Newsgroup sci.environment 110805

Directory

JJP wrote:
-> Making extrapolations based upon current known supplies, prices,
usage
-> rates, technology etc. and then assuming that the market can't
respond
-> over time to changes is bad economics.
I guess it is to be expected that economists can only
 think in terms of "bad economics" or "good economics".
Have you ever considered that economics is "bad reality"?
Of course the market "reacts" to conditions in reality,
 so what?  How can you formulate public policy base upon
  such a stupidly simple observation?
-> This is exactly what led Thomas Malthus to predict that the human
-> population would be reduced to cannibalism as a result of
overpopulation
-> and the burden on the natural resources.  He failed to account for
-> markets, future technology and a myriad of other factors.  Obviously
he
-> was wrong, but a century later environmentalists are still promoting
the
-> 'sky is falling' theory using the same false methodology,
To see dead babies being thrown in a dump truck, see:
 http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/zaire_goma_dead_30.mov
  It seems that the skay has already fallen for them.
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/

Hello, 
I’m doing a 7th grade science fair project on the problem “Where do most people go 
on the internet today”.  Could you take a few moments to answer my survey?  Please 
‘reply’ to this posting and fill in the blanks below.    
Please answer these questions by placing an X in the appropriate blank:
	1. How old are you?
	(6 or below )___   (6-12)___   (12-19)___    (20-27)___  (27-34)____    (34-41)___   
(41-47)___  (47 or above)___   (55 or above)___
	2. How often do you go to these categories in an average week?
	Entertainment ___
	Sports ___
	News ____
	Arts and Crafts ___
	Hobbies ___
					Thank you,
					Steven Kuhmichel
					kuhmic@tcac.com

JJP wrote:
> This is all quite well and fine, but softening the consequences of an
> economic agent has an efficiency cost, one which this country is bearing
> to a very large degree.  I, for one, am not interested in softening the
> consequences of markets.  It has a short term 'humanitarian' benefit but
> the long term consequences are to cripple the entire economy and create
> a segment of society that feel that they have a 'right' to governmental
> support from lifes consequences.
IT IS!  IT IS!  IT'S THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION! 
=============================================================
                  THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION     revised 12/29/95
                       by Jay Hanson
 To those who followed Columbus and Cortez, the New World
 truly seemed incredible because of the natural endowments.
 The land often announced itself with a heavy scent miles out
 into the ocean. Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524 smelled the
 cedars of the East Coast a hundred leagues out.  The men of
 Henry Hudson's Half Moon were temporarily disarmed by the
 fragrance of the New Jersey shore, while ships running
 farther up the coast occasionally swam through large beds of
 floating flowers.  Wherever they came inland they found a
 rich riot of color and sound, of game and luxuriant
 vegetation.  Had they been other than they were, they might
 have written a new mythology here. As it was, they took
 inventory.
                                         -- Frederick Turner
                          . . .
  As the new century rises like a wave on the horizon, we sense
that we are not going to be able to ride this one out, that
uncontrollable currents will pull us to the bottom and tear us
apart.  We have good reason to be frightened because we are in
the midst of a "paradigm shift";  a tidal wave of change that
threatens to overwhelm and annihilate us.
  This new century brings with it dangers and challenges that we
can scarcely imagine.  Human society has experienced paradigm
shifts in the past, but nothing compared to what is yet to come.
  For 14 centuries, Ptolemy's astronomical theory (that
everything in the universe revolved around the Earth) was taught
as religious dogma throughout Western Christendom.  But, Copernicus
changed all that and caused tremendous controversy in religion,
philosophy, and social theory by proving mathematically that the
Earth moves around the Sun.
  The implications of Copernicus' ideas were devastating for the
Catholic Church.  No longer was the Earth the center of the
universe.  In fact, man might not have a special place in
creation at all!  This was heresy on a grand scale.  The medieval
churchmen even refused to peer into a telescope to "see for
themselves" because doing so meant defeat for their current
religious dogma.
  Before Copernicus' time, knowledge was based on "authority"
(reading scriptures or philosophical tracts).  In contrast, the
new knowledge was "empirical" (by scientific observation and
experiment).  Ultimately of course, science defeated religious
dogma.  The Copernican revolution successfully challenged ancient
authority and caused a paradigm shift in our entire conception of
the universe.
  If we substitute "Industrial Religion" for Catholicism,
"ecology" for Copernicus' astronomy, and "Growthmen" for churchmen,
we can see that a parallel situation exists today.
  In the 16th century, Martin Luther established a new form of
Christianity that ultimately came to regard work as the only way
to obtain love and approval.  But behind the Christian face arose
a new secret religion that actually directs the character of
modern society.  At the center of Industrial Religion is fear of
powerful male authorities, cultivation of the sense of guilt
for disobedience, and dissolution of community by promoting
hyperindividuality and mutual antagonism.  The "sacred" in
Industrial Religion is work, property, profit and power.
  Industrial Religion is incompatible with genuine Christianity
in that it reduces people to servants of the economy.  The most
aggressive and ruthless are rewarded with even more power and
riches.  Industrial Religion was destined to fail from the very
beginning because it actively destroys its own premises (both
morally and physically) by encouraging its members to dominate
and exploit each other and nature.
  Evidence that Industrial Religion is failing, ipso facto, is
everywhere:  desertification, topsoil loss, falling water
tables, filling garbage dumps, ozone depletion, global warming,
human sperm decline, rising cancer rates, loss of biodiversity,
collapsing ocean fisheries, depletion of oil, nuclear waste,
300,000 to 400,000 polluted ground water sites, pesticide-
resistant pests, antibiotic-resistant disease, billions of
people in the Third World planning to industrialize; social
problems such as jobless futures, the national debt, crack
babies, declining SAT scores, skyrocketing teenage pregnancy,
violence and suicide . . .
  Growthmen are today's equivalent of the medieval churchmen.
They refuse to look at the scientific evidence and "see for
themselves", because once again, it means the defeat of their
current religious dogma;  it means that they must give up their
faith that the problems caused by growth can be cured by more of
the cause.
  There is however, one big difference between yesterday's
churchmen and today's Growthmen.  Growthmen carry the collective
responsibility for the deaths of billions of lives as once-civil
societies gradually disintegrate into insurrection, chaos, and
oblivion.
*************************************************************
Please copy and reprint or crosspost this article as much as
 you can. Be sure to include the BRAIN FOOD invitation in the
  article.  This article and others are archived at: 
  http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
Please join my new BRAIN FOOD mailing list.  The purpose of
  this list is to distribute my essays and news.  I expect
   that there will be no more than one mailing each month.
 My work is dedicated to the Common Good. My essays  may be
  freely reprinted and my ideas may be incorporated into other
   works without credit.
 The major themes on this list are "systems" and "philosophy".
  Subtopics may relate to specific disciplines such as
   politics, economics, theology, and ecology.
 This is not the type of list where subscribers can enter into
  a dialog with other list members.  This is a manual list
   that I am running from my home.
 To join this free list, send :
  "subscribe BRAIN FOOD" to jhanson@ilhawaii.net
 [You will get no acknowledgement.  If you are already on
   my list, there is no need to re-subscribe.]
Jay

jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>
> Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> : TL ADAMS  wrote:
> : > 
 : Actually, yes.  CFC's were introduced in the USA began in 1930, a year
> : after an ammonia leak in a refrigerant system in a Cleveland hospital
> : killed more than 100 people.
> 
> Ammonia is no fun at high concentrations, but as the man
> said in large installations, where you can take safety
> precautions, it is still in use as a refrigerant.  (Another
> reason why firemen hate to fight fires at large meat freezing
> plants besides the mega barbecue problem)  
> 
> OTOH, emitting a bit more ammonia into 
> the air might be a good thing for a lot of reasons, including
> increasing the average pH of rain.
> 
> : And you call yourself a good engineer?
> 
> Good chemical engineers play with dangerous stuff all the
> time.  The bad ones tend to stop suddenly.
> 
> josh halpern
>
I like that, only a good chemical engineer gets to be an old chemical
engineer.  
I find it just amazing that the same nukehead that think that we
are competent enough to design a failsafe reactor system, think
that a large industrial ammonia refrigeration system is beyond our
engineering ability.
I wish that ammonia was the worse of the hazards that I've dealt with,
Fuming Oleum, TDI, MDI, there are some nasties that I've worked with.
But, I guess only nukeheads can do safe designs.  
Which explains all of those multibillion cleanups at Fernald, Savana
Rivers, Puducah Gasous Diff.
Damn good safety records.

On 24 Nov 1996 02:51:53 GMT, "Mike Asher"  wrote:
>Brian Carnell  wrote:
>>yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>> 
>> .. There must be a way to disagree with 
>> >someone and yet respect them as an individual.
>> 		^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Ah...like your rants against the Pope! No demonizing there, eh Yuri?
>
>Yuri's hypocrisy is far deeper than this. 
Mike, the ad hominems you posted were rather mild for Yuri. Here are
some ad hominem attacks sent out by the Mr. Holier-Than-Thou directed
at me over the past year or so. 
Then again, what do you expect from someone who believes the United
States is overpopulated ("It is clear that the US is overpopulated,
and the prime evidence for this is that the real wages have been
declining for at least 20 years.") 
"I take it the mushroom harvest has been pretty good in your part of
the country this year, eh, Brian?"
"So please try to rise above your cultish, atheistic, and fanatical
Libertarianism,"
"Thank the Holy Father and other such ENEMIES OF HUMANITY."
"I love consistency. You have consistently shown yourself to be a
moral monster, in so far as you don't find the terrible suffering of
the people of the 3 world caused by overpopulation to be of any
consequence. "
"All three are important factors. Is your (lack of) brain capacity
preventing you from considering the real problems of the world
realistically in all their complexity?"
"He [I believe this referred to John McCarthy] is a psychopath because
he thinks the earth has room for 50 billions." 
"Beyond that, it is your delusions of grandeur
speaking."
"I always reply to substantive questions. The problem with you is that
your primitivism cannot allow you to ask them."
"f you had a choice to be known as a blabbing fool or as a shameless
liar, which one would you rather be?"
"They were overpopulated before 1948, dummy."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell                   http://www.carnell.com/
brian@carnell.com   

It seems to me that New York is in pretty good shape if its main
emergency is an outbreak of red slider turtles in Chinatown.
K. C. Baker is a pompous fool.
-- 
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 <32a47630.429485357@nntp.net-link.net>, brian@carnell.com writes...
>On Mon, 18 Nov 96 15:22:26  gmt, tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (Tim
>Channon) wrote:
> 
>>> The days of each generation achieving more than the previous one is over.
>>
>>My generation has achieved more and we're not dead yet, so how is it possible
>>for you to be so certain?
>>
> 
>The problem is he focuses on wages, which doesn't help very much in
>measuring total income.
No, I focus on reality.  Anyone that thinks you can continue to acquire
infinitely expandable material wealth in a closed, finite system is day-
dreaming.  So whats your plan for the future?  Do you think the Earth will
allow everyone on it to live the material affluent lifestyle of the West,
or should we continue with our plans of a global totalitarian state?  At
the rate we're going we can't have the first (structural impossibility)
and the second is intolerable (but probably inevitable).
                                             Sincerely,
                                           James Benthall
                                           Houston, Tx.

In article <32930fbc.170303271@nntp.st.usm.edu>
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) writes:
>C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth) wrote for all to see:
>
>>In article <3291b899.82447214@nntp.st.usm.edu>
>>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) writes:
>>
>
>[deleted]
>
>I usually do not reply to people whose opinions are of such a caliber
>and stated in such a way that they refuse to associate their own name
>with them. In my experience, they are wise to do this, which means I
>would be wise to show the same confidence they do, and ignore them.
>
>This is such a case.
Uh, Mr. Brashears?  Your short term memory seems not to be your
most faithful ally; the material you deleted makes it quite apparent
that I am responding to your reply to me:
----begin----
In article <3291b899.82447214@nntp.st.usm.edu>
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) writes:
>C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth) wrote for all to see:
>>
>>Did you believe cigarette smoking was linked to several varieties
>>of cancer before 1996?  I know I did.  Yet, according to you, I
>>would have been in error, since all that was proven was a statist-
>>ical correlation.
>
>There must have been something trimmed from this before you got it, as
----end----
Note that I have included the message tag so that anyone who cares to
follow up on this can see this is not faked, nor have I done any
unnecessary trimming.
Well, Mr. Brashears?
Given your statement above, why did you respond to my first post
in such a personal manner?  And why didn't you answer my question
in re the link between smoking and cancer prior to 1996 either
time?
Fwiw, I do not append my true name to my messages because I
believe that they should stand alone on their internal merit,
not on who happens to be posting them - they would be just
as valid when espoused by Rodney King as they would be when
posted by Colin Powell.  As for the particular nom de plume I
have chosen, it is both a tribute and a filtering device; I
would suppose that you may consider yourself filtered.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."

In article <32993bc7.16124192@news.midtown.net> alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
 > On 23 Nov 1996 23:27:47 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
 > wrote:
 > 
 > >1. The Eastern U.S. has a substantial fraction of the amount of forest
 > >it had 200 years ago.  Most likely, considerably more than half.  A
 > >good part of that is second growth on abandoned farmland, but that
 > >isn't pure enough for extremists to count.  They consider it
 > >contaminated by human activity.
 > 
 > When the Pilgrims first arrived, it is estimated that there were 1.1
 > billion acres of forested land in this country.  There are now about
 > 730 million acres (a third less), and this is not a stable figure,
 > since population pressures demand more logging.  Recent gains in the
 > East have occurred only because the logging industry has shifted to
 > the Northwest - repeating the same process that decimated southeastern
 > forests by the 1930's.  
I won't go along with the idea that taking 1/3 of the forest area of
the U.S. to fit in 260 million people is any kind off tragedy.  Forest
gains in the East were mainly the abandonment of Northeastern farmland
that couldn't compete with the Middle West.
 > >2. "Thousands" is an exaggeration.  New York City occupies 308.9 square
 > >miles.  (Most environmentalists are two lazy to look anything up.)
 > >http://www.census.gov/statab/freq/95s0046.txt.  "Thousands" suggests
 > >at least 3,000.  This gives a million square miles, 1/3 the area of
 > >the U.S., but New York City has about 3 percent of the
 > >U.S. population, and much of the land area of the U.S. can't be
 > >regarded as supporting anything.
 > 
 > My "thousands" referred to the total scope of land acreage, transport
 > routes and other activity required to sustain an international city
 > like New York.  It was a gut-level remark, but the general principle
 > of land-use is quite valid.
Only very powerful general principles survive a factor of 20 numerical
errors.  Some people would call such principles pigheaded.
 > 
 > According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, in 1992 the 1.39 billion
 > acres of rural land in the lower 48 states, were comprised of:   27%
 > cropland, 29% rangeland, 29% forested land, 9% pasture-land and 6%
 > miscellaneous cover.  You cannot portray this as a trivial impact, nor
 > can you claim that it won't become greater as the population grows.
 > If you _don't care_ that Man is converting nature to a giant factory,
 > my aesthetic arguments are wasted.
I didn't see any aesthetic argument, just anti-earthman propaganda.
Consider the following lines from a Thomas Jefferson campaign song.
Here Art shall raise her laurelled head,
  Wealth, industry and peace divine,
Where once dark pathless forests spread,
  Bright fields and lofty cities shine.
Now that's an aesthetic argument!
 > 
 > >6. As the Netherlands, it is the second largest food exporter in the
 > >world (after the U.S.).  This is in dollars.  It is also a large food
 > >importer.
 > 
 > That can't be true.  How do you define "food?"  In bulk commodities
 > like wheat, rice and corn, the Netherlands doesn't even come close to
 > most European countries.  It simply doesn't have the land acreage to
 > achieve such status (it's only a third the size of New York state).
 > If the Netherlands holds an export record, it's only because they
 > import materials, convert them, and ship them back out again.  They
 > are not actually creating true wealth; only rearranging it and making
 > a paper profit as middlemen.  If every nation generated "wealth" like
 > the Netherlands, the entire world economy would be a pyramid scheme.  
 > And that's exactly what "The Netherlands Fallacy" referred to in the
 > first place.
I don't have a clear picture of what the Dutch agricultural imports
and exports are.  Turning imported grain into cheese and ham for
export isn't my idea of a "paper profit", but is indeed the creation
of true wealth.  No-one loves the Dutch enough to let them act purely
as middlemen.  It is indeed true that the Dutch economy is
interdependent with those of the rest of the world, especially with
those of the European Economic Community.  The EEC was established,
because interdependence leads to greater prosperity than autarchy.
-- 
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.

Sam McClintock wrote:
> And this has what to do with Mr. Hanson's problem?
He's a Pitslave [tm].
> And the earth is beautiful; it is mankind's treatment of earth that
> sucks.
The earth *will* be beautiful when we are done *paving* it.  You
are correct that it sucks how few Pavers there are.
Otto Bahn
Durham Atomic Project
Posting at Mach 3...

WATCHDOG SEEKS DAM COURT ORDER
New Zealand Herald 	22 November 1996
By KINGSLEY Field
WAIHI - An interim order to stop immediately work on the Coeur Gold
tailings dam is being sought in the High Court at Hamilton.
The application for the order, filed by Coromandel Peninsula Watchdog,
is understood to have been filed late last week, but late yesterday
neither Coeur Gold nor the Hauraki District Council was aware of the
application.
Late last month the mining company was granted a building consent by
the council to raise the lip of its Golden Cross mine tailings dam by
5m as part of works to stop a landslip.
Previously, the mining com-pany had been permitted to raise the dam
lip level by a metre under emergency works, and the build-ing consent
was granted retrospectively to cover that emer-gency work.
On the day it was granted, Coromandel Watchdog sought a judi-cial
review of the order in the High Court.
A Watchdog spokesman, Mr Mark Tugendhaft, said yesterday that if
granted, the interim order would stop Coeur carrying out any further
work on raising the dam.  "It is necessary to seek this in-terim order
from the court because statements from Coeur show they intend to press
ahead with the 5m rise in height on the tailings dam," he said.
"Coeur may have partly or wholly completed this work before our main
case can be tried, which would prejudice Watch-dog's position. We are
asking the court to consider our application for the interim order on
the earli-est possible date in December."

David Wrote:
No, it dosen't.  You inserted the little "assumption" that: "logging
products go up in flames" . I did not say it. As for timber being used
for
building materials, these have a shorter lifespan as fixed carbon than a
Douglas-fir that might reach 800 years of age, take another 200 years to
decompose into humus, and gradually be converted from humus to CO2 over
more time would have. In addition, the forest floor (Course-woody
debris,
fine litter, and humus in soil) decomposes rapidly after clearcutting
due
to the change in microclimate. Slash, including snags and logs, are
often
piled and burned. Successive 50 year stands will never achieve the same
magnitude of storage.   
> 
Keep on keeping them straight dave.  OLD BIG LOGS MAKE GOOD NURSE LOGS.
See my next post on nurse logs.  Big old healthy trees make good homes
for wildlife.
Yes dave we are now looking at a carbon shortage in our soil. 
also One good reference would be 100 TREE MYTHS by DR ALEX L. SHIGO. 
Myth #2 states: A Trees are a natural renewable resource.  Keep
cutting.  They will grow back just the way they were@.  See, we need to
ensure that all connected members of the forest (natural systems),
continue to survive in a high quality state in order to be good stewards
of the earth.  By increasing the removal of homes of many connections by
1999 is hardly a solution to a already existing very very major problem.
Our only hope is to call our Senators and have them stop this disruption
of our eco system.
-- 
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/

NURSE LOGS
MYTH: "Old rotten logs pose a risk to the forest because they can spread
disease and harmful pathogens.  We need to remove the old wood for the
health of the trees."  FALSE, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE.  I KNOW OF NO
SCIENTIFIC DATA TO SUPPORT THIS MAJOR MISCONCEPTION.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Nurse logs:
What Are they?
They are logs preferably no less than 4' long and 3/4 feet in diameter.
They are either rotten or in the process of rotting.
In nature they are common in undisturbed forest.
What do they do?
They can increase the vitality of your trees in several ways.  The first
and most important is that they are moisture reserves for your trees and
their associates during dry spells.  Yes, the rotten log acts as a big
sponge would.  Microorganisms associated with the tree extend the
connection into the nurse logs. Another way is that property owners can
plant flowers, ferns and even little trees within the logs.  Thus, will
offer an alternative to planting them at the base of the tree. (See
below *)
The log will also offer a winter resource for shelter for beneficial
microorganisms.
Where do they go?
They are best placed somewhere in the root zone area of your tree or
trees.  Soil contact must be made and the nurse log left in place.
How do we care for the nurse log once we have one?
Flowers, ferns or small trees may be planted in the log depending on the
amount of sun light and the requirements of the certain types of
plants.  An example is if the log is shaded most of the time,  ferns
might be a proper selection.
However,  we do request that the planting be limited to in the log and
not around the base of the log.  The reason being that we are trying to
discourage the planting of the flowers in the soil under the tree due to
proper research showing substantial amount on injury to the tree by that
method.
Due to the fact that the log will act as a sponge,  the plants may or
may not need to be watered depending upon the weather.  If the plants
(flowers) require water it does not always mean the tree does. 
However,  one thing to keep in mind is that during drought the biggest
water related problem is over watering.
If any fertilizing is done we highly suggest organic materials only.
* Many young trees, especially young birch trees, very often suffer from
what we now know, world wide, as "flowers disease."  People choose a
tree as  the perfect site for a spring garden.  We all have seen
hundreds of bulbs and annuals planted around young trees.  We then see
insect borers or twig dieback along with sun scold and frost cracks. 
Most of the trees usually die.  During the planting of the flowers or
bulbs they injure the roots and they usually heavily fertilize the
plants.  Even more injurious each year is cultivating the soil around
the tree.  The only treatment is to be on guard and keep the trees well
watered while removing dying wood properly.
Note: Choosing flowers that would do well in the shade would then be
wise.  Some of the plants that have done well in S.E. Pennsylvania are
Impatiens and ferns. 
Diagrams  from  The Desk of John A. Keslick Jr.
Call us for other ORGANIC FACT SHEETS on pruning and other tree care
information.   
KESLICK & SON MODERN ARBORICULTURE PRODUCTS,  SERVICE & EDUCATION
ORGANIC FACT SHEET
214 N. Penn Street West Chester,  Pa 19380   USA
Phone # 610-696-5353
E-mail:"treeman@locke.ccil.org"
Check out our new WEB SITE at http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/
John Keslick Jr.
Tree Biologist, Tree Anatomist & Professional Modern Arborist
Fact#NurseLog1
-- 
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/

Craig Mohn includes:
     However, in this case I suspect John was just being
     difficult, and doesn't really believe that Japan could exist
     in any form remotely similar to how it is today without
     trade in "distant resources".
Yuri made one of his frequent enormous exaggerations in saying that
Japan would collapse in a day without imports.  I point out that Japan
had survived many months of blockade in WWII and was not expected to
collapse from further blockade.  There was great hardship but no
famine that significantly reduced the number of Japanese.  Nothing
like the Great Leap Forward famine in China that killed 30 million.
Indeed Japan is dependent on foreign trade, as are the countries with
which Japan trades.  Incidentally, Japan is self-sufficient in rice.
When bad weather two or so years ago led to a demand for importing 200
thousand tons of rice, there was a big protest from Japanese farmers
who preferred the price increase that not importing the rice would
cause.  The rice came from Thailand, which recently passed the U.S. as
the biggest rice exporter.
-- 
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 Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:09:25 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>>  CARRYING CAPACITY IS CALCULATED IN A SPECIFIC REGION
>>  USING ACTUAL ANIMALS ACTING AS THEY NATURALLY DO --
>>  NOT SOME  HYPOTHETICAL SET OF ANIMALS THAT MIGHT BE
>>  SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ACTUAL ONES.
>> 
>> In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
>> now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
>> 
>I note:
>Well put.  I'll save this.
I doubt that there is a science in which "greedy," "stupid," and
"violent" are useful objective variables.
                                                -dlj.

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
:  
: I doubt that there is a science in which "greedy," "stupid," and
: "violent" are useful objective variables.
Damn!  I used to think that Economics is a science.  There goes
one more of my mistaken notions.  
Atanu

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> How about making the soft reference more precise, i.e. to a specific
> article or document that one can look up?
See the IEEE Spectrum, October, 1996, pp. 49-55. http://jya.com/bipv.htm
"Today, more than 500,000 homes worldwide use photovoltaics to supply or
supplement their electricity requirements. All but about 10,000 are
rural or remote off-grid applications."
If you want something more exact, use Alta-Vista.
> --
> 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.
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>
> 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, 
I highly recommend reading the IEEE article; http://jya.com/bipv.htm
"While the central station and remote village markets in PV are viable
and growing today, both could be eclipsed by the BIPV market in years to
come. Building owners are already paying for facade and roofing
materials and the labor to install them; the land is already paid for;
the support structure is already in place, the building is already
wired; the utility is already connected; and developers can finance the
photovoltaics as part of their overall project. Another benefit comes
from distributing the systems over a very broad geographical area and
many buildings, mitigating the effects of local weather on the aggregate
and thus producing a very resilient source of supply." 
>but
> it does provide a good perception of the state of the industry.
From the article;
"Why would the Lords choose to build an environmentally responsive,
solar-powered home when they could more easily have erected a
conventional house? 
In talking with Bill Lord, you quickly realize that his perspectives are
quite global. Bill believes that even a small act by one individual can
eventually have a large and far-reaching impact, similar to the
butterfly in chaos theory. He believes that we, as individuals and as a
society, must stop squandering the limited conventional resources that
are left and move quickly to develop a sustainable energy infrastructure
based on renewable resources. 
Bill and Debbi were able to manifest their belief that we must become
better stewards of our environment, making a personal commitment to
become a part of the solution rather than remain a part of the problem.
All aspects of the homes environmental design, technologies, and
implementation have found a true champion in Bill Lord, who has made
outreach and education on these technologies a personal mission."
> 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,
Only if the homeowner is paid the same rate that he is charged.  Most
net metering arrangements reimburse at a fraction of charged rate. 
California is the exception.
> 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.
Of course, if consumers are allowed to pick their own utility in the
future ( in the best of all worlds), then utilities would be hard
pressed to turn away customers who generate electricity during peak
times.
[...]
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.
"Troll:
     A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
     post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
     generate a flurry of responses from people called 
     "billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
     Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
     misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
     strangulation.  Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
     by facts or logic."    - bashford@psnw.com

In article <56t3mt$3op@news.one.net>
api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) writes:
>>Did you believe cigarette smoking was linked to several varieties
>>of cancer before 1996?  I know I did.  Yet, according to you, I
>>would have been in error, since all that was proven was a statist-
>>ical correlation.
>>
>>Well?  Did you, or did you not believe that cigarettes caused
>>cancer before, say, January of this year?
>
>Uhh.. there is more than just statistical correlation to show that cigarrettes
>cause cancer, or are at least very bad for you.  Common sense will tell you
>that inhaling thick tar-filled smoke is bad for you.  Also, in this case, there
'The commonest sense of all is the sense of men asleep, which they express
by snoring.'  Common sense also once held (for centuries!) that heavy
objects fell faster than light ones.  Iow, I don't place much stock in
common sense.
And no, while there was causal evidence prior to 1996 that linked smoking
with various lung diseases, there was none that demonstrated that smoking
caused cancer - in fact tobacco companies have (successfully) fended off
plaintiffs for years with defense that there was only a _correlation_
between tobacco and cancer, _not_ a causal connection.
>are few other possible explanations for the high statistical correlation
>between smokers and cancer.  If all smokers also worked around toxic chemicals
>all the time, then there *would* be another explanation.
So what?  It's still only a correlation (Btw, I believe that tobacco
companies have tried to implicate stress as the causative factor; I
know very few smokers who do not indulge when feeling stress, and there
is some (statistical!) evidence that stress is indeed associated with
cancer.)  To apply your line of reasoning, I will argue that there are
few other possible explanations for the variances in climate that have
been observed.  And there is a known causative agent:  the greenhouse
gasses that are a by-product of our primitive industrial civilization,
something that was lacking in the coke/malaria example.  In fact, that's
why you thought smoking caused cancer, in spite of the merely correl-
ative evidence:  because you thought there was plausible causative
device.
>Yes, I've believed that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer all my life.
By the reasoning used to debunk the various global warming scenarios,
you had absolutely no basis for believing such.  So why did you?  And
why doesn't this apply to the topic under discussion?
>>Ummm . . . ice ages are not unpredictable changes in the weather.
>
>Perhaps something as large as an ice age would be predictable.  However, that
>doesn't change the fact that weather is often unpredictable.
Of course; but the effects of global warming are typically associated
with climate, not weather.  An acquaintance from my JCL days in
the weather department once joked that global warming was a dastardly
plot implemented by the Midwest to cool the summers and warm the
winters :-)
>>You seem to argue like an apologist for the tobacco industry, so
>>please prove me wrong and list _specifically_ what would have to
>>be proven before you would concede global warming as a by-product
>>of industrial emissions is a reality.  Simply saying that you
>
>1) Prove that global temperature increase and/or increase in atmospheric storm
>   energy *is* occuring.
>2) Prove that there is a causal relationship between increased CO2
>   concentrations in the atmosphere and increased temperature or storm
>   activity.
>3) Prove that this is indeed a crisis, or at least a major problem.  A
>   relatively small increase in storm activity or temperature is likely to
>   have little effect, as this occurs naturally all the time.  In other words..
For the purposes of this discussion, assume that your 1) has already
been proven; this little detour is about correlation vs. causation
after all.  Also, though many studies exist showing your first point,
I quite frankly don't have the time or energy to dig them up until
the end of the semester, and I really should be making up a test
right now to give to my students instead of indulging :-(
As for your point 3), I certainly have no evidence or faith one
way or the other about the magnitude of this phenomenon, and am
actually rather puzzled as why you included it.  Some models predict
a change of no more than a degree but that this change will be enough
to catastrophically (I use the term in its mathematical sense) alter
worldwide climate, others give estimates exceeding ten degrees but
conclude that even this much is no big deal.
I hope your not mistaking me for some strawman anti-nuke green
buffoon :-)
>Are there any other equally plausible explanations?  This is not the same as
>smoking, in which case there are no other equally plausible explanations for
>the statistical correlation.
That greenhouse gas emissions will trap more solar energy is not in any
serious dispute at all.  The question is whether they, and they alone
are responsible for a significant fraction of the changes in climate
we've been observing, such as the migration of El Nino, the writhings
of the jet stream, etc.  The solar constant has not changed recently,
nor has there been any vulcanism that might have released unlikely
amounts of heat trapping gasses, and the shape of significant
geographical features has not been altered . . .  This is a tough
question to answer because of course only the known can be ruled
out, and it will always be possible to challenge new findings
with the declaration that there might still be unknown effects to
be accounted for.  How do we know that there isn't a deep undersea
civilization that has just moved into its industrial age and is
now releasing large amounts of heat, to name one silly but hard
to refute example.  How do we know that some sort of vast natural
nuclear reactor hasn't been created as a result of freak inter-
actions in some subduction zones?  And so on and on . . .
My own personal feeling is that whatever the validity of some
environmentalist's claims, nothing whatsoever is going to be
done about it, and in another hundred years of technological
progress the question will become irrelevant anyway.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> However, you have correctly identified the crux of the issue: resources,
> and not surface area.  Resources can all be traced ultimately back to the
> supply of energy.  With cheap abundant energy, we could easily maintain US
> living standards undefinitely for a world population of twenty billion or
> more.  I find it sad that Ehrlich takes the opposite approach, and
> considers clean, abundant energy to be too dangerous for mankind.
Your dismissal of surface area as a limiting factor is illogical.  Man
will always live in a physical world, not some astral plane where
"pure energy" is all that's needed.  And you don't seem to care that
accommodating twenty billion people would mean driving many more
species to extinction and paving over considerably more wilderness.
Even if the huge energy problem was solved (hardly a given), there 
are great aesthetic sacrifices that many people cannot accept.  
Have you been to Yosemite and similar overcrowded parks lately?  
They must turn people away during peak visiting days because 
there are too many of them.  The CA media apologetically refers to
this problem as "loving the park to death" - rather than raw
population growth.  We cannot create more Yosemites, and we 
are losing pristine areas as people demand more living space.  
Dozens of other problems, like long lines, lack of customer service,
and dependency on social programs will also grow as the population
grows.
If you think some grand purpose is served by welcoming almost 
four times the current world population, all I can say is "enjoy the
congestion."
- A.J.

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
]...
> 
> I doubt that there is a science in which "greedy," "stupid," and
> "violent" are useful objective variables.
> 
I reply:
No-one claimed there was such a science.  The assumption was behavioral 
consistency, and the preceding point was that you use real data when 
real data is available.  I'm surprised that you didn't notice this - 
well, somewhat surprised.

How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?

In article <5701im$pcp@news.chatlink.com>,
   soltherm@chatlink.com (renewable ) wrote:
>I have the feeling that tough Ultra Violet Purifiers,
>eliminate most dangerous disease causing agents,
>onl boiling water (pasteurization) is 100% effective.
>
>Does anyone have an opinion?
>
>dsg 
>
The lenght of time the water is boiled is critical as is the exposure conditions 
for UV. 
RMVF

In article <19961120212100.QAA23010@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
   rcssbio@aol.com wrote:
>   I am a high school student in an Advanced Biological Science Course.  
>This course requires a semester long research project that I will be
>conducting with the help of a mentor. This is where you can help.  I need
>a mentor that is experienced in areas such as water and soil pollution and
>the effects pollution has on plant growth.  I will be conducting
>experiments such as building greenhouses with different soils and adding
>pollutants to the soil.  I will also conduct experiments where I add
>pollutants to water and add the water to the soil.  I also want to see the
>effects the pollutants have on plant growth when pollutants are found in
>the soil and water.  If you have any information, or are interested in
>helping me conduct this project, I will greatly appreciate it.
>                                                           Thank you for
>your time,
>                                                            Lisa 
>                                                            e-mail: 
>rcssbio@aol.com
>                                                                      
>rcssbio@juno.com
>
You may have picked a difficult project to get measurable results. I don't know 
what "pollutants" you plan to test but it takes a very high concentration of 
many substances befor any effect on plant growth is seen.
RMVF

This reference about solar homes is sufficiently precise.  I'll look
in IEEE Spectrum.
-- 
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.

What has created the jams in Yosemite and in front of the Mona Lisa is
not population growth but increased general prosperity and improved
transportation.  The crowding of unique facilities would get worse
even if population were drastically reduced.
-- 
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.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>Craig Mohn includes:
>
>     However, in this case I suspect John was just being
>     difficult, and doesn't really believe that Japan could exist
>     in any form remotely similar to how it is today without
>     trade in "distant resources".
>Yuri made one of his frequent enormous exaggerations in saying that
>Japan would collapse in a day without imports.  I point out that Japan
>had survived many months of blockade in WWII and was not expected to
>collapse from further blockade.  There was great hardship but no
>famine that significantly reduced the number of Japanese.  Nothing
>like the Great Leap Forward famine in China that killed 30 million.
>Indeed Japan is dependent on foreign trade, as are the countries with
>which Japan trades.  Incidentally, Japan is self-sufficient in rice.
>When bad weather two or so years ago led to a demand for importing 200
>thousand tons of rice, there was a big protest from Japanese farmers
>who preferred the price increase that not importing the rice would
>cause.  The rice came from Thailand, which recently passed the U.S. as
>the biggest rice exporter.
Japan's self-sufficiency in rice is a more successful version of the
US attempts to remain self-sufficient in automobiles.  The difference
being that we used the worst possible mechanism, voluntary quotas
which merely transferred a large amount of money directly from the
pockets of US consumers to Japanese manufacturers, while the Japanese
merely banned (explicitly or through impossible bureaucratic barriers)
importation.
Japan has been self-sufficient in rice due to a long history of the
stiffest protectionist measures, no doubt due in part to the
experience in WWII, but also due to its electoral system which gives
disproportionate influence to agricultural areas.  The high price of
rice from protectionism helped assure that the LDP maintained unbroken
control of the parliament from the end of the war until the
mid-nineties.  This is just one example of the enormous degree of
government intereference in the Japanese economy.  The Japanese
economic system in many ways more closely resembles hollywood's
stereotypical mafia than a libertarian's idealized market economy.
This is one area where I could quickly provide dozens of cites, but
this is somewhat off-topic for sci.environent, so I'll spare you all.
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers.  If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu 

On 24 Nov 1996 19:01:40 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
> > When the Pilgrims first arrived, it is estimated that there were 1.1
> > billion acres of forested land in this country.  There are now about
> > 730 million acres (a third less), and this is not a stable figure,
> > since population pressures demand more logging.  Recent gains in the
> > East have occurred only because the logging industry has shifted to
> > the Northwest - repeating the same process that decimated southeastern
> > forests by the 1930's.  
>
>I won't go along with the idea that taking 1/3 of the forest area of
>the U.S. to fit in 260 million people is any kind off tragedy.  Forest
>gains in the East were mainly the abandonment of Northeastern farmland
>that couldn't compete with the Middle West.
I can live with that forest loss.  But the tragedy lies in some
people's willingness to let ecosystem destruction go on and on, just
because they are afraid to "offend" childbearing couples who don't
grasp the big picture.  If you could demonstrate some intrinsic value
to perpetual growth, I would be on your side.  Remember, we've 
had economies of scale for a long time now.  There is no shortage 
of workers - only qualified workers.  I want growth in the *quality*
of the economy, not in its sheer bulk.  
> > According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, in 1992 the 1.39 billion
> > acres of rural land in the lower 48 states, were comprised of:   27%
> > cropland, 29% rangeland, 29% forested land, 9% pasture-land and 6%
> > miscellaneous cover.  You cannot portray this as a trivial impact, nor
> > can you claim that it won't become greater as the population grows.
> > If you _don't care_ that Man is converting nature to a giant factory,
> > my aesthetic arguments are wasted.
>
>I didn't see any aesthetic argument, just anti-earthman propaganda.
>Consider the following lines from a Thomas Jefferson campaign song.
>
>Here Art shall raise her laurelled head,
>  Wealth, industry and peace divine,
>Where once dark pathless forests spread,
>  Bright fields and lofty cities shine.
>
>Now that's an aesthetic argument!
I wonder where you spend your vacations?  Interesting that so 
many people can't wait to leave their "lofty cities" and visit "dark,
pathless forests" when they vacation.  In a world of 15 billion, you
can bet that parking slots and camping spaces would be a rare
commodity.  I notice that your Web site makes little if any mention 
of the rampant congestion that's a direct side-effect of growth.  You
don't seem to realize that even if there was a demonstrable purpose 
to population growth, the *congestion alone* would render it
unacceptable to many.
If you want to see the future, take a trip north to Muir Woods or the
lighthouse at Point Reyes on a nice weekend.  Or visit Yosemite any
time the weather's good.  The overcrowding at these parks has become
unbelievable in the past decade.  I would no sooner hope for a world
of 15 billion than I would hope for a ride on a jammed Toyko subway,
where they must physically push passengers into the cars.
- A.J.

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
> 
> : 6. As the Netherlands, it is the second largest food exporter in the
> : world (after the U.S.).  This is in dollars.  It is also a large food
> : importer.
> 
As I understand it, the Dutch are up to their knees in pigshit, the
disposal of which is an on-going problem.  Without being 100% sure of my
facts, it seems that the Dutch import a lot of feedgrain to raise
livestock which account for a large share of their agricultural
product.  So, their "ecological footprint" extends beyond the
Netherlands' borders, probably to countries such as the Ukraine.  In
fact, the pigshit is rightfully the Ukrainians.
The point of the original post doesn't seem to be any less true, namely
that the environmental impact of seemingly self-contained communities
such as New York is much larger than it may seem at first blush.  Trade
just seems to disguise the effects.
I apologize for not taking the time to look up all the facts.  On the
other hand, I've seen more than one posting in this group where the
authors must have spent even less time thinking about what they were
writing. 
Regards,
Tony Peluso

Ok.  First of all you state that China is a good model of population
control.  Well I am curious to what methods the government uses?  I am
sure it is all voluntary, right.  I mean we are talking about a
communist country are we not?  I mean a country that slaughtered college
students for protesting.  Under this iron fist of communism it is pretty
easy to control everything including population growth.  So what I am
getting at,  is this method of population control worth the loss of
individual freedom and liberties which it restricts?  In my opinion, the
answer to this question is a resounding no.  Try to answer the question
this time ok.  Don't just personally attack my intelligence or something
like you have done numerous times in your posts.  
Michael

On 24 Nov 1996 22:30:09 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>What has created the jams in Yosemite and in front of the Mona Lisa is
>not population growth but increased general prosperity and improved
>transportation.  The crowding of unique facilities would get worse
>even if population were drastically reduced.
That's preposterous!  Cars, planes and trains all existed ten years
ago, so transportation is not the issue.  See my other post about
local parks like Muir Woods and Pt. Reyes that any person can 
afford to visit.  Ten years ago, we didn't need an overflow lot and
metering system to control traffic at the Pt. Reyes lighthouse.  And
destinations that used to be crowd-free are now filling up as the
others reach capacity.  Not coincidentally, the Bay Area's population
has grown by over 1 million in the past ten years.  I'm sure you've
noticed the perpetual freeway construction, as they've tried in vain
to reduce traffic jams.
You cannot convince intelligent people that 9 or 10 billion more
inhabitants will have little effect on congestion.  I'm still waiting
for a cornucopian to define exactly what we will gain by supporting
such a massive population.  Headaches are certainly a given.
- A.J.

alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) wrote:
>
> >
> 
> I wonder where you spend your vacations?  Interesting that so 
> many people can't wait to leave their "lofty cities" and visit "dark,
> pathless forests" when they vacation.  In a world of 15 billion, you
> can bet that parking slots and camping spaces would be a rare
> commodity.  I notice that your Web site makes little if any mention 
> of the rampant congestion that's a direct side-effect of growth.  You
> don't seem to realize that even if there was a demonstrable purpose 
> to population growth, the *congestion alone* would render it
> unacceptable to many.
> 
> If you want to see the future, take a trip north to Muir Woods or the
> lighthouse at Point Reyes on a nice weekend.  Or visit Yosemite any
> time the weather's good.  The overcrowding at these parks has become
> unbelievable in the past decade.  I would no sooner hope for a world
> of 15 billion than I would hope for a ride on a jammed Toyko subway,
> where they must physically push passengers into the cars.
> 
> - A.J.
Y'all come visit us, We've got Red River Gourge, Big South Fork Recreational
Area, Cumberland Gap, Breaks Interstate park (Deepest Gourge East of
the Mississippi),  Before the urban sprawl continues to envelope all
the good places,, we still have a few good ones left.

> On another note, for those of you who think that guns save lives, I 
> suggest you go to a war torn country to see all the orphans, people 
> crippled from land mines (do land mines save lives?), 14 year old soldiers 
> who are messed up for life, AK-47s for sale for 20 bucks, people shot 
> for the clothes off their back.....If you have a gun it may save your life, 
> but it kills someone else.
So are you saying that if someone breaks into your house at 3am, rapes
your wife, beats your kids, takes the car, the T.V., etc., well, it's okay
'cuz nobody got hurt, since a gun wouldn't have 'saved your life' anyhow.
Give me a break.  Canada is a different land, your values do not apply in
America.  Although having a tightly regulated gun ownership program TO
BEGIN WITH just MAY curb violence a little bit, it's too late for that
here.  We're stuck, and the fact of the matter is, if the 'good guys'
aren't allowed to protect their families, the only people with guns will
be criminals.  Tell me if it isn't easy to import illegal guns through
Mexico, and if they really could go house to house and go gun collecting..
I didn't think so.  
I really hope you never move to Los Angeles, or that your neighbors are
willing to charge in and save you should something happen.
And so what if a gun does kill someone else?  In that situation where you
would shoot someone IN THE FIRST PLACE it had better be a life threatening
situation on your part, or you will see the dark end of a set of bars in a
little room for a long time.  In that situation, I would much rather be
the guy who's still BREATHING, and let the criminal suffer the
consequences.  They invade your home without regard to your rights and
lives, I think they should be prepared to pay the price.
If one day criminals only come in at 80lbs and in their underwear, I'll
consider not owning guns anymore.  Until then, it is in our position to
exercise our right to protect ourselves where law enforcement leaves off.
And DON'T come crying that the police will save you every time.  Maybe in
Canada, but NOT here in Los Angeles.  An old friend of mine already had
his home invaded, so don't tell me I'm paranoid, or have no basis on the
facts.  
BTW: they didn't have a gun or anything of the sort, and luckily for them,
the 12 year old son jumped out of the window, and called the cops..  It
took nearly an HOUR for them to arrive.  Maybe I'll move to Canada...
-Dave

Jay Mann wrote:
> 
> GOLEM (odin@netline.net) wrote:
> [snip]
> : Peter Montague, "Study Of Dioxin-Exposed Humans Reveals Cancer,
> : Birth Defects, Liver And Cardiovascular Damage." RACHEL'S
> : HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #73 (April 18, 1988), pg. 1. [From:
> : Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD
> : 21403; phone: (410) 263-1584; internet: erf@igc.apc.org.]
> :
> : A new study of Vietnam veterans, conducted by Air Force
> : physicians, links dioxin exposure to increases in cancer, birth
> : defects, psychological damage, liver damage, cardiovascular
> : deterioration, and degeneration of the endocrine system.  The new
> : work stops short of saying dioxin exposures CAUSED the observable
> : health damage among dioxin-exposed vets, but it explicitly
> : reverses the conclusions of a 1984 Air Force study which said
> : dioxin exposures had been shown to be harmless.
> [snip]
> : The study compares two groups of Vietnam veterans--one group of
> : 1045 Ranch Hands who definitely had dioxin exposures and another
> : group of 773 veterans not known to have been exposed to dioxin.
> : In addition, 2708 wives and former wives of veterans in the two
> : groups participated in the study.
> :
> [snip]:
> : The study found that 4.59% of the Ranch Hands have some kind of
> : cancer, compared to 2.33% of the unexposed group.  Thus the
> : overall risk of cancer among the dioxin-exposed group is doubled
> : (risk increased by a factor of 1.97).  The greatest risk increase
> : is for skin cancers (where the risk is increased by a factor of
> : 2.6)
> 
> It's customary, indeed vital, to specify the so-called confidence limits
> for these figures.  If the risk ratio is an average of 1.97 but with
> a range of, say, 0.9 to 3.1, then it is not significant.
> 
> More importantly, the use of a 95% confidence level says that even if
> there are no "real" effects, one in every twenty comparisons will show up
> as "significant".    Thus you also have to tell us how many comparisons
> were made between possibly-exposed and probably-not-exposed vets.  If
> there were, say, 100 diseases or symptoms considered, then there could be
> roughly five "positive" findings even in totally random data.
> 
> There could well be some worrying facts in this data, but you have to
> give us enough information to evaluate the study properly.
> 
> Jay D Mann  
> Christchurch, New Zealand
Mr Montague is regretably rather biased in his presentaion of data
choosing only to provide data that supports his positions and ignoring
anything else.

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

Hi there,
The Stewards Planetary House is a new just-being-born movement of
working and non-working poor people who seek to become increasingly
able to work together to care for one another togther with the planet.
Our approach is highly inquiry-oriented and includes new methods of
social organization, economics, childcare, personal development,
care of the earth, and much else.  The URL for our homepage, where you
can read about us, is:  http://www.InstantWeb.com/P/Planet/sphhome.htm
Thanks.

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 14:06:02 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> I doubt that there is a science in which "greedy," "stupid," and
>> "violent" are useful objective variables.
>I reply:
>
>No-one claimed there was such a science.  The assumption was behavioral 
>consistency, and the preceding point was that you use real data when 
>real data is available.  I'm surprised that you didn't notice this - 
>well, somewhat surprised.
BUt this is precisely what the preceding point was _not_.  The
original quote had no content beyond a cynical viewpoint about
humanity.  
People like the original poster in fact tend not to be interested in
data in the past, present, or future.  The past they ignore, the
present they distort, and it is only about the future that they are
certain: it is disaster in precisely, pick a number, years.
                                                 -dlj.

gt5478d@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
> 
> Ok.  First of all you state that China is a good model of population
> control.  Well I am curious to what methods the government uses?  I am
> sure it is all voluntary, right....
etc.
I reply:
Hold on just a minute here.  If I recall, a family having more than a 
single child lost some amount of state benefits, and number of female 
infants killed was on the rise because a son could take care of aging 
parents while a daughter could not.  Don't quote me, it's been some time 
since I read this.
China is an economic opportunity for the west - resource rich and 
apparently in the midst of a huge economic boom.  U.S. industries are 
working to take advantage of this by creating and expanding Pacific Rim 
operations, and we >do not< rail on about communism or concern ourselves 
with mere domestic policy where our businesses are expanding. If China 
had become an evironmentalist's state seeking to preserve its ecological 
and cultrual heritage, and if their economic plan constrained foreign 
and domestic businesses in order to reach this objective they would be 
vile communists - many of our right-wing groups would be calling to nuke 
'em for some purpose or other and left-wing groups would be calling for 
a boycott (which because of the generally low quality of Chinese imports 
is probably a good idea just to avoid wasting your money).  As it is 
they are opening the door to western technology and businesses hence we 
don't want to start calling them names - like 'communists', and the 
massacre a few years ago was a minor and unimportant domestic affair we 
shouldn't stick our noses into.
According to Archeology Today (Nov/Dec. 1995, pg. 71) 'Today, the main 
threat to cultural property in the People's Republic of China is not 
communism, but capitalism.'  and goes on to explain in terms of 
plundered artifacts and tombs.
By the way - some newly capitalist businessmen in the newly capitalist 
Russia apparently knocked off Paul Tatum - ex star fundraiser for the 
Oklahoma Republican Party.  He was starting up a joint venture in 
Russia, and when it started to go sour he decided he'd be stubborn.  He 
was ambushed in a subway in New Y....in Moscow, I mean.  No arrests have 
been made.

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> What has created the jams in Yosemite and in front of the Mona Lisa is
> not population growth but increased general prosperity and improved
> transportation.  The crowding of unique facilities would get worse
> even if population were drastically reduced.
> 
I reply:
You're kidding!

A.J. wrote:
> 
....  There is no shortage
> of workers - only qualified workers.
I quickly respond...
What?  Where's there a shortage?  Given me a number!!!!