Newsgroup sci.environment 110663

norm lenhart wrote:
> 
> Mike Asher wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
<>
> 
> THE SWINE !!!
> 
> I had recieved a report obtained at great cost and loss of life from an
> operative in our Washington offices about a simmilar, but no less lethal
> threat. Hydrogen Dioxide.
I think you mean dihydrogen oxide or hydrogen hydroxide (hydrogen
dioxide would be a scary compound
indeed).
<>
> --
> Norm Lenhart
> Editor / Writer VW&SC; - Off-Road.com
> " The Best Dirt on the Net " !
> 
> VW's & Sand Cars
> http://www.off-road.com/vw/
> Off-Road.com    http://www.off-road.com/

charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <56v3qe$ca8@News2.Lakes.com>,
>   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) 
>(big cut)
>>>Regarding poisoning a person vs. murdering them, there can 
>>>be a *big* difference.  Does the poison produce just acute 
>>>effects, or does it produce acute and chronic effects?  
>How 
>>>bad is the effect on quality of life?
>>
>>dead is dead whether it took 17 years for the poison to 
>work or
>>minutes is trivial those responsable are still guilty of 
>murder.
>Oh, I see.  So in your mind, any type of poisoning is 
>automatically fatal.  How convenient.
try rereading it once again. Do you always resort to silly straw men
when you are defenseless/
>Question:  If you get food poisoning at a restaurant, who is 
>guilty of murder?
food posioning always results from shortcuts if those short cuts are
being forced upon others(employees) then the one doing the pressuring.

"Mike Asher"  wrote:
>D. Braun  wrote:
>> 
>> > [the ] statement that these areas may not recover at all is ludicrous. 
>> 
>> I guess scientific data with which you are not personally familiar does
>> not exist.  A common logical fallacy among the willfully ignorant.
>Insults:  1.
>Factual Support:  0
>> ...Third of all, saying the earth is "fragile" (or not) is
>> not something I have ever claimed. Cheap propaganda trick noted.   
>Slanders:  1
>Insults: 	1
>Factual Support: 0
>> 
>> You are truly ignorant and a blowhard--- the nicest words I have for you.
>Slanders:  1
>Insults: 	2
>Factual Support: 0
>> > 
>> > Enviros support science-based development?  Firstly, most enviros
>support
>> > no development at all, they want retrogression.  Secondly, the use of
>> > science is little-known among environmental organizations.  I give you:
>> 
>> My mistake for speaking for all enviros.  Fine.  Some. Like the NRDC,
>> Sierra Club. Earth Island Institute.  To whom were you refering?
>Concessions: 1
>Slanders:  1
>Insults: 	2
>Factual Support: 0
>> >    - The alar scare
>> >    - The dioxin scare
>> >    - Hysteria over radiation exposures into the picocurie range
>> >    - Condemnation of nuclear power while coal plants churn out
>pollution.
>> >    - Fights against food irradiation, causing increased environmental
>> > degradation and food-poisoning deaths.
well mikie has been reduced to cheap tricks in his entire post. Now
mikie lets see you back up your tripe with cites from peer reviewed
work. I know D. Braun can. And I myself can add cites as well.
>--
>Mike Asher
>masher@tusc.net

Robert Parson wrote:
> 
....
> >I reply:
> >
> >I expected you would be.  The thing to remember though, is that the
> >entropy of any marginally larger system than just those atoms of the
> >gas and metal which interacted to produce rust increased.
> 
>  Not so. All we know is that the entropy of the system together
>  with _all_ of its surroundings has increased. (One usually says
>  "entropy of the universe" here, but then Steinn might start
>  quibbling about general relativistic effects.) Since the rusting
>  of iron is slow, by the time the reaction has gone to completion
>  the heat given off will have spread out over a large region.
I reply;
The boundary of the system was described as a closed room 'insulated 
from heat'.  The entropy of an isolated system is zero or increases 
when the constraint seperating two parts of the system is removed.  
You continue:
> 
>  Entropy-decreasing spontaneous processes are commonplace. So much
>  so that in applications of thermodynamics to chemistry (and a good
>  deal of condensed-matter physics as well) "entropy" itself doesn't
>  appear very much - it is much more convenient to work with the Gibbs
>  Free Energy, which automatically takes into account entropy changes
>  in the surroundings.
Entropy is an appropriate variable for an isolated system.  If you 
want to put the car outside, or put the room in a heat bath, or 
something else, that's ok but it will rust there, too.

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:11:54 -0800, "D. Braun"
 wrote:
>You are truly ignorant and a blowhard--- the nicest words I have for you.
>Now I am talking about "mythical pre-white-man standards"? Really. As a
>matter of fact, the USFS has as a goal the return of forest and range to a
>condition resembling "pre-European settlement" conditions--- for reasons
>of ecological sustainability. These conditions were photographed
>extensively, and are not mythological. There is also a little science
>called dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) which may be used to
>reconstruct stand histories, fire regimes, and climate regimes. Your view
>that anthropogenic changes are insignificant to ecosystem structure and
>function is what is myth. Get a clue, and read something other than your
>own posts.
Why choose pre-European settlement? Do you think the Indians left the
land in a pristine state? If so, you are the ignorant.
Massive changes to biosystems was made by pre-Columbian Indians in the
Western Hemisphere. Entire species were made extinct. Large areas of
irrigated agriculture existed (for example, the current agricultural
canal system here in Phoenix is based on and overlays the system built
to divert Salt River water by the Hohokams (who disappeared during
pre-Columbian times).
I agree with you that anthropogenic changes can be significant, as is
shown by the conversion of the central US to agriculture. Kansas,
where I used to live, is almost totally conquered and converted. But
there is NO way we can return to a pre-human state, and there is NO
scientific reason to return to a pre-Columbian state other than
mystical worship of aboriginal humans.
There are a couple of reasons why it is totally silly to make a major
effort towards retrogression of our biome. One is that, in spite of
the scientific techniques that you describe, our knowledge of
historical ecological systems is sparse. Dendochornology may tell you
the exact date that a drought occured, or a tree died, but it will not
give you any information on population statistics or genetics.
The other reason is that to do so would condemn most of mankind to
death.
Some areas should be maintained in as close to the original condition
as possible. These are called parks.

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:19:38 +0100, David Christopher Probst
 wrote:
>John Moore wrote:
>>
>> Sure, there are exceptions... a few.
>
>What do you mean by exceptions? There are exceptions to any rule, aren't
>there?
When a statement is based on statistics, there are usually exceptions
to any particular generalization. The exceptions neither prove the
rule as in the old adage, nor disprove it.

Nuclear aircraft would have to be quite large, but I believe the
shielding standards for nuclear reactors have not changed since they
were calculated.  However, hydrogen powered aircraft would work
reasonably well.
Matthew B. Kennel tells us he is not a nuclear engineer or nuclear
physicist.  Would he tell us if he is any kind of scientist or
engineer.
-- 
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.

On 21 Nov 1996 22:06:14 GMT, jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B.
Halpern) wrote:
>4.  Even if THESE foundations are to the left of the political
>spectrum, there are plenty of others to the right of the
>political spectrum, some of them to the very far right, and
>I bet you can find the names of some of those on a plaque in
>the Hoover Institute, or in the annual report.
>
>In short, you logic here is simply absent.
>
>josh halpern
What you lack is information. It is not hard to tell if a foundation
is to the left of the political scale. There are many, especially
among the huge foundations created by the robber baron families around
the turn of the century.
You mention the Howard Hughes Medical Foundation as right wing. Do you
have any reason to believe that? How about the Rockefeller foundation?
The Olin foundation is the only significant right wing foundation that
I am aware of.

In article <5751ao$n6l@News2.Lakes.com>,
   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) 
wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>
>>In article <56v3qe$ca8@News2.Lakes.com>,
>>   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) 
>>(big cut)
>>>>Regarding poisoning a person vs. murdering them, there 
can 
>>>>be a *big* difference.  Does the poison produce just 
acute 
>>>>effects, or does it produce acute and chronic effects?  
>>How 
>>>>bad is the effect on quality of life?
>>>
>>>dead is dead whether it took 17 years for the poison to 
>>work or
>>>minutes is trivial those responsable are still guilty of 
>>murder.
>
>>Oh, I see.  So in your mind, any type of poisoning is 
>>automatically fatal.  How convenient.
>
>try rereading it once again. Do you always resort to silly 
straw men
>when you are defenseless/
>
>>Question:  If you get food poisoning at a restaurant, who 
is 
>>guilty of murder?
>
>food posioning always results from shortcuts if those short 
cuts are
>being forced upon others(employees) then the one doing the 
pressuring.
>
>
Normally, ignorance is bliss.  In your case, that is 
apparently not true.  It sure must be nice to think in such 
a one dimensional fashion.  So, there you have it.  All 
poisoning is always fatal, and all food poisoning is always 
due to shortcuts forced upon poor defenseless employees by 
management.
If management is smart enough to draw the same conclusions, 
why do they continue to rush their employees?

In article ,
   bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>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.
Yogi, I sure am glad you're smarter than the average bear! 
By the way, how recently have you visited China to confirm 
your assertions?  Or did you get your info from the liberal 
press?

In article ,
   "Don Dale"  wrote:
>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
>
>
>
My only thought is for Mr. Purchase's well being.  I 
certainly hope he wasn't hurt too badly when he fell off 
that turnip truck!

fukuchi@komae.denken.or.jp (Tetsuo Fukuchi) wrote:
>>That's nonsense, that last sentence.  The U.S. has two problems: the 
>great 
>>American Desert separating east and west and capitalistic low prices of 
>air 
>>fair. After all, the U.S. invented air travel (didn't it xxx?).  It is 
>the
>>environmentalists who would like to see more train service.  Trains are 
>>energy efficient and low in pollution.
>>
Where does one find information relating the pollution per passenger
mile for trains to that of airplanes?  I would be very interested in
seeing some facts, rather than just assertions.
Pulling large, heavy trains over mountain passes is not necessarily
as energy efficient as flying far lighter aircraft over the mountains.
>The Desert probably doesn't have much to do with it; if manual labor 
>in the last century could build a RR over Donner Pass, then modern 
>engineering can build it in the desert or mountains without any problem. 
The problem with building long rail lines is not an engineering 
problem, but an economic one.  If you have long stretches of underused
rail, the cost per mile traveled will increase.
Construction in remote areas is often more expensive than in populated
areas because workers have to be offered incentives for leaving their
families behind to go work in places without normal urban/suburban
services.
>Today it will be much easier building a RR across a desert than through 
>an urban area, the complaining residents (lawsuits? maybe) and 
>construction costs in large cities is far worse than the weather or 
>terrain problems
>
Construction costs in the city proper might be rather high, but higher
traffic volumes might make up the difference.
>As for air travel being too strong of a competitor, maybe the air 
>traffic deregulation, which resulted in a cut-throat airfare war, was 
>not in the best interest of the nation.
Air travel is has some inherent advantages over rail when it comes
to moving people.
1. The air between the destinations is freely available; rail requires
construction and land ownership.  It is akin to the advantage of 
wireless communications over those taking place over wires, except that
rail does not necessarily convey a higher density of traffic.
2. Air is faster, providing more convenience for the passengers, an
advantage that increases with increasing distance of travel.
3. The shorter travel times allow aircraft owners to get by with
less room per passenger.  Anyone who has both flown and taken the 
train will recognize that airlines squeeze people in far tigher than
do trains.
>
>Perhaps, if the gasoline tax were increased dramatically and the revenue 
>used to subsidize railways, then perhaps citizens can be persuaded to 
>take the train rather than drive the car.  Gasoline in Japan costs about 
>4 times as in the U.S., every time one drives on the Tokyo freeway one 
>must pay a toll of $7, in fact driving on the expressway doesn't make 
>any sense for a solo driver
>
>Tetsuo Fukuchi.
>Tokyo Japan
>
Why should I be in favor of a system that takes away my personal
freedom to travel and awards it to companies like railroads that are
notoriously monopolistic and dependent on government subsidies?
Can you really prove that rail is that much better than automobiles
if the traffic density is like that of most of America, not like that
of urban Japan?
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

Dear Fellow Net User
_________________
I am at present able to offer you a unique business opportunity within
the recycling industry. The product is going to revolutionise the way in
which we treat discarded tyres because we do not recycle them we 
reuse them. The following is a brief description of the way in which
that is achieved:
The tyres are cut in half, punched for slow seepage, and stapled
together to form a semi circular canal for water drainage.
In utilising this drainage system erosion and sedimentation is virtually
stopped in its tracks and water velocity is drastically reduced,
reducing the likelihood of down stream flooding. It is very useful on
the sides of roads, railway lines, irrigation canals, mine and 
construction sites, as well as being used to drain wet areas. 
This is just some examples of the uses of tyredrain and at present we
are trying to promote this patented product outside of Australia.
If you are interested in the product please visit our net page to give
you a better understanding of its application.
I hope to hear from you soon and gain some feedback.
Best regards,
Ian Nicholson.
Director
Tyredrain Australia Pty. Ltd.
8 Wilson St, Hamilton, NSW
Australia, 2303
Email: tyredrain@hunterlink.net.au
Net Page: http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddin

On 23 Nov 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> The main problem with the perennial theory about the big American car
> companies suppressing inventions that would successfully compete with
> them is that if the ideas were economically, some car company, here or
> abroad, would adopt it.  None of the communist or socialist countries
> has any love for General Motors.  If Mitterand in France had been able
> to do in GM by making Renault (owned by the French government) produce
> better cars, e.g. with Stirling engines, the French socialists would
> still be in power today.
     I'm not buying the entire conspiracy theory but there are some valid 
points in there.  Like the fact that the federal courts DID find GM, 
Mobile Oil, and GoodRich tire and rubber companies guilty of plotting 
together to systematically dismantle the mass transit systems in many 
major cities.
     Considering the management style of our current bus system in 
Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota it has been suggested by several people 
that they are attempting it again.
			    Brian Petroski
			Just your stereotypical
			      polysexual,
			       bisexual
			    solitary pagan
		       from St. Paul, Minnesota

Hello scientists!
I am taking a geography 12 course and have been given an assignment on
El Nino.  I can find lots of information on the effects of El Nino but
very little on the reason for its occurrence.  Is there anybody out
there who can explain why El Nino happens?  Or perhaps someone can
give a possible explanation for the apparent increase in the frequency
of this event?  Thanks for your help.
Any information that makes its way into my report will be given proper
credit in the format of an annotated bibliography.  Forwarded (Cc)
replies to my email account are greatly appreciated;  I will be
scanning this newsgroup every day but email is the fastest and most
efficient way for me to gather and compile information.  However,
please do not email replies directly to me without posting to the
group as I am VERY interested in hearing what others will have to say
in response to your definition.
Thank you very much for your thoughts and your time.  I appreciate
your help.
Fabrice Grover (FAB@DIRECT.CA)

Sam McClintock  wrote:
>hanson wrote:
>> 
>> Your response to this post is important, because regulators intend to make
>> public policy (= charge big time money), based on the interpretation of
>> this single set of experiments! I request results of YOUR calculated
>> evaluation and commentaries on the following situation. Please post and/or
>> send me your findings. When I have your results I will post them AND the
>> surprising findings of the regulatory agency. We will investigate why their
>> results are so different from yours !
>> 
>> Two Cadmium plating tanks (a & b) were analyzed for NaOH, NaCN and Cd.
>> During plating operations the over-voltage on Anode and Cathode produces O2
>> and H2 gas, and foam/bubbles from the air-agitation of the solution. These
>> actions produce a fizzing, a mist, which carries material out of the bath
>> into the atmosphere, called emissions, which were quantitatively determined
>> per EPA protocol and methods.
>I have done a considerable amount of work in this field and I for one
>would
>get fairly irritated if someone presented a couple of hundred hours of
>my
>work like this for review.  An air emission test study generally takes
>up
>a couple of hundred pages (or more) and is nowhere near as simple a
>problem
>as you have presented here.  I am not questioning validity of your 
>position, but it would be very unfair to comment on this work with as 
>little information as you have provided.
>Could you please post some of the following:
>a) which specific air testing company or agency (branch of USEPA or
>state
>org) conducted this work?
>b) which specific test methods were used to study the plating tanks?
>c) which plating tanks (where, who, what)?
>d) if you have this report, could you provide a reference to the
>report (number, data, originating agency, etc.)
>e) if you have the test report, it would be great if you could
>find a way to post that on the web (if the sponsoring agency has
>not already done so).  There is a substantial amount of material,
>but there are ALWAYS sections on objectives, test methods, actual
>test plan (outline), the contract lab, isokinetic/measurement data
>sheet, and laboratory analysis.
>Sam McClintock
>sammcc@nando.net
you know the earth sucks anyways so why contemplate the destruction of
the earth when it is going to fail systemically in 10 years?

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> In article <57266k$f7s@paperboy.ids.net> zarlenga@conan.ids.n  > Mike 
> 
> 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.
Did they ever!  Thanks for that lovely little line.  Don't be surprised 
if you find it in a newspaper column some day.
rob robinson
Netperson for Mark Twain Democratic Club
Supporters of Susan Amaya who just missed winning the 60th Assembly 
Distric seat by 1/10th of 1%.  Next time, Susan.  Next time

On 22 Nov 1996 22:33:42 GMT, jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B.
Halpern) wrote:
>Nope, you have the cart before the horse here.  The science
>indicates that continuing as we are will most probably 
POSSIBLY, not probably.
>lead
>to trouble, thus one should consider taking action, and might
>be well advised to take no regrets types of actions now.
What are "no regrets" actions?
>In particular, you should recognize that there will never
>be a definitive answer before it is too late, only a set
>of probabilities and predictions, which can only be checked
>against past data.
>
>A major difficulty is that the modeling and data are only 
>recently good enough to start putting trust into (no
>more than five years ago), so there must be a shift
>in the way we think about the situation.  
The future is likely to provide:
	-better predictions
	-better, less disruptive technology to provide amelioration,
should it become necessary.
When it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, we are talking very large
changes in human use of fossil fuels in order to make any significant
difference. Those changes are likely to be politically impossible, if
not in the US, then in other countries. They would also cause an
economic depression unless phased in over a long time.
I think the best current course is to not impose CO2 limitations, but
rather to increase research into alternate energy technologies,
especially nuclear. Recent lab developments in photovoltaics may
eventually bring the price down to where people could have electricity
gardens. If the price is right (and it could be a bit higher than
distributed power) lots of people would jump on it.
The biggest difficulty that I am aware of is in automobiles. Although
progress has been made in electric cars, it has not been much in the
15 or so years since Carter started funding alternative energy - this
in spite of a substantial commercial interest in lightweight
rechargeable battery technology for all sorts of applications. Perhaps
in 10 years, these problems will be overcome, but we still need to
deal with the original generation of the electricity or hydrogen.

In article <328C00C6.66DA@livingston.net>,
Don Staples   wrote:
>Jim Green wrote:
>> R Mills wrote:
>> > by the road along with their trail of beer cans.
>> > Since then I am inclinde to favor the concealed carry idea.
>> there.
[22 lines snipped.]
>Amen, brother.
     Your livingston.net account has been revoked, your AOL.COM disk is 
on it's way. 
(Edit your posts people, it let's us get to the flames quicker). 
-- 
Think Globally. Act Locally. Support your Local Politician. With a rope.
   4 lines, it isn't the law, it is simple fire prevention.
      Pain is a feature, not a bug. 
petro@suba.com petro@encodex.com petro@netsight.net petro@smoke.suba.com 

Mike Bergey  wrote in article
<5742g5$p7n@zoom2.telepath.com>...
> As the utility sector is deregulated and consumers are given more choice 
> in how their electricity is produced you will see more and more programs 
> utilizing wind power. I doubt many will choose nuclear.
I doubt many will actually really care.  Nuclear will blossom when the
price of electricity and consumption demand makes it truly economical.
It is good that we have the plants that we do now, they give people
the experience that will be needed in the future.
I tend to think direct solar and nuclear fission plants will be big
pieces of the puzzle late in the next century.   I'll likely live long
enough to see it get really started.   Wind is of course great, but
I don't think it can keep up with demand.    Direct solar, when
cost effective, can be stuck on virtually every roof top without
doing any particular harm.   In fact, there is a company right
now that is trying to push panels for exactly that purpose,
primarily targeting Japan because of Japan's precarious 
energy position and the fact that the stupid panels are blue,
which will match average Japanese roofing material expectations.
I still don't really understand all this whining about nuclear
fision plants.   All power generation activities involve costs,
both environmental and accident.   So far, comparing 3 mile
island and Texas City, I'd much prefer to have been within a
mile of the nuclear plant, as opposed to even 5 miles away
from the center of the Texas City explosion.
And if you want to think Russian stuff, Chernobyl might have
made the press, but it is a speck of dust compared to the
harm the Soviets did with fossil fuel energy sources.

Brian Petroski includes:
	  I'm not buying the entire conspiracy theory but there
     are some valid points in there.  Like the fact that the
     federal courts DID find GM, Mobile Oil, and GoodRich tire
     and rubber companies guilty of plotting together to
     systematically dismantle the mass transit systems in many
     major cities.
I am not aware of such a case.  Can you cite it?  What relief did the
Feds demand?
-- 
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 <56vscq$atj@service3.uky.edu>, TL ADAMS
 wrote:
> Last I checked, we were still doing this.[placint the dead on elevated
platforms]  Although, it tends to be
> more mamimals than birds that consume the bodies.  Flies, are the
> primary fate.  
> 
> Which explains why we have some dietary restriction against the consumption
> of animals that consumed our kin.
I was not aware that this was still a common practice among Native
Americans (which I assume Adams is referring to). How common is it today ?
I am also curious as to what mammals get up on to the raised platforms.  I
understood that the Parsi collected the clean bones and interred them in
an honored place. Would this still be possible if mammals got to the
bodies ?
But I am wondering how "environmentally friendly" this methond is if it
results in food tabboos thereby limiting sources of protein in a hunting
sociey. I am ignorant as to how and why this practice arose in the past,
and if it makes sense today, under vastly different conditions.
Best wishes,
Jim Scanlon
-- 
199 Canal St #8
San Rafael CA
94901

dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) wrote:
>"Mike Asher"  wrote:
>
>
>>However, you may scoff at only two victims at Solar One, but it was a tiny
>>10MW site that operated only for a brief period...and managed, during that
>>short lifespan to explode and seriously injure two people.
>
>Which shows that using flammable heat transfer oil is probably not the
>best way to design a solar power system.  Solar 2 uses a nitrate salt
>eutectic instead.  The mass of the salts is large, but still small
>compared to the lifetime coal consumption of a coal plant of similar
>capacity.
>
How does the mass of the salts compare to the mass of nuclear fuel
that would be used in a nuclear plant of the same capacity or to the
total amount of radioactive waste material that might be produced
in such a plant?
Is there any difficulty with disposing of nitrate salt eutectic?
What is the overall efficiency of the plant cycle as now designed?
How long after sunset can the plant continue to generate electricity
at its rated capacity?
What is the average capacity of the plant (for some reason, solar
advocates insist on publishing the capacity of the plant as the peak
value, not the value that can be reliably depended on for a whole day
that includes that pesky period called NIGHT.)
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

Why not try being constructive,?
you might learn something of value!
keithb.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>The passive solar houses of which I have seen pictures depend on the
>ability to orient the house on a site.  Doesn't this require larger
>lots than are common in even American suburbs?
>-- 
>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.
If a subdivision is well laid out, there does not have to be a larger
than normal lot allotment provided.  For instance, you could set it up
so your streets ran east/west and the homes set up so that they were
staggered in such a way as to not shade each other.  
In Connecticut we actually have a law which calls for consideration of
passive solar in new subdivisions which must look at street and lot
layout, natural and mademade features, solar access within the
subdivision and other orientation considerations.  It is not
manadatory to build passive solar but only to consider it.  thiose who
do build may be recive bomus lots for greater density too.
Most of the advanatge of a properly designed solar home comes from a
high insulation value in the celing, floors, and walls as well as use
of new Low E glass in the windows.  The actual solar helps but the
order of importance is insulation, orientation and fenestration.  Also
provisions must be made to keep summer cooling cost at a minimum even
in higher latitudes.  Unfortunately most architects make the damn
overhangs so long they shade in the middle of winter which is a total
heat loss.  It is a simple procedure which takes little time.
I've had the pleasure to design/analyze over 250 passive solar homes.
They work well when done with common sense.  They don't have to look
outlandish either.  that was in the 1970's.
Regards,
Joel N. Gordes

cz725@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jeremy Whitlock) wrote:
> (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/
Hi Jeremy,
Actually, you made me dig (and I do mean dig) out my source which was
Science Vol. 203 from February 1979 where Inhaber wrote the article
,"Risk with Energy from Conventional and nonconventional Sources."
Remember, back in those day a solar system and related experience
referred mostly to a solar hot water system (Isold them then) which
were more energy intensive materialwise than would be the technology
of comparison for today (and I stress "today" with improved
manufacturing techniques and materials) which would be polycrystalline
or amorphous silicon.  He also assumed large amounts of concrete and
aluminum for construction which is probably an incorrect assumption
for most systems. That changes the equation in some major way. 
Other renewable technologies have also emerged which were not even
suspected then such as a wave motion system using polymers which are
piezoelectric in nature.  Very interesting stuff.
In cases of non-electric solar etc. say where a solar hot water system
replaces an electric, Inhaber did not consider end-use deaths
attributable to electricity or as my notes seem to reflect no-one has
been electrocuted by a solar domestic hot water system that I know of.
I will reiterate my point by quoting him (p. 721)  "Wind, solar
thermal and solar photovoltaic have much of their risk propduced by
the backup suystem they require."  I do not believe that we can do
risk accounting to the renewable side on that and to me it remains the
major flaw since those sources (and thus risks) would be there even if
no renewables existed.
Thanks for the reply.
Sincerely,
Joel N. Gordes

I just have to remark on one small point that both sides have been
commenting on and that is the number of deaths that might be
attributable to solar array cleaners falling off of rooftops.
Actually, those who have been in the solar business and used to work
out the f-chart calculations will know that no one was ever envisioned
to go up and clean the things.  We did make allowance for a 3% loss
due to dust on collelctor cover.  We also realized that periodic
rainfall would remove the dust from time to time.  Thought you'd all
like to know.
Regards,
Joel N. Gordes

Can anyone help me with information on the limits of landfill-leachate from
your contry ?

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> The main problem with the perennial theory about the big American car
> companies suppressing inventions that would successfully compete with
> them is that if the ideas were economically, some car company, here or
> abroad, would adopt it.  
The suppression "theory", as you call it, is persistent simply because
there is a
substantial body of evidence to back up those who defend it.  For an
example
of this line of thinking, please see the following URL: 
Energy Information
http://www.digitalnation.com/byronw/
Care to comment on the accuracy of this site?  I don't
know who runs this page but it may yield some answers.
Josh

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BBD8C2.4F143500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
TROLL
Matt Regan  wrote in article
<56fqrk$ha2@spider.cc.manhattan.edu>...
> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> 
> >
> >Yes, I agree this happens all the time. The only solution that seems 
> >obvious to me is address the overpopulation problem. This is why I think
> >the Pope and the Vatican are the Public Enemies #1. They do what they
can 
> >to destroy the Earth and the people. The slaughter in Zaire that is 
> >unfolding even as we speak is THE WORK OF THEIR HANDS.
> 
> >Ecologically,
> 
> 
> I though this would be a serious little quabble on the position of
> christianity and ecology,but then you had to go to bashing the pope.
> For all you overpopulation wack-jobs out there I tell you this, drive
> 25 minutes outside of NY City (where I live, and then talk about
> overpopulation to all of the trees surrounding you.
> 	About your jab to the vatican, Are you implying that the Catholic
> position against birth control is the cause of overpopulation??? HA!!!
> Most of the countries where overpopulation is a problem don't even
> follow the popes autority!  (china, India, southern africa) So I see
> this as just a knee jerk liberal response to anyone who has the
> audacity to correct a person with certain viewpoints...
> 
> 	By the way feel free to try to prove to me why the vatican is
> responsible for all this. I am avery receptive person to any
> meaningful dialouge on any subject, no matter how off the wall I
> belive it to be.
> 
> 	Destroy the earth and its people, lets see, the leader of a religon
> that preaches love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, and do unto
> others as that you would want done unto you wants to destroy all
> people???? Sheya right
> 
> 	Just as a question yuri..  what religion are you (if applicable??)
> I am RC (by the way)
> 
> Matt Regan
> Mregan26@student.manhattan.edu
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
------=_NextPart_000_01BBD8C2.4F143500
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	
TROLL






Matt Regan <mregan26@student.manhattan.edu> wrote in article <56fqrk$ha2@spider.cc.manhattan.edu>...
> yuku@io.org (Yuri =
Kuchinsky) wrote:
> 
> >
> >Yes, I agree this =
happens all the time. The only solution that seems 
> >obvious =
to me is address the overpopulation problem. This is why I think =

> >the Pope and the Vatican are the Public Enemies #1. They do =
what they can 
> >to destroy the Earth and the people. The =
slaughter in Zaire that is 
> >unfolding even as we speak is =
THE WORK OF THEIR HANDS.
> 
> >Ecologically,
> =

> 
> I though this would be a serious little quabble on the =
position of
> christianity and ecology,but then you had to go to =
bashing the pope.
> For all you overpopulation wack-jobs out there =
I tell you this, drive
> 25 minutes outside of NY City (where I =
live, and then talk about
> overpopulation to all of the trees =
surrounding you.
> 	About your jab to the vatican, Are you =
implying that the Catholic
> position against birth control is the =
cause of overpopulation??? HA!!!
> Most of the countries where =
overpopulation is a problem don't even
> follow the popes =
autority!  (china, India, southern africa) So I see
> this as =
just a knee jerk liberal response to anyone who has the
> audacity =
to correct a person with certain viewpoints...
> 
> 	By =
the way feel free to try to prove to me why the vatican is
> =
responsible for all this. I am avery receptive person to any
> =
meaningful dialouge on any subject, no matter how off the wall I
> =
belive it to be.
> 
> 	Destroy the earth and its =
people, lets see, the leader of a religon
> that preaches love thy =
neighbor, turn the other cheek, and do unto
> others as that you =
would want done unto you wants to destroy all
> people???? Sheya =
right
> 
> 	Just as a question yuri..  what =
religion are you (if applicable??)
> I am RC (by the way)
> =

> Matt Regan
> Mregan26@student.manhattan.edu
> 
> 
>  
> 
> =


------=_NextPart_000_01BBD8C2.4F143500--

Rod Adams  wrote:
>> Solar 2 uses a nitrate salt
>>eutectic instead.  The mass of the salts is large, but still small
>>compared to the lifetime coal consumption of a coal plant of similar
>>capacity.
>>
>How does the mass of the salts compare to the mass of nuclear fuel
>that would be used in a nuclear plant of the same capacity or to the
>total amount of radioactive waste material that might be produced
>in such a plant?
Much larger, of course.  It isn't (very) radioactive, so these are
apples and oranges.
Heliostat cost is still the big problem.
	Paul

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
> Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> >
> > Of course, we could just raise taxes.  We already pay 40%.  We should pay
> more.
> > We should not be allowed to greedily keep 60% of what we earn.
> 
> You get to keep 60% ??  Near as I can figure, I'm only keeping 40% or so.
> Are you sure you're counting all the sneaky ways taxes get taken out?
> 
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
I don't get it.
Assuming you are serious, I think you should either move or buy a new
calculator!
The most I can come up with is about 37%:
	25% federal, state, fica, ... (obtained by dividing net pay by gross
pay and
	    assumes all deductions are taxes)
	 2% more federal and state tax (what I actually paid after withholding)
	 7% state sales tax (assuming I spend every penny I earn)
	 2% for gasoline tax assuming all the money I spend on gas is tax!
	 1% property tax
I guess cigarettes and alcohol have additional taxes, but I don't use
them and find it 
difficult to believe that this could be a significant contribution. 
Are you refering to increased prices due to taxes on producers?
What am I missing?
Also, I understood that we (the U.S.A.) had one of the lowest tax rates
in all of the
industrialized world. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
-David-