Newsgroup sci.environment 111525

Directory

My friend's 88yoa mother swears their one year old oil heating
system has a stronger smell of oil than the system it replaced.
She also mentions a haze in the air. I would have investigated
tank connections and leakage and....whatever, except that I can't
smell anything except a faint, brief, occaisional hint of 
heating oil, when the thing turns on - starts heating.
Would anyone be able to suggest a source for consumer use air
sampling methods similar to radon testers or whatever. I hesitate
to rule out oil polution - who knows, I might be the subject of
her next complaint - yet, I must respect her comfort and attempt
to rationally alleviate her apprehensions.
Bill Howell

Can anyone point me to some references on environmental impacts of
oyster farms?  I was specifically interested in nutrient levels/algal
growth, fish aggregation, genetic effects on wild populations.
Tania

Franz Gerl (gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE) wrote:
>Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
>Come on, the things we discuss are happening right now
>and all you can come up with is: "Well, let's wait 1000
>years and see, maybe I am right." 
I didn't say that.  Please stop putting words in my mouth!
All I am saying is: if cyclical variations are involved, then 
observational data over a long period of time may be required in 
order to make accurate predictions.
Taking actions in anticipation of perceived consequences may be 
logical, but it has nothing to do with good science.
>That your arguments
>are not valid follows from basic chemical principles however.
which "basic chemical principles"?
>There is general agreement, that without an ozone layer
>live would not exist on land. 
Only idiots predict this is a possible outcome.
>The fact that melanoma may
>be related to UV-A too is no reason to destroy it.
The fact that UV-B (and ozone depletion) may have nothing to do with 
fatal melanoma, has some influence on the decision to spend money on 
replacing CFCs.
>The point is: How can I show you, if you refuse to learn
>the relevant chemistry? 
It can't hurt to try.
>You can only do the studying for yourself. 
[condescending chemistry lesson snipped]
Thankyou I have an engineering degree, ie high school and tertiary
level chemistry.
>You obviously have a private definition of the word depletion,
>as this remark and others in this thread show. In general use
>it refers to the lowering from previous levels caused by the
>man-made increase of Cl.
 ^^^^^^^^
No, I do not define ozone depletion this way.  I define ozone 
depletion as a reduction in ozone as a result of a chemical 
reaction (man-made or natural).  My point is: there is evidence to 
show that ozone is depleted naturally, and that there is also 
a strong possibility that polar stratospheric ozone depletion 
occurred prior to CFCs being placed in the atmosphere.
>You seem to think, that any reaction, which was present long
>ago, leads to depletion. However there were always reactions
>going on that removed ozone and thus limited its concentration
>in the dynamical equilibrium. Live has adapted to this equilibrium.
Yes, I agree.  But do we know that this equilibrium is static, or 
does it vary cyclically (like just about everything else on this 
planet).
And life has adapted to much higher variations in UV-B than is caused 
by ozone depletion.
>We are tipping the scales right now, 
>and there are going to be problems if our influence is to large.
Perhaps, but where is the evidence that our influence is too large?
As far as UV-B levels are concerned, human influence is insignificant 
next to natural variations.
>Note that if the stratosphere did not cool further (because
>of greenhouse gases), 
You are on shaky ground here, Franz.  None of this CO2 stuff has 
been proved.
>we could probably live with the
>concentration achieved right now. However even this
>forces contolls not very different from the decisions
>that have been made.
And I think the earth is far more robust than we have assumed, and 
we could take lots more ozone depletion without harm.  I think we 
have over-reacted.
>: Political motivation in this issue is my major criticism.
>
>You are the only one with political interest in the science here.
Perhaps.  I don't understand why everyone is so complacent about 
the unnecessary spending of large chunks of our GDP.  Maybe others 
don't pay as much tax as me?
>Your argument: CFC are not responsible for ozone depletion -
Where and when did I say that!!!
>if so it does not increase UV-B, 
Or that!!!
>which do no harm anyway
insignificant by comparison!!!
>and CFCs could have been reduced much cheaper 
...yes, of course...
>is only political and has nothing to do with science.
You think the Montreal Protocol is not politically motivated???
Franz, please!!!
...Greig

>
>In a 1988 Senate hearing, Donna R. Fitzpatrick (the Department of
Energy's acting Assistant 
>Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy) testified that:
"We've completed our work on 
>the engine.  The auto industry has tested it.  We've given them
engines that we've built and 
>they've looked at them.  They've followed closely the whole
development of it and they're just 
>not interested in building it."
Who was it said (loosely) "Innovation is the most dangerous and unrewarding
of vocations, as it has only lukewarm defenders in those who may profit by
it, and implacable enemies in those who may be harmed by it. " ??
He was right, y'know.....
Dave

B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes much-
 But evidently he  has not read  the 10 October issue of _ Nature_ 's
coverage of the iron fertiliztion experiments in sufficient detail.
Had he ,he might have been able to discern the disparity between  Mr.
Frost's anemic coverage of them-i.e. his mis-emphasizing  the irrelevance
of near-equatorial iron fertilization while  ignoring  the Southern
Ocean's potential for a ''6to21%'' reduction of global CO2 as asserted
elsewhere in the text that his(Un-peer-reviewed )_ News and Views_  screed
was supposed to fairly cover.
The robust potential of these results will be  evident to those who have 
actually troubled to read the _ Nature_ Article, the three  adjacent_
Letters to Nature _ and their  numerous references. Those who take the
trouble to do so will find  Mr. Hamilton's  thread rather  tedious in the
light of the published science and may , therefore wish to exhort him to
consult it before, rather than after,  he troubles us to join  him in his
judgement upon it.

In <57rb8v$m8m@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes: 
>
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Seeming overpopulation 
>: is a mask of underproduction - therefore a
>: mask (among other things) of *underpopulation*.
>
>I see. Overpopulation is a mask of underpopulation. 
"Seeming overpopulation". It pays to learn to read
before you learn to write.

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
>hblask says:
>> 
>> The search for truth under science is similar to the search for
>> "improved standards of living" or "value" under capitalism.  Neither
>> defines what the end result will look like, but define a flexible
>> framework so that each can proceed toward their goal in a trial-and-
>> error manner.
>I note:
>Your statement above is wrong on two counts.  First, 'value' and 
>'improved standards of living' are defined by society - hence are 
>variable depending upon how society chooses to define them at any given 
>moment.  Science studies natural law which is invariant regardless of 
>what society does or doesn not want to think.  Different as peas in a 
>pod.  Secondly, there is nothing in capitalism that makes improved 
>standard of living or value desirable in any general sense.  The 
>objective of capitalism is to improve the value of >your< possessions 
>and perhaps, but not necessarily, improve >your< standard of living, at 
>any cost including lowering these things in others.  There is no 
>'search', except for a way to achieve this objective.
In theory, science is based on a cumulative objective study of the
world around us.  The marketplace works by taking the combined inputs
of all the very subjective preferences of buyers and sellers and reaching
an approximate economic equilibrium at a given point in time.  There
isn't all that much in common between the two systems.
In short, science doesn't require immediate concensus of scientists
at any given point in time, but the marketplace sets prices based on
the balance of individual preferences at any given moment.  (I.e.,
would I, Joe Consumer, rather have that LandYacht Mark III or would
I prefer to keep my $42,240?)
(BTW, I was truly amazed to see John McCarthy, one of the top, worldclass
computer scientists alive today, join this thread.  It's a small, small,
small, small 'Net!)
[snip]
>Serous scientists seldom even think about the scientific method.  But 
Serious scientists eat, breathe, and sleep scientific method.  Sadly,
there aren't all that many real, serious scientists...there are a lot
of posers and pseudo-scientists.
-- 
	"  To its committed members [the Democrat Party] was still
	the party of heart, humanity, and justice, but to those
	removed a few paces it looked like Captain Hook's crew --
	ambulance-chasing lawyers, rapacious public policy grants
	persons, civil rights gamesmen, ditzy-brained movie stars,
	fat-assed civil servant desk squatters, recovering alcoholics,
	recovering wife-beaters, recovering child-buggers, and so forth
	and so on, a grotesque lineup of ill-mannered, self-pitying,
	caterwauling freeloaders banging their tin cups on the pavement
	demanding handouts."
	  -- Nicholas von Hoffman (The Washington Post, 94/11/12)
	Annoy a Fascist: Just say NO! to gun control.  -- Synergy
	"  Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,
	history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of
	arms as the blackest."  -- Mahatma Gandhi 

In <57smda$bf7@agate.berkeley.edu> atanu@are.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Dey)
writes: 
>
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Birthrates in the Third World
>: are dropping precipitously.
>
>: Insufficient population growth is quickly
>: becoming a problem; nations are changing
>: their policies already towards encouraging
>: birth; but this can hardly be sufficient.
>
>: What *should* be done to enable population
>: growth again? This is a life-and-death issue
>: for the species, let alone economy.
>
>< the above is an edited version of what jw wrote >
>
>  I was not aware that the internet has grown so much in the last
>  few years - evidently it is possible to access the internet from
>  places other than the planet earth.  How else could jw be on the
>  usenet since he is posting from some extraterrestrial location.  
I am sorry to tell you that you are 
uninformed on the subject on which you are 
posting. Below are statistics... for the planet Earth.
    Year             Population 
                       Growth
                        rate
    1970                2.07
    1975                1.76
    1980                1.71
    1985                1.68     
    1990                1.58     
    1995                1.41     
    2000 (projected)    1.28     

This post is aimed specifically at those fools out there who repeatedly
claim that environmentalists are really "commies."
I came across an article titled "Environmentalist's arrest stirs Russian
fears of a KGB revival.  I will only breifly summarize it.
Alexander Nikitin, a researcher for a Nowegian environmental organization
(Bellona) and a former Russian Naval officer was awoken one night (Feb 6,
1996) and told to quietly get dressed and come along for questioning by
Russian police.  He could not alert friends or colleagues because they
disconnected his telephone.  His wife was told he would return soon, but
instead he was detained and charged with treason for helping to publicize
radioactive contamination by the Russian Northern Fleet (a crime that could
mean the death penalty).
His "crime" was helping to prepare a chapter in a report (by the
environmental group, Bellona) on nuclear submarine accidents, drawing on
articles published by the Russian press. The information he was planning to
reveal was already a matter of public record, despite claims by Russian
police that he planned to reveal state secrets.
Russian officials have been stung in recent years over the issue of nuclear
contamination and blame U.S. Navy submarines for the pollution.
Authorities there tried to force Nikitin to accept representation of a
lawyer they chose for him, but did not succeed. However, Russian authorities
have pulled strings to block his lawyer and a public interest group, from
obtaining relevant information on the case.
The Russian Customs Service has seized 1,500 copies of Belona's report,
describing it as "forbideen literature."  Bellona's activities in Russia
have been restricted.  Nikitin has been repeatedly denied bail.
His lawyer is arguing that the information in Bellona's report is available
through public sources and is important to the debate over environmental
issues.  As a result, he says, the information cannot be considered secret
under Russia's Constitution and it's state secrets law.
The prosecution argues that these laws are superceded by two "secret"
decrees on classified information, which the government has refused to make
public or provide to the defense.
Apparently, the United States has been somewhat silent over the case. But
Amnesty Internationsal, a human rights group, has named Nikitin a "prisoner
of conscience."  It is the first time the oprganization has charged Moscow
with holding a political prisoner since Andrei D. Sakharov, the nuclear
physicist, was sentenced to internal exile during the soviet reign.
Russian human rights advocates worry that the case has sent a disquieting
signal that Russian citizens who work closely with Western human rights
or environmental groups may be at risk.
End note: I have heard of similar tactics used against green party members
in China who are proponents of the public's right to know.
On a more scary note, I have seen many laws passed in the United States that
legally prevent environmental groups from making public certain information
the government and the corporations who run them don't want them to know
about their pollution and pesticides. It is a battle over "the right to
know," and we in the U.S. are still fighting over it.  Nikitin's example
is extreme, but what about laws in the U.S. that prevent anyone from
"slandering vegetables?" Is this an erosion of our right to free speech?
I appeal to all anti-environmentalists on this newsgroup.  You consistently
slam environmental groups and cite the Constitution.  But I don't even hear
a peep out of you if environmentalists are denied their constitutional
rights.  In fact, the very legislators who you promote are the same ones who
make these laws that violate our rights to free speech.  They do it for big
business, Communists do it for the "state."  What is the damn difference? I
am sorry if the existence of endangered species prevents a farmer from
plowing his land,  but if it weren't for the government of this country
making really bad land-use decisions, there would be no endangered species
list.  You do NOT have any basis for calling any environmentalist a
"communist," I think I have made the point clear.  Get a grip and look at
the big picture.  Please do see the kind of communism and suppression aimed
at environmentalists in this country and abroad.  Look at the actions of
environmentalists around the world who fight for democracy and free speech.
 Free speech is the very core of the existence of environmentalism. We have
a vital stake in democracy and there is story after story that proves it.
Why on earth do you think we would ever want to suppress our own right to
protect the earth through free speech?
kelly.cowan@ebbs.cts.com
My question to you is "Who are the commies here?"

You can now treat yourself to a FREE technical book in computer science, 
the internet, chemistry, biological sciences, engineering, physics or any 
other technical subject just in time for the holidays.  Book values up to 
$120.00. For details contact service@lazarlab.com

Hi,
Has anyone got any information on this conspiracy(alterative 3(Something
to do with sending a select group of people to live on mars before the
human race dies off from overcrowding and alll that) that caused a stir
in england 15 yrs ago? If so mail it to me. My E-mail number is
CM6HIJU@CBS47A.SOC.STAFFS.AC.UK.
Cheers. 
James

Dan Evens (junkmail@hydro.on.ca) wrote:
> >  [...]
> The fact that Henry Blaskowski can hold up efficiency as any kind of
> justification for a govt system demonstrates that the justification of
> capitalism escapes him.
I didn't do that; I agree with your points...
> The justification of capitalism is not efficiency, or distribution of
> resources, or that it "works" better than other systems, or any of that.
> The justification is that it is moral. And no other system is.
This is the point that I've been making repeatedly on this thread and
others (at least when I haven't been lured into side discussions).
It is moral because it is efficient and it works.  Additionally, it
is moral because it provides free choice.  I don't mean to argue,
since we agree, but these are just different ways of saying the same
thing.  If you say something is moral, you must say why that is so.
hblask

>>I presume you're talking about the European condensing dryers.  Have 
you 
The only condensing dryers I've seen are ones which use cold water, and 
are in fact combination washer-dryers. However, I've not been looking 
very hard, not knowing that such beasts exist except in my imagination. 
Can you actually buy them?
>>seen any exported to the US?  Biggest problem I would be aware of is 
>>capacity just as with their washers.
>
>Well, that's a matter of your perceived "need" for capacity.  It does 
not seem 
>to me that people in Europe necessarily have a lesser need for drying 
lots of 
>clothes at a time than we in North America do.
Not true. It's well known that Americans sweat more than we do :-)

>PHYSICS TODAY published a letter from me on this topic back in the late 
>1960's. I proposed the idea being discussed: electricity plus fishing 
>"down current" from the power plant. With the added twist of, since the 
>power is needed so far from the floating plant, the cuttent be used to 
>split water and pipe hydrogen as the fuel. 
There was an article recently in New Scientist along these lines, with 
the alternative twist of synthetic crude oil from plankton. Was that 
anything to do with you?
Also, presumably the production of hydrogen could approach 100% 
efficiency as waste heat from electolysis could be added to the warm side 
of the heat engine ?

In article <329D1C7B.7F67@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.
>> 
>> Naturally, I will make every attempt to reside as far from
>> these victims as possible.  Thus, they will have to
>> victimize other victims to gain the valuables needed to
>> support their drug habits, pay for prostitutes, etc.  How
>> this can be considered justice is difficult for me to
>> understand.
>> 
>> Thus, you can hopefully see what I love so much about you
>> flaming liberals.
>
>I note:
>
>Here I thought the so-called conservatives were responsible.  I doubt 
>that your flaming liberals screwed up the Simpson trial.  Fahrakkan's 
    
    I generally hate "Get Out of this Newsgroup" posts, but we
    really are importing a lot of extraneous threads into the
    heretofore pristine sci.energy newsgroup.  Please consider
    your newsgroups and cut down on the broadcast of your
    posts!
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

In article <57n331$jgg@nntp.interaccess.com>,
Paul F. Dietz  wrote:
>BTW, McCarthy's argument was correct -- the 2nd law doesn't say that
>a higher trophic level must have less  biomass than a lower.  What it
>says is that the flow of free energy through the higher level must be
>no more than the flow through the lower level.
No, you've just agreed with Ehrlich et al.'s book.  In other words, you
are saying John McCarthy was incorrect in claiming a serious error in 
Ehrlich et al.s (24 year old) book.
Ehrlich et al. have a very intro discussion of trophic energy flows,
and discuss the second law's effect on these (p128-129).  They state
that this usually results in a biomass pyramid (the quote McCarthy
picked on).  They make it clear the second law only guarantees an
energy flow pyramid (p134).  They give an example of an exception, an
inverted biomass pyramid (also p134) and discuss the circumstances
that resulted in this inverted biomass pyramid.
Actually I expect Ehrlich et al.'s book has a number of  errors, most
books do.  My point was John McCarthy raised this supposed error to
discredit Ehrlich et al ("great at making up slogans but not so good
on facts") when his own postings on the subject contained elementary
errors.
Andrew Taylor

Jim Carr wrote:
> 
> Doug Craigen  writes:
> >
> >I was living in Vancouver back in the days of the Chernobyl disaster.
> >Vancouver prides itself on its great water, but either because of
> >Chernobyl or perhaps as a routine, the supply was tested for
> >radiocativity and was found to be contaminated.
> 
>  Must be surface water.
> 
> > This made headlines, at
> >least locally.  What was less known however was that further testing of
> >the contamination didn't look like reactor products, but rather like bomb
> >products.  When pressed the US military acknowledge that yes, they had
> >just exploded a test under the desert.
> Perhaps the source of the contamination was leakage of radioactive products from the underground 
test site at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians.  A recent article in the Washington Post said that
the test site is leaking even though the AEC quaranteed the integrity of the site for at least 100 
years.  The largest underground test of a US nuclear device (5 MT) was conducted there in the 
1960s, I believe.  The Alaskan current would carry leaked material down the coast of North America 
at least as far as Baja California.  Can anyone explain why the background radiation in San Diego, 
CA is about three times as high as that measured in the Washington, DC area?  Both cities are 
roughly at sea level.
Dennis Nelson

Joshua B. Halpern (jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE) wrote:
: Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: : 
: : I concede that I had underestimated the rapidity of vertical mixing 
: : in the stratosphere.  In order to explain sufficient concentrations 
: : of inorganic Cl reservoir compounds, photolysis of organochlorides 
: : must be very rapid, increasing in rapidity with altitude.
: 
: Well, half right.  The rates do increase stongly with altitude as there
: is less oxygen between the sun and the molecule.  OTOH, they are not
: particularly rapid.  For example, the rate for CF2Cl2 goes from about
: 1E-10 s-1 at 10 km to 1E-8 at 20 km, 5E-7 at 25 km and about 1E-6 at
: 40 km and above.  This means that at 20 km it takes about 10(8) seconds
: for a CF2Cl2 molecule to absorb a photon and dissociate.
:  
: CH3Cl will be even an order of magnitude slower, and HCl slower still
: because their absorption spectra are shifted even further towards the
: vacuum ultraviolet.
The estimates you give for photolysis of CF2Cl2 (and even CH3Cl) is
IMO extremely rapid relative to vertical mixing.  So, full right.
: : This of course rules out the building of a natural burden over a
: : long period of time.  It does not rule out the fact that inorganic
: : Cl compounds arising from the photolysis of methyl chloride are
: : naturally ubiquitous.
:  
: It does say that any HCl (which is for all practical purposes
: what you are talking about) has a very slim chance of photodissociating
: in the ozone layer, probably at least two orders of magnitude less than
: most of the (hydro)chlorocarbons (I'm looking at some pretty rough
: absorption spectra in Okabe's Photochemistry of small molecules, Wiley
: Interscience).  Thus for all practical purposes, HCl is a reservoir species
: with respect to Cl and ClO rather than a significant source.  Its fate is
: either death by drowning if it is exchanged downward (see Parson's 
: message in this thread), or by fire if it wanders into the ionisphere.
Exactly.  Methyl chloride photodissociates, but there is no significant 
sink for HCl (except by fire and water), so there is no reason to 
think that the earth's stratosphere (pre-CFCs) was free of HCl.
: 
: In short, your entire scenerio collapses if you consider the HCl 
: absorption spectrum in detail, because there is not enough light
: at the right frequencies to dissociate the HCl in the ozone layer
: region.  
: 
My scenario does not depend on the photolysis of HCl.  On the contrary, 
your investigations support my thesis, that inorganic Cl compounds 
occur naturally.
Gee, thanks Josh.
...Greig

Greig Ebeling wrote:
>My scenario does not depend on the photolysis of HCl.  On the contrary, 
>your investigations support my thesis, that inorganic Cl compounds 
>occur naturally.
Noone denies that some HCl appears naturally in the stratosphere.
The discussion is about how large both the natural and the anthropogenic 
contributions are. Please do read a chemistry book before you 
put up such strawmen.
>Exactly.  Methyl chloride photodissociates, but there is no significant 
>sink for HCl (except by fire and water), so there is no reason to 
>think that the earth's stratosphere (pre-CFCs) was free of HCl.
Methul chloride also reacts with the OH radical. This is an important 
reason for why a lot of the methyl chloride never reaches the 
stratosphere at all, but are washed out in the troposphere. 
Oeyvind Seland

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 00:29:01 GMT, briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell)
> wrote:
> 
> >It's too bad with all this talk of real wages, no one bothered to look
> >up the trend in benefits.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I'd be interested to know any facts you actually have.  My impression
> is that the bottom 30% or so of the income pyramid get zip benefits.
> Nil before.  Nil after.
> 
>                                                                  -dlj.
> 
Actually, thanks to the US health insurance system, it is perfectly
possible to simultaneously get more and less benefits every year.
Measure it in dollars, you get more. Measure it in utility, you get
less.
The increasing trend in benefits, if there is one, reflects mainly the
gross inefficiency of the US health insurance system, which has exploded
over the last fifteen years.
-- 
Enrique Diaz-Alvarez            Office # (607) 255 5034	
Electrical Engineering          Home #   (607) 758 8962
112 Phillips Hall               Fax #    (607) 255 4565
Cornell University              mailto:enrique@ee.cornell.edu
Ithaca, NY 14853                http://peta.ee.cornell.edu/~enrique

In article <57j19j$6sc_001@pm1-83.hal-pc.org>, 
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <578gg5$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 
>short amounts of time, enabled them to communicate globally 
>for *very* little expense, etc., etc.
This is true. 
It is also true that certain technologies have led to 
problems in areas where they have been utilised indiscrim- 
inately or inappropriately, and they could be done without. 
Indiscriminate use of so-called "high technology" has helped 
lead to the current crisis in Britain where most of us who 
have ever eaten a hamburger will die of CJD soon. (An 
exaggeration - but it makes the point.) 
Not all technology is good. 
Not all technology is bad. 
Too often in this thread people have assumed that the only 
way to refute a point is to make completely the opposite 
one, and that doesn't help anything, least of all the 
argument. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article <329B9CAD.463@harlech.ac.uk>, BROWNE   wrote:
>How would you cool the rods on a such a plane? Would you need a water 
>cooling tank and would this not weigh a considerable amount ?
>What would happen if something where to go wrong ?
>We have seen what has happened with Nuclear submarines such as the recent 
>reports about an ex-Soviet sub. Would it just not be a flying Nuclear 
>bomb.And how would you discard the plane when it's life ran out ? Encase 
>it in concrete and bury it for the downfall of future generations ?
>SPB Wales.
Gas cooled reactors have been used in Europe for years.  You also might
want to check out http://www.openweb.com/AAE, it pertains to a nitrogen
cooled, closed-cycle, nuclear-heated gas turbine engine that's under
development now.
In order for something to be a nuclear bomb, it has to be capable of
entering a configuration, called "supercritical", where an uncontrolled
nuclear fission chain-reaction can occur.  Nuclear submarines, in the
interests of compact size and very high efficiency, use highly-enriched
uranium, which can be made supercritical if you have enough of it in one
place.  The engine mentioned above, along with other non-CANDU design
power reactors, uses standard enrichment uranium, so cannot be made
supercritical.
	-Mike Pelletier.

Hello Everybody:
We are happy to announce that our first electronics recycling
plant in NJ, USA will be in operation in 6-8 months.
The name of the company is ESR, LLC. We will be able to process
about 40,000 lbs/week of obsolete circuit boards. In the future
processing capacity will be increased to 250,000 lbs/week.
We are proud that our unique technology is environmentally friendly.
We are actively looking for a new sources of supply: scrap circuit boards.
Potential suppliers can be located virtually anywhere in the world, since
we are determined to build new plants outside the U.S. in the near future.
Please e-mail with your offers or for more info to techcoat@soho.ios.com
or fax to 201-568-6789 in the US.
Thanks.

In article <57fnd7$mil@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, 
eokane@unity.ncsu.edu (Evan O'hara Kane) wrote:
>People will be especially pissed off when they "just wake 
up one day in 
>>March or April 2000" and realize that not only has the 
course of
>history not changed, but neither has the millenium. The 
21st century,
>and the third millenium (AD), begin January 1, *2001*.  Not 
one day sooner.
So I guess you'll be left out on Dec 31st 1999 when 99% of 
the rest of the Christian world is partying, whilst you wait 
for Pedanticon on Dec 31st 2000. 
1/1/2000 is the first day for 1000 years where the initial 
digit of the year changes. That sounds like a reasonable 
excuse for a party, whenever it was that Christ was born. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article <329E917A.5F42@deltanet.com>, Todd Andrews 
 wrote:
>A. Whitworth wrote:
>Sorry, Comrade.  It ain't that easy.  In the case you cite, 
you fail to
>realize that teachers, grandmas, and all kinds of people 
depend upon the
>value of the stock.  So it's not a simple case of 
capitalists versus the
>proletariot. 
>
If you weren't so blind you would have realised that the 
possible "alternative" (actually, it's a change of emphasis) 
that I suggested has nothing to do with communism. Communism 
was equally based around production (ie, increasing it) at 
the expense of the people involved. But, no, you don't know 
anything about what you're talking about, so you draw the 
following conclusion: 
He disagrees with capitalism _therefore_ he is a communist
... which demonstrates your lack of insight and 
intelligence. 
>> In money-oriented capitalism (especially the current neo-
>> liberal strain), distributional justice is of no account.
>> Why is this? 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? 
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.
>
>It will.  Your sniveling will do absolutely no good.
Blind faith. There is not a shred of evidence that neo- 
liberal capitalism is leading to greater equality. If 
stating a fact is "snivelling" then I am happy to "snivel" 
about the fact that you have completely failed to answer my 
point here....
>> 
>> A couple of centuries worth of capitalism, and nigh on 
two
>> decades of the free-market, Thatcher/Reaganite variety,
>> _have_ led to: better health, longer life expectancy, and
>> easier lives for those who can afford the labour-saving
>> devices such as computers, dishwashers, etc. This is
>> undeniable. 
>
>
>Yet capitalism, to me, has also led to:
>> increased social tensions, increased racial violence,
>
>Racial violence has decreased.
... and here... I guess Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the LA riots, 
the Ayodhya incident in India, they all don't count. I am 
_not_ directly relating these particular incidents to 
capitalism. But nationalism is certainly on the increase. 
>
> a
>> lowering of community values,
>
>No, the lack of moral values is due primarily to the 
liberal media.
>
> a neglect of the spiritual
>> side of human development, gross pollution,
>
>No, pollution has decreased.
No, it's just been moved out of the inner cities. 
>
>
> despoiling of
>> much of what is beautiful,
>
>Wrong. 
...and here.... Why am I wrong? What a wonderful debating 
technique you have. 
>
> destruction of species,
>
>Wrong.
..and here...
> damage to
>> the ecosystem.
>
>Wrong, wolf-crier.
...and here. 
If you disagree with me, make a point and say why. To quote 
Monty Python (and you remind me of a character right out of 
the MP mould), "that's not an argument, that's just 
contradiction". Some people were intelligent enough to 
respond to my request for a genuine debate on this subject. 
You obviously do not fit into that category.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article <57fk84$g36$2@news3.microserve.net>,
   jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:
>That's not the implication of the statement at all.  Think 
of capitalism
>as comparable to the scientific methohod.  Both are seeking 
results which
>improve on previous results.
But economics is _not_ a science. Although, on paper, 
theories can be worked out very precisely, it is because 
economists have started in the last few decades to think of 
themselves as scientists that economics has become so 
detached from reality. If you conduct a scientific 
experiment in the lab and it goes wrong you've damaged 
nothing except your last few days' work. Conduct an 
experiment on a national economy that goes wrong and you 
might end up killing/starving people or, at least, ruining 
their lives. 
Capitalism bears no resemblance to scientific method at all. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article , kelly.cowan@ebbs.cts.com wrote:
>This post is aimed specifically at those fools out there who repeatedly
>claim that environmentalists are really "commies."
>
>I came across an article titled "Environmentalist's arrest stirs Russian
>fears of a KGB revival.  I will only breifly summarize it.
>
Although I do not disagree with the flavour of your post, I think it is 
important to note that the repressive political system of the former USSR is 
not true to the spirit of communism.  The Russians aren't "commies" either.
Regards, j

In article <57ugqa$47o$1@news3.microserve.net>,
   jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:
>It is moral because it is efficient and it works.  
Efficient for whom? Works for whom? 
I do not deny that it has done alright for you and I. But 
there are a hell of a lot of people out there on the planet 
who may consider that it hasn't done a hell of a lot of good 
for them - that it hasn't helped move their countries to the 
standard of living enjoyed by the USA, or that it will, in 
their lifetimes (and why should they care that it _might_, 
perhaps in the next 200 years?) 
The gap between the rich and poor worlds is _widening_, not 
narrowing. This is a fact. Even the World Bank admit it. 
Capitalism may be the best system to deliver white, 
middle-class Americans (/Britons/Germans/Italians/whatever) 
what they desire. But, and this may come as a surprise to 
some of you, the USA is not the whole world. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article <57nka5$178@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
> In <57hu69$c9@river.gwi.net> swanton@river.gwi.net (george p swanton)
> writes: 
[...]
> >Summary: 
> >  Conspiracy, perpetual motion, water as fuel, etc.
> >  fully documented, but the only copy was lost or stolen.
> >The laws of physics are not a government conspiracy.
> >The burden of proof that a 'discovery' 'trancends'
> >such laws is on the claiment. Lacking substantiating
> >evidence, such claims cannot be taken seriously.
This "prove this to me" demanding is only an attempt to discourage the
subject. Pons and Fleischmann had an interesting finding, we still don't
know what the hell it was about. It has been demonstrated (replicated) 
over and over in over 90 university labs around the world. Work on
determining what the reaction is still continues, but now only in the
periphery. You see, this is "taboo" stuff, Science and Nature don't want
it. Isn't that even slightly odd to you? I mean, Nature will publish an
article on, say, Bose condensate... so why won't they publish regarding a
subject whose mysteries have the potential perhaps of completely
revolutionizing the world? That isn't strange to you? That doesn't smack
of "conspiracy" to you? We already know there is some element of
conspiracy, with the two top-level MIT "hot-fusion" researchers (Parker
and Petrasso), getting caught red-handed at trying to "debunk" Pons and
Fleischmann's findings. They skewed data to make it look like they didn't
find anything. They were forced to recant in an addendum...
This is a scary subject, there is a lot at stake, perhaps trillions of
dollars, in finding a comparitively "free energy source." Why in the hell
would anybody without a stake in oil or hot-fusion want to discourage this
work? Don't you at all get the sense that you are somehow supporting this
"conspiracy"? I have to wonder why you and thousands like you in the
scientific establishment are... is it some sort of cultural brainwashing?
Is it a sense of threat? It is beyond weird.
[...]
> The government set standards for maximum allowible emissions of many
> compounds for automobiles, but required only the pecentage of
> Carbon-monoxide and the number of Hydrocarbon particles emitted from
> the TAILPIPE be the measured criteria for issuence of a smog
> certificate in California(plus a visual). This allowed the car
> companies to install only catilytic converters which convert chared
> fuel to sulfuric acid and the real monster NITROGEN-OXIDES caused by
> increased engine temperature, rather than using available fuel
> vaporization tachnology, eliminating charred, uncombined fuel particles
> and of course the smog market.                                         
It is bizarre that we aren't all driving electric automobiles. It isn't
coincidence that the worlds largest industries are based on petrolium. And
close behind on that list are car manufacturers. Electric cars have every
advantage over combustion concievable. Emmisions are the least of it-
imagine, never having to wonder if your car will "start" in the morning,
never needing a tune up, a transmission overhaul, an oil-change, a
brake-job. Electic motors are orders of magnitude more dependable that
internal combustion. People upset about mileage range? Come on, wake up-
fuel cells are *already* available - ON THE MARKET - that will take you
many times farther than any tank of gas, on hydrogen, and the only reason
they cost $100k each is that we're not putting enough energy in to
refining them. Even Scientific American (last months issue) says that
their price should be 1/5 to 1/10 of present in the next decade.
So why the hell are we all driving internal combustion cars? We love the
sound? The smell? All the gears? The total-energy-waste braking system? WE
ARE PROGRAMMED TO LOVE OUR CARS. It is really odd. I think humans are a
flawed species- our resistance to change, love for "tradition", fear of
anything new, all stand as our biggest danger, truly species and
earth-threatening qualities. People call it "liberal hogwash" when anyone
points out we are destroying out ecosystem. Fine piece of programming
there... ignore something obvious because it is "liberal." The whole thing
is bizarre. It is no longer "our grandchildren will have a shitty world if
we don't start now"- jesus, it has already started, it is well underway,
we are living in a putrid and unbalanced world. Example- something like
3/4 of the worlds human foodstuffs rely on bees either directly or
indirectly to maintain pollinization. In the past 20 years, thanks to
pollution and insecticide maluse, we have seen bee populations drop to
1/10th their previous level. They just aren't there! Over 30 years old?
remember all the bees as a kid? THEY'RE GONE! Farmers all over this
country *rent* bees to do their pollinization, particularly orchard
owners.
But the bees... that is .00001% of the situation, a symptom. Look at our
oceans... look at our atmosphere, look at the culture of consumption
at-all-costs we are creating- this is an unfit place to live. And you've
got the Pope telling people to have more children, and oil companies
lobbying that we don't pursue with full force alternative energy sources,
all because these things are good for their own business. But it is
getting to the point where even the catholic church, politicians, and CEOs
have to realize, we all live in this same, disgusting, fouled fishbowl,
that even with money, there is no place to go. My god, what is wrong with
our species? We are driving like a herd of mindless buffalo toward a
cliff. And I am not sure we have to be; we just seem to be in the mode to
do it, nobody is in the mood for a change of course. We'd rather look at
each other and call each other propaganda names, or flip each other the
bird on the highways...
Let's at least get electric cars to insult each other in... maybe that
would be an improvement, and a start.

CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk (A. Whitworth) wrote for all to see:
>In article <57ugqa$47o$1@news3.microserve.net>,
>   jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:
>
>>It is moral because it is efficient and it works.  
>
>Efficient for whom? Works for whom? 
>
>I do not deny that it has done alright for you and I. But 
>there are a hell of a lot of people out there on the planet 
>who may consider that it hasn't done a hell of a lot of good 
>for them - that it hasn't helped move their countries to the 
>standard of living enjoyed by the USA, or that it will, in 
>their lifetimes (and why should they care that it _might_, 
>perhaps in the next 200 years?) 
Would you be specific about which countries have embraced even a
capitalist economic system, yet have lost ground, economically?
>
>The gap between the rich and poor worlds is _widening_, not 
>narrowing. This is a fact. Even the World Bank admit it. 
>Capitalism may be the best system to deliver white, 
>middle-class Americans (/Britons/Germans/Italians/whatever) 
>what they desire. 
I find it intriguing that you would think that white people can
benefit from the superiority of capitalism, but other peoples cannot.
Can you make this more explicit?  I think it is the first time I have
seen the view that an economic system may be racist.
>But, and this may come as a surprise to 
>some of you, the USA is not the whole world. 
Regards, Harold
-------
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak
or the timid."
	--Dwight Eisenhower, Inaugural address, 20 Jan. 1953.

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: Joshua B. Halpern (jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE) wrote:
: : Exactly the point, they were the kind of polite, non-commital
: : answers you give to someone you want to walk away from.  
: : Not the kind of answers that lead to a further discussion.
: 
: Indeed.  And this is what makes me wonder, if the answer is straight-
: forward, then why not answer it?
A natural reaction after dealing with politically motivated, chemically
ignorant folk for fifteen or twenty years.
josh halpern
: 
: ...Greig
-- 

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: Joshua B. Halpern (jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE) wrote:
: : Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: :SNIP.... 
: : Well, half right.  The rates do increase stongly with altitude as there
: : is less oxygen between the sun and the molecule.  OTOH, they are not
: : particularly rapid.  For example, the rate for CF2Cl2 goes from about
: : 1E-10 s-1 at 10 km to 1E-8 at 20 km, 5E-7 at 25 km and about 1E-6 at
: : 40 km and above.  This means that at 20 km it takes about 10(8) seconds
: : for a CF2Cl2 molecule to absorb a photon and dissociate.
: :  
: : CH3Cl will be even an order of magnitude slower, and HCl slower still
: : because their absorption spectra are shifted even further towards the
: : vacuum ultraviolet.
: 
: The estimates you give for photolysis of CF2Cl2 (and even CH3Cl) is
: IMO extremely rapid relative to vertical mixing.  So, full right.
And you do not know how to multiply.  1 minute has 60 second, 1 hour has
3600 seconds, 1 day has 86,400 seconds, 1 year has 31,536,000 seconds give
or take the occasional leap year/second.  Thus at 20 km it takes three years
on average for CF2Cl2 to dissociate. This is a bit more than the time
for interchange discussed by Parson.  At best you could say that the
times are comparable.
: 
: : : This of course rules out the building of a natural burden over a
: : : long period of time.  It does not rule out the fact that inorganic
: : : Cl compounds arising from the photolysis of methyl chloride are
: : : naturally ubiquitous.
: :  
: : It does say that any HCl (which is for all practical purposes
: : what you are talking about) has a very slim chance of photodissociating
: : in the ozone layer, probably at least two orders of magnitude less than
: : most of the (hydro)chlorocarbons (I'm looking at some pretty rough
: : absorption spectra in Okabe's Photochemistry of small molecules, Wiley
: : Interscience).  Thus for all practical purposes, HCl is a reservoir species
: : with respect to Cl and ClO rather than a significant source.  Its fate is
: : either death by drowning if it is exchanged downward (see Parson's 
: : message in this thread), or by fire if it wanders into the ionisphere.
: 
: Exactly.  Methyl chloride photodissociates, but there is no significant 
: sink for HCl (except by fire and water), so there is no reason to 
: think that the earth's stratosphere (pre-CFCs) was free of HCl.
: 
You don't quite get it do you (Others were right in pointing out that
your ignorance of reaction kinetics dooms you here).  HCl CAN#T be a
significant source of Cl atoms in the ozone layer, cause it DON#T ABSORB
ABOVE 200 nm!!!, and there AIN'T NO LIGHT ABOVE 200 nm (OK, THERE AIN#T
ENOUGH LIGHT ABOVE 200 nm in the ozone layer for HCl to be a significant
source of Cl atoms.  HCl is the end product, the dead end product for
Cl chemistry in the stratosphere.  Most of it eventually gets washed out
in the temperature trap just below the thermopause, some of it gets up
into the ionosphere.
Also, note that those two sinks ARE SIGNIFICANT.
: : 
: : In short, your entire scenerio collapses if you consider the HCl 
: : absorption spectrum in detail, because there is not enough light
: : at the right frequencies to dissociate the HCl in the ozone layer
: : region.  
: : 
: My scenario does not depend on the photolysis of HCl.  On the contrary, 
: your investigations support my thesis, that inorganic Cl compounds 
: occur naturally.
What else are you blathering about, the reactive intermediates Cl and ClO
: 
josh halpern
-- 

In article <01bbdcc7$d1f94ec0$44979dcc@ericbl>, "ericbl" 
 wrote:
>There are three basic reasons why socialism fails:
I'm sorry, but I made this point before, and I hope not to 
have to make it again. So I apologise for shouting....
BEING AGAINST THE CURRENT FORM OF "CAPITALISM" (call it what 
you like) DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU A SOCIALIST.
Adjustments can be made in capitalism. Or maybe they can't, 
but I'd like to see some attempts made. 
Half the people who haqve responded to this thread have 
assumed that my questioning of capitalism automatically 
means I (and anyone else who joined in) is advocating 
socialism. _This is wrong_. I don't disagree with capitalism 
in principle. I just think that the practice is totally 
twisted, and that it needs to change. 
>
>First, the 20th century view of the market has a big 
machine which can be
>manipulated by government planners if they only new the 
right variables is
>simple minded and wrong.  The economy is not a machine, 
it's a complex,
>non-linear system like the environment.  Small changes in 
inputs can have
>great and unpredictable changes in outputs.  There is no 
way that a central
>planner can possibly account for all of the side-effects 
that might as a
>result of the type of massive government intervention that 
usually
>accompanies central planning
>
>Second, the market has evolved a really simple distributed 
information
>system used to transmit important facts about the economy 
while filtering
>out extraneous details.  It's called the price system.  You 
as a consumer
>don't have to know that a revolution in Columbia is 
preventing shipments of
>bananas reaching the U.S. to decide how many bananas to 
buy.  You only need
>to know that the price has changed.  The first thing that 
socialist
>planners always do is circumvent the distributed price 
system without the
>slightest chance of possibly being able to acquire all of 
the complex and
>intricate information needed to price everything.  This 
causes market chaos
>resulting in shortages in some goods and surpluses in 
others.
>
>Third, socialism destroys technological progress.  Again, 
technological
>progress is made as the result of the distributed nature of 
the market. 
>People who quit big companies because they felt creatively 
stifled and
>started entrepreneurial firms or people who just never 
bothered with large
>organizations in the first place have been responsible for 
most of the
>technological progress of the last 100 years.  Socialism 
creates
>organizations which are owned by one organization � the 
government.  The
>type of politically correct, credential driven 
bureaucracies that naturally
>follow are not conducive to renegades who want to pursue 
their own vision. 
>Under true socialism, the renegades have no where to go 
because the
>government runs everything.
>
>Humans are imperfect and so is the market.  There is no 
utopia.  However,
>trying to centrally micro-manage the market either by 
nationalizing it or
>heavily regulating it has proven to be a disaster 
everywhere that it's been
>tried.  That certainly doesn't mean we should all turn into 
libertarians or
>social Darwinists.  Government does have a legitimate role 
in society. 
>Just what that role is will be endlessly debated.  However, 
one thing is
>clear, the utopian fantasy that government can circumvent 
tens of thousands
>of years of human societal evolution to purposefully create 
a better (read:
>human nature changing) society through government action 
and central
>planning is unsupported by reality.
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart"
cds4aw@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk
Any unsolicited e-mail will not even be read,
so don't bother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some time ago I read about a technique of noise control by sampling the 
original noise close to the source and rebroadcasting it out of phase with 
itself close to the area to be quieted.  Can someone  please direct me to a 
commercial supplier of this technology?

> >jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >
> posting. Below are statistics... for the planet Earth.
> 
>     Year             Population 
>                        Growth
>                         rate
> 
>     1970                2.07
>     1975                1.76
>     1980                1.71
>     1985                1.68     
>     1990                1.58     
>     1995                1.41     
>     2000 (projected)    1.28     
> 
The numbers I get (from Britannica Annual World Data Sheets) are even a
little lower (1985-1996) averaged over 2-3 years/
'85- '88:  1.38% growth
'88- '91:  2.16% <-- Note DECADE census info available in this period!
'91- '94:  1.30%
'94- '96:  1.39%
It's important to keep in mind that 1.00 IS NOT ZPG, 0.00 IS.  These are
annual percentage growths.  At 1.4% gowth today, we add 80 million people
per year.  Even as the percentage drops slowly, the absolute growth can
still be increasing--such is the nature of such growth.  
As posted earlier, even (what seems like) a modest growth of 1% cannot be
sustained long term (thousands of years) {in 17,000 years there would be
more people than atoms in the Universe!}.  We can argue over what the
ultimate 'carrying capacity' of the earth is for humans, but IT IS a finite
number.  ZPG must be reached eventually either by
societal/governmental/economic pressures or by starvation/disease/war. 
While a stable population causes problems for many current economic
systems, it certainly would be preferable from an environmental point of
view as well as for many societal systems.
Rick Tarara

William H. Howell wrote:
> 
> My friend's 88yoa mother swears their one year old oil heating
> system has a stronger smell of oil than the system it replaced.
> She also mentions a haze in the air. I would have investigated
> tank connections and leakage and....whatever, except that I can't
> smell anything except a faint, brief, occaisional hint of
> heating oil, when the thing turns on - starts heating.
> 
> Would anyone be able to suggest a source for consumer use air
> sampling methods similar to radon testers or whatever. I hesitate
> to rule out oil polution - who knows, I might be the subject of
> her next complaint - yet, I must respect her comfort and attempt
> to rationally alleviate her apprehensions.
> 
> Bill Howell
You could rent a PID (photoionization detector) to test the air for
volatile organics.  I've rented them before from environmental drilling
outfits for about $20 per day.  That might help you quantify and locate
the exact source of the fumes.
Rick Gehrke
Rick

TO INTERNET USERS:  Please register your support for the global boycott 
announced below, if you agree, to Senator.Thompson@sen.ca.gov,sananda@northcoast.com
			[Then, forward the below news release to your local, regional and 
statewide media, and to your friends and associates on the World Wide 
Web.  Thanks much in advance...]
November 30, 1996
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
(Contact:  Ruben Botello @Pager No. 707-269-8275 or sananda@northcoast.com)
                        HEADWATERS HOMELESS PROTEST GROWING
                                ON THE INTERNET
EUREKA (CA)---The global tourist boycott of Eureka (CA) is gaining ground, 
as environmental and homeless activists join forces across the World Wide 
Web.
        Since the American Homeless Society announced the economic boycott 
on the Internet in September, to protest mistreatment of the homeless in 
the old-growth Headwaters Forest, and on the South Spit peninsula of 
Humboldt Bay, thousands of Internet users have pledged their support 
around the world.*
        "Our three primary concerns are the 60 thousand-acre Headwaters 
Forest, the South Spit homeless community, and the police abuse unleashed 
by local officials against homeless and other protesters exercising their 
constitutional rights in opposition to destruction of the ancient forest 
and community," declared Ruben Botello, founder of the Society.  "Our 
global call to boycott Eureka is accelerating and expanding, rapidly, as 
sophisticated Internet users forward our plea to virtually every nation 
and city on earth."
        "Eureka has an ex-cop (Congressman Frank Riggs), a carpetbagger 
(State Sen. Mike Thompson), a shoplifter (county supervisor Stan Dixon 
busted for shoplifting this year) and a drunk (county welfare John Frank 
busted on a DUI charge this year) trying to drive thousands of homeless 
and other protesters out of Humboldt County on behalf of the local logging 
and tourist industries," stated Botello.  "These corrupt officials even 
went so low as to declare the homeless an "environmental hazard" in 
Thompson's Senate Bill 39, while ignoring the horrendous pollution of the 
local air, land, sea, rivers and streams by these two major industries."
        "Thousands of homeless live in and around the Humboldt County seat 
(Eureka)," Botello said.  "They are being increasingly rousted, arrested, 
harassed and abused by local law enforcement agencies and vigilantes who 
hope the homeless and other protesters will leave the county in fear of 
returning."
        "The global boycott will end when Eureka starts acting socially 
responsible toward its homeless and environment," explained the advocate.  
"By next summer, we should have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of 
Internet users and other concerned citizens of the world supporting the 
boycott."
                                   -30-
*E-MAIL SAMPLES DISPATCHED TO SEN. MIKE THOMPSON IN SUPPORT OF BOYCOTT:
X-POP3-Rcpt: sananda@redwood.northcoast.com
From: aaronr@alice.uoregon.edu (Aaron Rappaport)
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
To: sananda@northcoast.com
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:43:07 -0800 (PST)
Dear Senator Thompson,
Speaking as chair of the Many Rivers Group of the Sierra Club, with
2900 members in Lane, Douglas, and Coos counties in Oregon, I support
the boycott against the tourism industry in Eureka.  Displacing
homeless environmental activists who are basically struggling to
preserve the very aspects of Eureka that make it an attractive place
for tourists to visit is morally wrong and counter-productive to
the goal of enhancing tourism. 
I and our other 2900 members will be heeding this boycott and taking
our tourism business elsewhere until the mis-directed police aggression
described below is stopped.
Sincerely,
Aaron Rappaport
aaronr@alice.uoregon.edu  (email)
541-302-1991 (home phone)
Aaron Rappaport
Chair of the Many Rivers Group of the Sierra Club
1909 W. 17'th Ave
Eugene, OR 97402
DE>GLOBAL CALL
DE>                   PROTEST HEADWATERS POLICE BRUTALITY:
DE>                              BOYCOTT EUREKA!
                                                **********
X-POP3-Rcpt: sananda@redwood.northcoast.com
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:08:33 -0500
From: Andrew Gilson 
Subject: Pro-headwaters-forest
To: Senator.Thompson@sen.ca.gov, sananda@northcoast.com
MIME-version: 1.0
------ Forwarded Message
Please don't encourage harassment of environmentalists and homeless people.  
The Headwaters Forest is nature's "pension fund," and it should not be raided 
for profit.
------ End of Forwarded Message
                                                ************
X-POP3-Rcpt: sananda@redwood.northcoast.com
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:38:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: vriggs@sdcc17.ucsd.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Senator.Thompson@sen.ca.gov, sananda@northcoast.com
From: sananda@northcoast.com (by way of teryani@ucsd.edu (teryani))
Subject: Protest Headwaters Police Brutality
I fully support this and I'm a California voter!
                                                **********
X-POP3-Rcpt: sananda@redwood.northcoast.com
From: Savvygrl@aol.com
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:55:36 -0500
To: Senator.Thompson@sen.ca.gov, sananda@northcoast.com
Subject: Fwd: Protest Headwaters Police Brutality (fwd)
Dear Senator Thompson,
Although there are few places in the world that I like better than Humboldt
County, I hereby refuse to bring my tourist money to that County in protest
of the brutality of its civil servants. Please rethink the policies of the
region toward peaceful and legal civil disobedience and toward the
defenseless members of the homeless population. Humboldt County has the
deserved reputation of being a kind and peaceful refuge in this oftentimes
troubling world. Keep it that way, won't you?
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   freedman@uvic.ca
To:     fgale@uvic.ca (Fred Gale), mgonigle@uvic.ca (Michael M'Gonigle),
Savvygrl@aol.com (Amy Sausser)
Date: 96-11-26 17:53:33 EST
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 10:14:03 CST
>From: Jennifer Jones 
>To: Multiple recipients of list 
>Subject: FW: Protest Headwaters Police Brutality
>----------
>From:   sananda@northcoast.com[SMTP:sananda@northcoast.com]
>Sent:   Saturday, November 23, 1996 10:33 AM
>To:     HOMELESS DISCUSSION LIST
>Subject:        Protest Headwaters Police Brutality
                                                ****************
X-POP3-Rcpt: sananda@redwood.northcoast.com
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:48:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Flora Tristan 
To: Senator.Thompson@sen.ca.gov, sananda@northcoast.com
Subject: Stop attacking the homeless..
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dear Senator:
Don't support SB39.  Do something positive for the poorer members of the 
working class.  
                                                     ********
X-POP3-Rcpt: sananda@redwood.northcoast.com
From: figgins@dnai.com
X-Sender: figgins@140.174.162.28
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:45:50 -0800
To: Senator.Thompson@sen.ca.gov, sananda@northcoast.com
Subject: Headwaters Police Brutality
Dear Senator Thompson,
I write to inform you of my support of the American Homeless Society and
their worldwide tourist boycott of Eureka. I find the harassment and
criminalization of the homeless, as well as your efforts to codify this
conduct, morally reprehensible. I urge you to reevaluate your
responsibilities. If you bothered to do so, you'd find that their is a
socially just (and certainly cheaper) solution in helping the homeless to a
better life, rather than arresting them, bullying them and running them out
of town.
Sincerely,
Scott Figgins
Oakland, CA
                                                       *********
X-POP3-Rcpt: sananda@redwood.northcoast.com
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 15:45:27 -0500
X-Sender: paris@206.66.160.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: senator.thompson@sen.ca.gov, sananda@northcoast.com
From: Mark Nielson 
Subject: Protest Headwaters Police Brutality (fwd)
I have cancelled plans to visit Eureka Calif due to the outrageous treatment
of the homeless and the shameless destruction of our natural resources.
Mark Nielson
Durham N.C.
>
>----------
>From:  sananda@northcoast.com[SMTP:sananda@northcoast.com]
>Sent:  Saturday, November 23, 1996 10:33 AM
>To:    HOMELESS DISCUSSION LIST
>Subject:       Protest Headwaters Police Brutality
                                                ***********
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: sananda@hotmail.com
>From: cvance@lesley.edu (Chris Vance) (by way of sananda@northcoast.com)
>Subject: headwaters police brutality
>I am writing with urgent concern about your sponsored bill which wrongly
>targets individual human beings as opposed to corporations for being
>"environmental hazards". Especially considering the death of people in the
>area, your sponsored bill appears particularly heartless. Please reconsider
>your sponsorship and begin representing people and land over and above
>profit and greed. I will be letting more people know about what you are
>doing so that they may also let you know how they feel. My roots are in
>California and I find the current directions of its development shameful.
>
>Sincerely,
>Chris Vance
>Somerville, MA
>
>--Chris
>cvance@mail.lesley.edu
                                                ********
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: sananda@hotmail.com
>From: Eric Wollard  (by way of
sananda@northcoast.com)
>Subject: Re: Protest Headwaters Police Brutality (fwd)
>This message was forwarded to me and I have forwarded it to all of my
>friends and colleages in Colorado.  Your lack of compassion for the
>homeless truly disgusting.  I will not spend a single tourist dollar in
>Northern Cal. as long as this insanity continues!  
>
>-Eric Wollard
>
>Eric.Wollard@Colorado.edu
>University of Colorado School of Law
>http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~wollard/Home.html
                                                 ***********
--
Posted using Reference.COM                         http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post         Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.

Mike Pelletier wrote:
> 
[snip]
> In article <329B9CAD.463@harlech.ac.uk>, BROWNE   wrote:
> In order for something to be a nuclear bomb, it has to be capable of
> entering a configuration, called "supercritical", where an uncontrolled
> nuclear fission chain-reaction can occur.  Nuclear submarines, in the
> interests of compact size and very high efficiency, use highly-enriched
> uranium, which can be made supercritical if you have enough of it in one
> place.  The engine mentioned above, along with other non-CANDU design
> power reactors, uses standard enrichment uranium, so cannot be made
> supercritical.
> 
>         -Mike Pelletier.
Although nuclear submarines may use highly-enriched fuel, they are
far away from being nuclear bombs.
It really takes some special techniques to get a bomb - techniques
NOT found in a reactor - commercial or military.
By the way, the term you want above is not "supercritical" but
"super-prompt-critical".  A reactor can be supercritical - that's
how you increase the power.
Prompt-critical means the system is critical on just the prompt neutrons
that are emitted by fission. Reactors are "delayed-critical" - they
have to wait for the delayed neutrons and that's what makes them
controllable. 
A system that is "super-prompt-critical" has reactivity above prompt
critical and can runaway on just the neutrons that are immediately
available from fission.
Greg Greenman
Physicist

CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk (A. Whitworth) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>Half the people who haqve responded to this thread have 
>assumed that my questioning of capitalism automatically 
>means I (and anyone else who joined in) is advocating 
>socialism. _This is wrong_. I don't disagree with capitalism 
>in principle. I just think that the practice is totally 
>twisted, and that it needs to change. 
How?
Regards, Harold
---
"If every action which is good or evil were under 
pittance and prescription and compulsion, what were
virtue but a name, what praise would then be due to
well-doing, what gramercy to be sober, just, or 
continent.?"
	---John Milton

In article <57uv00$80s_017@leeds.ac.uk>, CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk says...
>Half the people who haqve responded to this thread have 
>assumed that my questioning of capitalism automatically 
>means I (and anyone else who joined in) is advocating 
>socialism. _This is wrong_. I don't disagree with capitalism 
>in principle. I just think that the practice is totally 
>twisted, and that it needs to change. 
Good post.
The problem is that many people think in dichotomies: it's X or it's Y.  Some 
also think that their system has to be philosophically pure -- that one can't 
creatively and imaginatively adjust current systems or ideologies to make 
something better.
I think the human imagination can always lead to improvement.
I rather like STar Trek: Next Generation's new movie.  Riker explains to a 
21st century man that in the future money has no purpose.  We work to better 
ourselves and humanity.  They don't live in socialism.  They don't live in 
capitalism.  It's something better.  Sure, it's an imagined system, but 
that's always the first step.
-scott