Subject: Re: Ocean thermal conversion
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 15:33:51 GMT
In article <57bpb4$1nu@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk> tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb) writes:
>
> I didn't see the original post, which is a pity. This would be a follow
> up to that if I had. But I have a question, having seen the website. The
> website says:
>
> "OTEC requires a temperature difference of about 36 degrees F (20 degrees
> C). This temperature difference exists between the surface and deep
> seawater year round throughout the tropical regions of the world. To
> produce electricity, we either use a working fluid with a low boiling
> point (ie. ammonia) or warm surface seawater, turn it to vapor by heating
> it up with warm seawater (ammonia) or de-pressurizing it (warm seawater).
> The pressure of the expanding vapor turns a turbine and produces
> electricity! "
>
> If OTEC can generate electricity with such a small temperature
> difference, why not use similar techniques to extract energy from the hot
> water from conventional power stations, rather than wasting it via
> cooling towers? Is the reason why not technological, physical, economic,
> or simply that no-one thought of it?
>
Power stations have "bottoming cycles" that work to as low a
temperature as they consider economically viable. The problem is that
the equipment gets bulkier and slower as the temperature difference
gets smaller. I suppose it might be considered a strike against OTEC
that it proposes to use temperature differences too low for the
bottoming cycles of conventional power plants.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:04:45 GMT
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 04:39:14 -1000, Jay Hanson
wrote:
>If anyone would like dlj's bio, send me a note and I will
>e-mail it to you.
Jay,
Since you have such an ingrained habit of misquotation and selective
deletion, I think I shall insist that my bio, published during the
campaign for seats on the Board of Directors of the Tornto FreeNet is
copyrighted material.
Anyone who wants to read it or download it for their own purposes may
do so by using Deja News, or lloking up the post on tor.general.
I hereby forbid Jay Hanson to copy or distribute these posts, in part
or in full.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: "Don Dale"
Date: 25 Nov 96 10:47:17 -0500
Jason McGinnis wrote,
>The statements by Mr. Purchase are a perfectly logical example of the
>logical system accepted by environmentalists, biologists, etc. used to
>determine impacts and relationships within an environment, called Life
>Cycle Analysis. LCA's are the only logical way to determine the true
>benefits and problems of a system or product.
The statements by Mr. Purchase were a classic textbook example of "post
hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. If this is "the logical system
accepted by environmentalists, biologists, etc. used to determine impacts
and relationships within an environment," well, that's the saddest thing
I've heard in a long, long time.
>I won't deign to offer you a prize for your closed-mindedness, but I
>do offer this prescription: replace your daily viewing of Baywatch and
>Melrose Place with no less than 2 hours of a non-commercial medium of
>your choice. Handing down judgement on usenet doesn't count.
Very nice ad hominem attack, and very irrelevant. I'm not a Nielsen
household; my TV viewing choices don't affect you. If you wish to exchange
insults, we can do it elsewhere.
Don
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 14:09:33 GMT
In article <32966BD3.30F6@cco.caltech.edu>,
William Royea wrote:
>Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
>>
>> William Royea (royea@cco.caltech.edu) writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >> Don't believe this estimate; it is a lie. The internationally-accepted
>> >> estimate for deaths due to Chernobyl since the accident is three (thyroid
>> >> cancer cases). There have been no observed increases in any other disease.
>> >
>> > I would love to see the reference for your estimate of 3 deaths. The
>> > 32,000 is from Greenpeace. The number of thyroid cancer cases has
>> > increased 10-fold since pre-accident years.
>>
>> Thyroid cancer incidence has increased many-fold; however, it is a highly
>> treatable/curable disease. The estimate of 3 deaths comes from the recent
>> international report on Chernobyl, available at:
>>
>> http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl.htm
>>
>> As well, it is stated in the recent international Chernobyl confernence
>> summary, available at:
>>
>> http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/thisweek/preview/chernobyl/concls17.html
>>
>> Greenpeace has a mandate to stop nuclear power development everywhere, and
>> their statements should be always viewed in this light. Only
>> internationally-considered summaries, like those presented in the web
>> sites above, should be viewed as being completely objective.
>
>
>Having visited the web site you gave me, the summary suggests approx 470
>people have died from lukemia as a result of radiation exposure from
>Chernobyl. That seems to contradict the statement that "There have been
>no observed increases in any other disease."
>
>I realize that Greenpeace has an agenda and is probably somewhat bias,
>which is why I stated "as high as 32,000". But, I've also read several
>other studies that have suggested substantially higher figures and lower
>figures. In any event, the figures stated at this conference, seem
>rather low. For instance, the number of liquidators who participated in
>just cleaning up was said to be 200,000, which is about 1/2 of what many
>other studies have claimed.
>
>I don't know how many people died as a result, but I'd bet my life it
>was a lot more than 31.
>
I believe that you may have inadvertantly misread the document.
One of the surprises of the Chernobyl radiation effects statistics
is the lack of luekemias. It may be that 470 luekemias were
expected but have not been observed.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | When the going gets tough,
| the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |
| E. Blackadder
Subject: Re: Corporate "call boys": MORE OF THE SAME
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 15:36:58 GMT
In article <3299B1EB.5D2F@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson writes:
>
> David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> > The underlined part is the nub of things: the Ehrlichs, like Hanson,
> > spend their time in two ways, partly making up fictitious problems,
> > partly attacking positions, typically "no problems exist", which
> > nobody in fact holds.
>
> dlj, here is a picture of dead babies being
> thrown into a dump truck:
> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/zaire_goma_dead_30.mov
Judging from the number of times he has posted that URL, Hanson gets a
real kick out of dead babies.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Corporate "call boys": MORE OF THE SAME
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:23:05 GMT
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 04:49:15 -1000, Jay Hanson
wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>> The underlined part is the nub of things: the Ehrlichs, like Hanson,
>> spend their time in two ways, partly making up fictitious problems,
>> partly attacking positions, typically "no problems exist", which
>> nobody in fact holds.
>
>dlj, here is a picture of dead babies being
> thrown into a dump truck:
> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/zaire_goma_dead_30.mov
>
>Your position -- and the position of the other corporate
>"call boys" on this list -- is is "MORE OF THE SAME".
That's pretty pitiful, Jay. But how did you miss my raping the sisters
before or after I did my baby-killer act?
It is of course the fact that there will be a lot more dead babies in
the next few years. It is also the case that economic growth, mainly
though not exclusively through the efforts of privately held
corporations, is responsible for the rapid decrease in disease and
hunger which cause most of these deaths.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 14:19:05 GMT
In article <56vcso$128@service3.uky.edu>,
TL ADAMS wrote:
>hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> > What you describe below is not negligence. To be sure, mistakes
>> > were made, but negligence implies a degree of criminality.
>>
>> Uh, no. Negligence is a tort concept, which in certain cases can be
>> considered under laws related to criminality.
>
>Having sat in judgement on my fellow engineers on a P.E. review board.
>I find this whole thread insulting. If TMI island is not considered
>negligence. then nothing can be considered negligence. If lack of
>training, lack of expertise of the operator are considered excussable
>in your industry, then no wonder the public has rebelled against your
>incompetence.
>
>Look at the sloppy construction at sites like Zimmerman and Marble Hill.
>I for one, consider substandard concrete mixes, and faking of x-rays
>of high pressure steam welds alittle bit more that excusable boo-boos.
>
>Don't get me started about Oakridge, Fernald and Pad. Gasous Diffusion.
>
>If those are your examples of safety, then someone has not basic
>grasp of reality.
>
Maybe I have a poor grasp of the concept of negligence from a
legal point of view. Given the actions of the operators on
the morning of March 28, 1979, I do not see any negligence. Yes,
they made mistakes, but I hope that making honest mistakes is
not actionable. I would not argue that operating the plant
with a leaking valve is necessarily negligence - if the leak
rate is within the plant Technical Specifications, then the
continued operation is unobjectionable. The operator training
and control room design met the standards of the time.
No one said that the actions of operators at TMI were "excussable" -
simply that they were not negligent.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | When the going gets tough,
| the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |
| E. Blackadder
Subject: Re: Passive solar; reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources
From: nick@ufo.ee.vill.edu (Nick Pine)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 09:51:28 -0500
Joel N. Gordes wrote:
>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...
This sounds like a direct gain house, which works well in the Southwest but
not so well in Connecticut. Seems to me that a much more efficient and less
expensive configuration in the Northeast is some sort of low-thermal-mass
and sunspace with low-thermal-resistance glazing, that gets cold at night,
combined with some thermal mass inside the well-insulated attached house.
>I've had the pleasure to design/analyze over 250 passive solar homes.
>They work well when done with common sense.
It seems to me that it's time to recalibrate our performance expectations
for passive solar houses, and design and expect them to provide 90-100% of
their heat and hot water from the sun, in the Northeast, vs 30-80%...
Nick
Nicholson L. Pine System design and consulting
Pine Associates, Ltd. (610) 489-0545
821 Collegeville Road Fax: (610) 489-7057
Collegeville, PA 19426 Email: nick@ece.vill.edu
Computer simulation and modeling. High performance, low cost, solar heating and
cogeneration system design. BSEE, MSEE. Senior Member, IEEE. Registered US
Patent Agent. Solar closet paper: http://leia.ursinus.edu/~physics/solar.html
Web site: http://www.ece.vill.edu/~nick
Subject: Announcing FREE ERBE Data CD-ROM
From: /usr/users/olson@magician.larc.nasa.gov (John Olson)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:31:42 GMT
EOSDIS RADIATION BUDGET, CLOUDS, AEROSOLS and TROPOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY DATA
Langley Distributed Active Archive (Langley DAAC)
WWW: http://eosdis.larc.nasa.gov/
e-mail: larc@eos.nasa.gov
The Langley Distributed Active Archive announces the availability of the
FREE Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) CD-ROM. The CD-ROM is ISO9660
compliant allowing pcs, macintoshes and unix machines all to access it. The
CD-ROM contains monthly scanner data and color images from scanning radiometers
on the three ERBE satellites and for combined satellite cases. The data
are provided in text format and the color images in GIF format. The data are
averaged values on a 2.5 degree by 2.5 degree equal-angle grid. There is data
for the period November 1984 to February 1990. Each data file contains
clear-sky and all-sky values for shortwave radiation, longwave radiation,
albedo and net radiation as well as longwave cloud forcing, shorwave cloud
forcing and net cloud forcing.
This CD-ROM may be ordered from the Langley Distributed Active Archive
(Langley DAAC) home page at http://eosdis.larc.nasa.gov/ by following the
"Access Data" link to the Order Form for CD-ROMs and Videocassettes.
More information may be obtained from the Langley DAAC Science, User and Data
Services Office at larc@eos.nasa.gov.
TYPES OF DATA:
The Langley Distributed Active Archive Center, located in Hampton,
Virginia, is responsible for the archival and distribution of NASA science
data in the areas of radiation budget, clouds, aerosols and tropospheric
chemistry. The Langley DAAC will also archive some of the data sets
which result from the EOS program and other elements of Mission to
Planet Earth. Currently archived and available for distribution is data from
the Earth's Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), the International Satellite
Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas
Experiment (SAGE) , the Surface Radiation Budget (SRB), the First ISCCP
Regional Experiment (FIRE), the Global Tropospheric Experiment (GTE) and
the Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement (SAM) II.
These data products are free of charge.
OBTAINING DATA
By following the "Access Data" link on the Langley DAAC home page,
users are presented 4 methods for ordering Langley DAAC data.
The Langley DAAC has developed an on-line computer system which
allows users to logon, search through the DAAC's data inventory,
choose desired data sets, and place an order. Data may be
received either electronically (via FTP) or on media such as 4mm
tape, 8mm tape, or CD-ROM (prepackaged data sets only). To access
follow the "Langley DAAC Order System" link.
For users without x-windows, the new Version 0 WWW Gateway is available.
This gateway allows an user to use a WWW browser to search the EOSDIS
holdings and order data. Follow the "Multi-DAAC Ordering System (V0 IMS)"
to the Version 0 WWW Gateway link.
Orders for prepackaged products available from the Langley DAAC may
be placed through the order form for CD-ROMs and Videocassettes. This form
is reached through the "Order Form for CD-ROMs and Videocassettes" link.
The new ISCCP D products being archived at the Langley DAAC may be ordered
from the Langley DAAC home page as well. Follow the link "Data Accessible from
the Web." From this page, media and ftp orders for the ISCCP D Products can
be made.
HOW TO CONTACT US
For information regarding Langley DAAC data or to place an order,
please contact:
Langley DAAC Science, User and Data Support Office
NASA Langley Research Center
Mail Stop 157D
Hampton, VA 23681-0001
Phone: (757) 864-8656
FAX: (757) 864-8807
Internet: larc@eos.nasa.gov
Keywords:
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 15:55:40 GMT
1. Capitalism is not great. It's just better than the alternatives.
2. Money exists under socialism as well. Money is what allows a
person who produces some good or service to get what he wants in
exchange for it without having to find an individual somewhere else in
the economy who has what he wants and wants what he has. You get paid
for what you do and buy what you want. Maintaining an economic system that
provides this convenience requires effort, and the people that do it
are paid for their efforts, maybe more than we would like. I was
shocked when I discovered how much the President of Stanford
University, who markets my professorial efforts, is paid.
3. The complications of a system often cause people to lose sight of
what the system's purpose is. Occasional iteration of the slogan,
"People are more important than money" sometimes focusses attention in
the right place.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: The Netherlands Fallacy
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 15:45:50 GMT
In article <32995F1B.5894@interport.net> Alan Miles writes:
>
> "Desirable" is a subjective term. If you want solitude in the
> wilderness, then the "desirable" world population would be smaller than
> if you enjoyed crowds and urbanity.
>
> In addition, population density is a bigger problem in some areas than
> others. Despite your complaint that the Bay Area has grown too much, I
> frankly don't find it to be overcrowded.
You can have solitude in the wilderness if it is important enough to
you to make you give up other things. Perhaps Unabomber's cabin is
available. They say it lacks an outhouse and you could occupy
yourself building one.
My problem with overcrowding is this. The Computer Science Department
just moved into a shiny new building, which has a pretty good view of
some of the foothills from my office. I'm thinking of suing to
prevent Stanford University from putting a building across the street
for another department. It will block my view of the foothills.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:05:31 GMT
"Mike Asher" (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: James G. Acker wrote:
: > Mike Asher wrote:
: >
: > However, according to the International Association for Physical Sciences
: > in the Ocean:
: >
: > "Mean sea level has not changed in the past century."
: > - Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, secretary general IAPSO.
: >
: > Two questions and a statement:
: >
: > One, when was this quote made / published?
:
: April, 1992.
:
: > Two, are you aware of the research that indicated some of
: > the potential rise was likely mitigated by impoundment of fresh
: > water in man-made lakes on the continents?
:
: 160,000,000,000,000
:
: One hundred sixty trillion gallons, is what I calculate an oceanic rise of
: 1 centimeter would entail, equivalent to a body of water 100 feet deep, 130
: miles wide and 1000 miles long. Hmm....
Given the sizes of some of the great reservoirs just in the
United States (Lakes Mead and Powell, the large TVA lakes, Lakes
Gaston, Hartwell, Keowee, Marion, etc. in the Carolinas), and the
multitude of small reservoir lakes, I don't see this as being
wrong. Clearly, it's a factor that needs consideration. May
I politely inquire as to whether you had considered it prior to
this posting?
: > Three, sea-level rise, due to the large volume of the oceans,
: > is not a good indicator of the rate or potential for climate change.
: > In large part because it's hard to measure. What is more indicative are
: > changes in regional hydrology, such as glacial retreat or advance,
: > sea ice extent from year to year, and differences in retained
: > soil moisture (there are many, many more variables that could be
: > examined).
:
: However, sea-level rise is touted as one of the catastrophes arising from
: global warming. Questions about climactic change aside, I find the fact
: that sea levels are *not* rising to be significant
Catastrophe is a fine word to pick. (By the way, it's
climatic change: climactic change is something else entirely ;-)
Slight sea level rise would be due to two factors: thermal
expansion of the oceans and increased melting of above sea-level ice.
An acceleration in melting would take a long time to manifest itself
due to the ocean's volume, and if mitigated by storage as suggested
above, even harder to recognize.
Catastrophic melting would mean the sudden collapse
of the great ice caps, i.e., Greenland and Antarctic. That would
indeed entail a significant sea-level rise. One of the big questions
in climate science right now is figuring out what might be happening
with the ice sheets, such as premonitory signs of impending
collapse. Which brings to my mind an interesting question: if
a premonitory sign of impending collapse was identified, would it
be too late to reverse the inevitable collapse?
That's probably a reason for prudence in this regard.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Subject: Problems of a crowded country
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:02:56 GMT
TAIPEI, Nov 25 (Reuter) - Taiwan's government on Monday
appealed to the public to eat more garlic and published garlic
cooking tips, trying to combat a near-collapse in prices.
``We simply planted too much garlic this year,'' Council of
Agriculture official Ku Te-yeh told Reuters by telephone.
Please help them. Eat at _The Stinking Rose_ in San Francisco. The
garlic will be from Gilroy, CA, but it should help world prices
somewhat.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: How did nuclear testing affect environment?
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:46:06 GMT
Tracy W wrote:
>How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?
The planetary carbon-14 background tripled (a pound of neutrons/megaton
yield), and tritium is now used as a marker for groundwater and aquifer
percolation.
The Pacific atolls where testing was conducted are still glowing with
radioactive cesium, among other things. The single underwater fission
test blew a radioactive bubble a half-mile across. The local
contamination was so horrendous they never tried it again - look at the
neutron activation cross-sections of sodium and chlorine, for instance,
plus fission products. See "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard
Rhodes.
Children born downwind of Nevada tests in Utah had tremendous rates of
thyroid cancer and leukemia. A movie company was downwind of a Project
Smokey test. The ran around like idiots with Geiger counters, holding
them to each other and laughing as the crickets roared. Almost everyone
so exposed eventually died of cancer, including John Wayne.
Good epidemiological statistics are not easily available. One would be
interested to see what is happening downstream of Hanford, WA for
instance, yesterday and today.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Are these people all mistaken? (World Scientists' Warning to Humanity)
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:38:10 GMT
gt5478d@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
: Ok. First of all you state that China is a good model of population
: control.
Yes, it is -- for countries with too much poverty.
: Well I am curious to what methods the government uses? I am
: sure it is all voluntary, right.
The government is using a variety of methods. These policies have popular
support, generally. I cannot provide you with a big lecture about these
methods, but I'm sure you will find this info anywhere.
: I mean we are talking about a
: communist country are we not? I mean a country that slaughtered college
: students for protesting.
That was a terrible tragedy, but plenty of misinformation about this
circulated. Mistakes did take place, but most deaths occurred as a result
of mass-panic and a stampede. Something like two hundred soldiers got
killed as well.
: 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.
This is not an easy question, but I believe that the ecological and social
crisis created by overpopulation demands resolute action. In the case of
China, the government doesn't really have a choice but to restrict certain
individual rights so that the society as a whole has a chance of survival.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party has developed and updated the
Marxist theory in a positive way to make Marxism more eco-friendly.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: "Don Dale"
Date: 25 Nov 96 11:41:02 -0500
Jay Hanson opined,
> There is NO substitute for energy. Although the economy
>treats energy just like any other resource, it is NOT like
>any other resource. Energy is the precondition for ALL other
>resources and oil is the most important form of energy we
>use, making up about 38 percent of the world energy supply.
>
> NO other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of
>extractablility, transpotability, versatility and cost. These
>are the qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the
>front-line energy source in the industrialized world in the
>middle of this century, and they are as relevant today as they
>were then.
What you fail to recognize, Mr. Hanson, is that the above statements must
be qualified by the time coordinate "Today,".
As you observe in the second paragraph above, oil only became the
"front-line" energy source in the industrialized world in the middle of
this century. Before that, it was coal. And before that, charcoal, peat,
wood, waterpower, wind, animal power, and human labor. And each change was
the result of advances in technology allowing humans to harness energy
which hitherto had been useless.
Even today, we are able to harness only a tiny fraction of the energy that
surrounds us. With current technology, our most efficient source of useful
energy is the bonds that hold molecules of petroleum to one another. But
there is no reason to assume that this will always be the case. There is
energy everywhere; indeed, as Einstein's famous equation shows, matter
itself is but a form of energy (and vice versa). (Hey, look, I can cite
physicists, too!)
The qualities of "extractablility [sic], transpotability [sic], versatility
and cost" are not intrinsic to oil and exogenous to human activity, but are
functions of human technology and therefore endogenous.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Max Jacobs
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 20:15:48 -0800
>
> 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.
>
Actually, in hydrophonics there isnt as much a need for pesticides
because there arent as many bugs inside as there are outside (other than
cockroaches, and they arent known to attack crops, just kitchens). The
only artificial ingredient in hydroponics is light. They just douse
their seeds with lots of artificial light and continously clone the
crops (that is at least how one English hydroponic factory does it). So
hydroponic crops are actually going to be better for you than most
normal crops and due to the risky nature of organically grown food
(risky in the way that bugs could destroy them) hydroponics would be a
great way to feed the world.
Now for the cancer question. Elizabeth Whelan of the American Council
of Science flatly states in her book "Toxic Terror" "there has never
been a documented case of human illness or death in the US as the result
of the standard and accepted use of pesticides." This finding has been
backed up by the American Medical Association. And do you realize that
cancer rates have been falling over the last forty years? Stomach
cancer has dropped 75% and rectal (ouch) cancer has dropped 65%. So its
not like we are killing ourselves, we are actually living healthier
fuller lives now.
Now for the final issue, food shortage. Where do you get the idea that
there isnt enough food in the world or that it isnt keeping up with
population growth. It is a fact that food production has gone up 40%
faster than population growth since 1950. The only reason that there is
a danger to the poor countries in the world in regard to food is because
they have poor infrastructure and/or a civil war. Even in Russia (part
of the 2nd world) there are very few paved roads outside of of cities
which makes it hard to deliver the food. And in places like Somalia, it
is very hard to deliver food when a) there are few roads and b) you have
to worry about getting killed by a roving gang. That is why you see
hungry people in developing countries, not because there is any kind of
a food shortage.
Max
Subject: Re: Stuffed Pilgrim
From: Shadow
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:19:40 -0800
CoE wrote:
>
> Dear Euthanist,
>
> I hope this letter finds you well. We have entered that difficult time
> of year known as the "holiday season," beginning with the obscene and
> historically inaccurate ritual of Thanksgiving, followed by rampant
> consumerism and the hideous spectacle of Christmas.
I also hope that you will join me in
> boycotting Christmas, by celebrating the Winter Solstice instead, in the
> traditional manner, without false sentiment, disposable dead trees,
> wrapping paper, plastic trinkets or gadgets, but with reverence, and in
> good company.
Wonderfully and well spoken, I had thought of writing a post like this myself. While I
enjoy seeing my family and having time off during the holidays (as well as eating a
lot of fattening food) I dread the thought of all that fake cheer, nauseating music,
vulgar plastic decorations, etc. I despise office Pollyanas: buying a meaningless gift
for someone you barely know, the epitome of a materialistic society that believes the
greatest good is to receive a material thing, ANY thing. There are people at my job
who are begging for more overtime hours "because I have a 10-page Christmas list".
Translation: I'll work my ass off, give up most of my life for the next month, so I
can buy people a bunch of stupid presents that they'll most likely never use."
LIke, I hate to be a scrooge here, and giving a sincere present is wonderful at any
time of the year... but please! I'd rather celebrate and show love when my heart tells
me to, not when WANAMAKERS', HALLMARK etc. tell me to!!
"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way!"
Shadow
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:58:13 GMT
C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth) wrote for all to see:
>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:
You did not need to repeat anything. See up above the word "usually",
the one in the first sentence? I use this word when I mean something
between never and always. The fact that I replied once before, and am
now, does not mean that I usually do.
I believe that, in general, I should regard such things with the same
seriousness that you, the poster do. If the you think you opinion is
so worthless that you do not want your name associated with it, then
who am I to disagree with you?
Thanks anyway,
Regards, Harold
----
"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions. Trade loves
moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.
.... Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high
idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their
own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein. Hence it makes them
inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3,
ch. 21 (1840).
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 18:05:00 GMT
A. Whitworth (CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> Capitalism as it is currently practiced seems to be entirely
> based around money. You may say, well, of course it is, that
> is the point.... but I say, shouldn't _people_ be
> emphasised, not money?
This is a fundamental point that many people miss, so it bears
repeating. Money *IS* about people. After all, what is money?
Pieces of metal and paper? Well, yes, at a high level, but at
its root, money is a representation of a person's production,
a stand-in for the barter system. So when you say capitalism
is about money, it is actually about production. Now, why do
people produce things? To improve their own standard of living.
How does that happen? By producing the things that other people
want to improve their standard of living, and trading with them
for things they want more. So money just represents a tangible
symbol of our attempt to improve our own and each other's standard
of living. If that is not the *ultimate* emphasis on people, I
don't know what is!
> [..company earns less than expected, but still profitable,
> so it lays people off...]
>
> In money-oriented capitalism, of course, the above all makes
> perfect sense. But it seems a twisted world where an
> abstract concept - that of "money" - rules over the reality
> of society, that being that society is made up of _people_
> and only _people_.
But if you look beyond the abstract concept to what money means
(i.e., production of things people want), then it does make
sense, because the message is that the resources being spent
by this company could be better spent improving people's lives
somewhere else. The search for maximum return on investment is
actually the search for the best match between what is being
produced and what people want (as measured by what they will
sacrifice their time and energy for -- the best measure I have
heard of for measuring "happiness").
> There are arguments against perfect equality,
> and I do not advocate it. But why should the incredibly
> skewed distribution of wealth be somehow morally right?
Because it became skewed by that person being best able to
make others happy -- a very moral concept. And what are the
alternatives - to make the rich produce less? Force them
to give some away, which has the same effect? Whose happiness
does that help?
> The gaps between rich and poor - both between, and within
> countries - are immense, and _growing_, not lessening, which
> fundamentally damages those who believe that free-market
> capitalism will somehow lead to everything turning out
> alright in the end.
But a wider span of wealth is not a bad thing if it moves
the whole curve upward. What is more important is that, as
a whole, "society's" standard of living is moving upward.
> Yet capitalism, to me, has also led to:
> increased social tensions, increased racial violence, a
> lowering of community values, a neglect of the spiritual
> side of human development, gross pollution, despoiling of
> much of what is beautiful, destruction of species, damage to
> the ecosystem.
Actually, these are side effects of people living in groups,
and are not tied to any particular economic system, as evidenced
by the fact that most of them occur worldwide. Now, certain
economic systems *and the political system that supports them*
may exacerbate these problems, but evidence worldwide is that
capitalism and freedom are actually less harmful than others
that have been implemented for each of these things.
>
> There is both good and bad in capitalism. It cannot simply
> be wiped away and replaced. I have never advocated that. But
> there are considerable modifications that could be made in
> it and they start with a realisation that money is merely an
> abstract concept.
As I said above, money is an abstract concept, but what it represents
is in no way abstract. Trying to explain money and it's movement
while ignoring what it represents is a dead end philosophical exercise.
>_No_, we cannot live without it, but its
> role has become totally dominant, to the point where saying
> that people matter more than profits is somehow seen as
> amusing, as if it were a suggestion that actually, the Earth
> was flat all along.
>
> This is what I mean by "alternatives to capitalism". And I
> would be most grateful if this were debated. Usually when I
> post challenges to the conservative element, they are
> totally ignored. Is that because they are ludicrous, or
^^^^ do you mean "conservatives"? :-)
> simply less hard to refute than those of the
> "enviro-nutters"?
>
I think even people who intuitively know that they are doing
a good thing by making money may have a hard time explaining
why it is good for anyone but themselves. We are just sort of
taught to work hard, but the "why" never comes. I think my
argument above briefly explains the "why".
hblask
Subject: Re: Would picture tubes be banned today? (Was: major problem with climate predictions)
From: kennedysb@ornl.gov (Sandra B. Kennedy)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:44:18 GMT
I find this discussion interesting because I am charged with disposal of old
cathode ray tubes (CRTs) that have been removed from monitors, o-scopes, etc.
Some CRTs show low levels - above background - of potassium-40, a naturally
occurring radioisotope. Probably in the glass, right? I'm sure it sounds
silly to most of you because it should be a really simple decision - Is it
rad waste? Is it not rad? What regulatory criteria can be referenced to
make this decision? By the way, I don't expect any answers. I understand
the issues very well and that's about all I can say. Just thought I'd throw
another twist into this thread...
Sandra Kennedy
ORNL
standard disclaimer, my opinions and not my employer's or anyone else's
In article <56vlsc$qp6@news.one.net> api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
writes:>From: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
>Subject: Would picture tubes be banned today? (Was: major problem with climate
>predictions)
>Date: 20 Nov 1996 19:23:56 GMT
>In article <32989449.295667938@news.primenet.com>,
> ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) writes:
>Pardon me for just using this as springboard to a different discussion...
>>You have no evidence, but cite popular press misconceptions as if they
>>support your position.
>I have a question related to all this environmental hysteria today...
>Picture tubes, it is well known, release X-radiation as well as electromagentic
>fields. If the picture tube were invented today, would it be allowed to be
>sold?
>There is little or no evidence that exposure to picture tubes, even lengthy
>exposure, is a cancer risk. In this case, it appears that sound science has
>prevailed, mostly because picture tubes are an established technology and
>replacing them with costly color active-matrix LCD would be very expensive.
>However, if they were newly invented today, I bet the center for science in
>the public interest would be leading a crusade to ban them.
Subject: Re: Heidelberg Appeal
From: ddeming@geophysics.scif.uoknor.edu (D. Deming)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:49:14 -0400
In article <5756a0$fk3@service3.uky.edu>, TL ADAMS
wrote:
> ddeming@geophysics.scif.uoknor.edu (D. Deming) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Imagine that. People wanting to spend their tax dollars
> > to selfishly lock up violent criminals instead of subsidizing
> > the elite.
>
> So you see no problem with having one of the highest proportion of
> prisiones as a good thing. If we could just lock up all of those
> bad people, everything would be ok.
>
Well, what else do you suggest we do with them? Don't you
have any sympathy for the countless victims of violent crime?
The beaten, raped, and murdered? What about the abused children?
What do you want us to do with violent criminals? Give them
all medals?
ps. it may surprise you to learn that violent criminal behavior
has a strong genetic component. Yes, some people probably are
born with a disposition towards criminal behavior.
>
> You too, little man, someday will be old. May your pension be stolen
> from you during a hostile takeover, may your mutual funds be consumed
> in another S&L; scandal (OH THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. REAGAN), May your
> house have faux stucco siding and may if fall into a pit cause by
> the pumping of water for the local golf course.
>
Its enough that my future is being stolen from me now by
social security, medicare, welfare, and medicaid recipients--
to name just a few of the freeloaders in our society.
>
> May you have build in a flood plain, and then screamed about property
> rights.
>
I'm smart enough to not build a house in a flood plain.
Amazing, isn't it, that someone could be smart enough
to take care of themsleves?
>
> May you vote down property tax increase, and then have your local
> police/fire/ambulance not arrive.
>
Have you ever considered that it might be cheaper to take the
money they spend on fire departments and just buy a new house
for everyone whose house burns down?
_
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 11:51:21 CST
In article <01bbd721$2793a260$89d0d6cc@masher>
"Mike Asher" writes:
>Stating that you have failed to properly interpret something is not
>uncivil; shouting, calling someone a bloated, ignorant ass, or threatening
>remarks, is however. I have "chastised" people on both sides of the
>issue.
----snip----
>> I think possibly you have misunderstood my point. While simple cor-
>> relation cannot be taken to be a logical proof, (which I took to be
>> your meaning, and which, obviously, I understood, i.e., you owe me
>> an apology) it suffices in many cases to be a convincing one. In
>> my example, no study prior to 1996 had proven a causal connection
>> between smoking and cancer, yet many people, including me and - I
>> would wager - thee, took those _statistical_ studies showing a
>> strong _correlation_ between the two as proof that such did exist.
>
>This is not the argument you were raising before. "Yet, according to you,
>I would have been in error" is what you posted-- a clear misinterpretation
>of his statement. According to him, you would have _not_ been in error for
>believing in a causal connection between smoking and cancer, but that--
>prior to recent research-- you would have been unable to _conclude_ this.
>This is untrue.
Given what you have written above about civility, you will of
course recognize that I mean no insult when I observe that you
suffer from poor reading comprehension and that you are so
insecure that you would prefer to state that I am changing my
argument rather than admit that you didn't understand it the
first time. A more appropriate criticism might have been
to say that I poorly conveyed my thoughts, even though at
least one other person managed to get the sense of what I
was trying to express. Should you wish to make an issue
of this, I will be happy to provide the relevant messages
from Apian (?) and Mr. Brashears.
>> I repeat, on the basis of those pre- 1996 studies showing only
>> a correlation between smoking and cancer, did you, or did you
>> not believe believe that smoking causes lung cancer? And if
>> yes, would you please articulate why you found those studies to
>> be convincing while you do not find those showing a correlation
>> between increased levels of greenhouse gasses and changes in
>> climate to be such?
Mr. Asher, for the third time, did you believe prior to 1996 that
cigarettes caused cancer? I can construe your continued refusal
to answer this question in only one way, that a sincere reply on
your part would undermine your point.
>> Increased average temperature - proven.
>
>Anthropomorphic origins: unproven.
Sigh. Give me a list of all possible origins I would have to
disprove. I see that you have seen fit not to include in your
post the text in which I explained why such a list is necessary -
no matter how many other possible sources I show to be conclus-
ively ruled out (increasing solar constant, increasing vulcanism,
altered geographic features, etc.) you would always be able
to claim that I have not eliminated various unkown mechanisms.
>> So, again, I ask you what specific experiments or
>> observations I could perform that would convince you that global
>> warming is caused by increased industrial emissions?
>
>If you could explain the far larger weather variations in recorded history
>and show that the causes of them are not responsible here, I would find
>that compelling evidence.
Let me see . . . the mean solar constant has not noticeably changed
in this century, there's been no large extraplanetary collisions
that I am aware of; ditto for any vulcanism that might be releasing
greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, I haven't heard of the Rockies
being leveled or the Mediterranean being isolated from the Atlantic.
Anything else?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"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."
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:36:18 -0700
DLJ says:
>It is of course a lie and a libel to say that Asher or McCarthy
>"present themselves as experts on everything having to do with
>environment and the economy."
I note:
Here's a new one: along with fiddling with his blinders so that he'll
see only what he wants to see, dlj is an expert in the law. Do your
legal credentials allow you to make such an assessment? Would you like
me to post the legal definition of libel for you? It will only cost you
$100, payable in advance, but I have it right here in my folder, or we
can find an internet lawyer.
You continue:
>But then it doesn't take an expert in anything,
I interject:
Note this character also thinks he has the ability to decide for the
professionals what is true and what isn't in some field he knows nothing
about.
He continues:
> only a certain amount
>of logic and ordinary factual knowledge, to poke holes in the drone
>and moan of the environmental catastrophists.
I note:
Judging from your first paragraph I thought you were trying to
contradict my assertion about Asher and McCarthy, but then you go on to
illustrate that you yourself have precisely the same attitude, hence you
are in no position to judge. In this last paragraph, in fact, you show
clearly why qualified professionals need not concern themselves with
right-wing pseudo-prophets.
Subject: Re: Corporate "call boys": MORE OF THE SAME
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 08:37:10 -1000
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> It is of course the fact that there will be a lot more dead babies in
> the next few years. It is also the case that economic growth, mainly
> though not exclusively through the efforts of privately held
> corporations, is responsible for the rapid decrease in disease and
> hunger which cause most of these deaths.
The relationship between environmental scarcity and violent conflict
is well known.
THE COMING ANARCHY
by Robert Kaplan
"The cities of West Africa at night are some of the unsafest places in
the
world. Streets are unlit; the police often lack gasoline for their
vehicles; armed burglars, carjackers, and muggers proliferate. `The
government in Sierra Leone has no writ after dark,' says a foreign
resident, shrugging. When I was in the capital, Freetown, last
September,
eight men armed with AK-47s broke into the house of an American man.
They
tied him up and stole everything of value. Forget Miami: direct flights
between the United States and the Murtala Muhammed Airport, in
neighboring
Nigeria's largest city, Lagos, have been suspended by order of the U.S.
Secretary of Transportation because of ineffective security at the
terminal
and its environs. A State Department report cited the airport for
'extortion by law-enforcement and immigration officials.' This is one
of
the few times that the U.S. government has embargoed a foreign airport
for
reasons that are linked purely to crime. In Abidjan, effectively the
capital of the Cote d'Ivoire, or Ivory Coast, restaurants have
stick-and-gun-wielding guards who walk you the fifteen feet or so
between
your car and the entrance, giving you an eerie taste of what American
cities might be like in the future. An Italian ambassador was killed by
gunfire when robbers invaded an Abidjan restaurant. The family of the
Nigerian ambassador was tied up and robbed at gunpoint in the
ambassador's
residence. After university students in the Ivory Coast caught bandits
who
had been plaguing their dorms, they executed them by hanging tires
around
their necks and setting the tires on fire. In one instance Ivorian
policemen stood by and watched the 'necklacings,' afraid to intervene.
Each
time I went to the Abidjan bus terminal, groups of young men with
restless,
scanning eyes surrounded my taxi, putting their hands all over the
windows,
demanding 'tips' for carrying my luggage even though I had only a
rucksack.
In cities in six West African countries I saw similar young men
everywhere�hordes of them. They were like loose molecules in a very
unstable social fluid, a fluid that was clearly on the verge of
igniting."
A PREMONITION OF THE FUTURE
"West Africa is becoming THE symbol of worldwide demographic,
environmental, and societal stress, in which criminal anarchy emerges
as
the real `strategic' danger. Disease, overpopulation, unprovoked crime,
scarcity of resources, refugee migrations, the increasing erosion of
nation-states and international borders, and the empowerment of private
armies, security firms, and international drug cartels are now most
tellingly demonstrated through a West African prism. West Africa
provides
an appropriate introduction to the issues, often extremely unpleasant
to
discuss, that will soon confront our civilization. ..."
This was a clip from THE COMING ANARCHY, by Robert Kaplan,
in the Feb 1994 Atlantic Monthly.
The full text is online at:
http://www.TheAtlantic.com/atlantic/election/connection/foreign/anarcf.htm
See many references to environmental scarcity and violence at:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page5.htm
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 18:17:18 GMT
As usual, few scientists considering the collapse of the Greenland and
Antarctic icecaps are oriented to trying to invent ways of reversing
the process. All the ways I can think of are expensive, but the
expense would be preferable to the rise in sea level that would be
caused by the melting of Antarctica.
There is no rush at present, and if disaster threatens, attitudes will
change. There is nothing like the prospect of being hanged to
concentrate the mind.
--
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.
