Newsgroup sci.environment 111317

Directory

Dan Evens wrote:
> 
> Mike Bergey wrote:
> > P.S. - Rod, our 10 kW wind tubines already produce energy cheaper than 1,200 MW nukes.
> 
> How much land would 120,000 of your turbines cover?  
The land can continue to be used for agricultural purposes, such as
pastureland.
>What would the environmental impact of these be?
Very little, if any.  Wind turbines produce no CO2, CO, SOx, NOx, PM10,
and so on, during operation. 
>  How many birds would you kill in a year? 
Much less than just one oil tanker spill.
>How much noise would it make?
If a tree falls when no one is around, does it make a noise? :-)
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.

In article <57kbsl$j6j@News2.Lakes.com>,
   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) 
wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>
>>In article <578gg5$tl5@News2.Lakes.com>,
>>   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) 
>>wrote:
>>>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>
>>>well there's examples worldwide where technology has lead 
>>to enviro
>>>problems and the correction has only made the situation 
>>worst
>>> 
>
>>There are also examples worldwide where technology has 
>>increased peoples' lifespans, cured illnesses, reduced 
their 
>>amount of manual labor, transported them long distances in 
>
>and just what does any of those things have to due with the
>environment.Like all dits you have to throw up some silly 
strawman to
>present an arguement because you lack any data or facts to 
back the
>indefensable
>
Hey, I don't think so much of your comments either.
How about some environmental related technology?  We now 
have the capability to quickly transport fire fighters to 
the scene of forest fires, the ability to "see" *very* small 
concentrations of pollutants, satellites which can look at 
the whole earth year round and determine very small changes 
in temperature and weather patterns, biological "tricks" in 
which animals like cows can be surrogate mothers for 
endangered species, advanced genetics which can select novel 
adaptations very quickly, etc., etc.  No doubt, you don't 
like these advances either.  Oh, well.  Misery loves 
company.  However, if you are trying to make me miserable 
with your gloomy outlook, you will have to try a little 
harder.
Have a happy thanksgiving.

In article <57kbsl$j6j@News2.Lakes.com>,
   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> the environmental movement has no drawbacks.Unless you favor short
>time gain for the rich elitist over long term loss for everyone.
Well, I'm glad I finally have found an example of a movement which is 
perfect.  If you can find a perfect leader, we will all be in your debt.
Of course, I note that your binary thinking pattern leads to the conclusion 
that I am either "with" you, or "against" you, as there is no room for any 
other stance.  Just before you get irate enough to advocate violence 
against all who are against you, give me some advanced notice, so I can get 
ready.

In article <329D1C7B.7F67@ix.netcom.com>, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>charliew wrote:
>> 
>......
>> 
>> I say we should make it illegal to prosecute a black
>> perpetrator.  Turn them all loose, because they are victims
>> of their society.
(cut)
>
>I note:
>
>Here I thought the so-called conservatives were responsible.  I doubt 
>that your flaming liberals screwed up the Simpson trial.  Fahrakkan's 
>(sp?) demonstration planned to take place shortly after the trial and 
>certain to draw more and angrier demonstrators if Simpson were found 
>guilty certainly gave some presumably very conservative politicians and 
>administrators sleepless nights.  Is Fahrakkan liberal or conservative?  
>Anyone care to make an assessment?
Fahrakkan is out for Fahrakkan - plain and simple.
Those damned cameras in the court room screwed up the Simpson trial.  Both 
"sides" *and* the judge were more concerned about getting good publicity 
than anything else.
BTW, I will give my impression of this trial, even though I realize that 
most probably do not want to hear my opinion.  From the pure criminal 
standpoint, the prosecution and police messed up evidence gathering so much 
that there is indeed a reasonable doubt about Mr. Simpson's guilt.  Thus, 
even though I am caucasian, I would probably have had to vote not guilty 
(notice I didn't say innocent) if I were a member of the Simpson jury.
The civil trial will probably be much different.  There is indeed a 
preponderance of evidence that suggests that Mr. Simpson is in fact guilty. 
If I had to take my best guess, I would say that he is guilty.  However, 
the criminal jury had to deal with very strict guidelines regarding guilt 
or innocence, and these guidelines were formulated to make it much more 
likely that some guilty people go free in order to prevent punishing 
innocent people.
>Here are some more questions for both sides of this discussion:
>
>I've heard a lot of self-appointed conservatives blaming the nation's 
>ills on liberals over the past decade or so, and I've heard some of the 
>people who have been labelled 'liberal' spouting some pretty 
>conservative thought. I've really hardly heard or read anything 
>representing liberal thought anywhere - some in the Nation.  What if 
>'conservatives' have been throwing bricks at conservatives and calling 
>them liberals, when actually liberals no longer exist?  Would this be 
>class warfare, tribal warfare, or what?
>
>According to the paper, the 18th street gang is now bigger than the 
>crips or the bloods.  Are they conservative or liberal?
>
>Is this group a class or a tribe?
>
>Are major drug importers liberal or conservative?
>
>charliew continues:
>
>>  Your compassion leads you to do stupid
>> things, because justice must often be devoid of compassion
>> if it is to work.  Think about it.
>
>I reply:
>
>I agree with you 100%.  I have some specific things to do and I am 
>working myself up to be absolutely devoid of compassion so that I can 
>carry these things out properly.  I think, in fact, that this is the 
>solution to a major social problem: we can't leave lawbreakers on the 
>street, and at the same time I don't want to pay for their incarceration 
>- which in many cases is nothing but welfare (welfare for the prison 
>owners as well if they get to gouge the government like the hmo's). What 
>is your suggestion?  I've got a solution which neither conservatives nor 
>liberals will like, is absolutely devoid of compassion, about which I'll 
>tell you later.
For once we agree on something.  I'm glad.  Incidentally, I am now raising 
two small children.  I often have to deliberately suppress compassion in 
order to provide justice when my children don't follow the rules.  Justice 
is not always pleasant, and it doesn't always involve spanking, but it sure 
is something that I would rather avoid.  However, (and this is the most 
important point of this discussion) my children decide if justice is 
appropriate - I do not.  Their actions alone either merit praise or 
punishment.
Why do I look at my children in this way?  Because I view child raising by 
an analogous situation (stay with me here; the analogy will seem silly 
until you think about it).  If you are flying a rocket to the moon, you 
normally have to make a mid-course correction during the flight.  The 
sooner you recognize error and correct for it, the less fuel the correction 
will take.  In human terms, a little bit of suffering now may well avoid 
enormous suffering in the future.  In other words, I am actually trying to 
minimize the total amount of suffering my children must endure.  It's too 
bad that most other people can't apply similar common sense to the legal 
justice system.
Have a happy thanksgiving.