragedy" occurs as the result of everyone being free to
maximize one's own profit by exploiting the commons.
Hardin's essay goes something like this: Visualize a pasture
as a system that is open to everyone. The carrying capacity of
this pasture is 10 animals. Ten herdsmen are each grazing an
animal to fatten up for market. In other words, all the grass
that the pasture can produce is now being consumed by the 10
animals.
Dewey (one of the herdsmen) will add one more animal to the
pasture if he can make a profit. He subtracts the original
cost of the new animal from the expected sales price of the
fattened animal and then considers the cost of the food. Adding
one more animal will mean less food for each of the present
animals, but since Dewey only has only 1/10 of the herd, he
has to pay only 1/10 of the cost. Dewey decides to add an
animal and take a profit while the other herdsmen suffer
losses. These losses are known as "externalities." There is
no "technological" solution to this problem. Theoretically,
"political" solutions are possible, but with no genuine
political system, there are no genuine solutions.
Shrinking profit margins force the other herdsmen either to
go out of business or add more animals (more runaway positive
feedback). This process continues until overgrazing and
erosion destroy the pasture system.
Although Hardin's essay describes a problem inherent in an
unregulated public pasture, it serves as a metaphor for our
entire society. Our communities are the commons. Our schools
are the commons. Our roads, our air, our water; we all are
the commons!
Our commons are being polluted by runaway positive feedback
in the economic system. For example, a century ago CFCs did
not exist. But once the first company incorporated them into
its products, competition forced other companies to follow.
As more and more products with CFCs entered the market, more
and more CFCs were designed into new products. These chemicals
are now widely used in air conditioners, refrigerators,
solvents, plastic packaging, and foam insulation.
NASA researchers have found conclusive evidence showing that
CFCs are the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole. The Earth has
lost about three percent of its protective stratospheric ozone,
resulting in a six percent rise in ultraviolet radiation.
Another three percent loss is expected by 2000. Even with a
complete phase-out of CFCs, the ozone layer is not expected to
return to pre-CFC manufacturing levels until 2060. Worldwide,
a billion (a thousand million) skin cancers are expected to
result from ozone loss—including 17 million deaths [RHWN,
#380].
