Subject: TAW-NEWS: Hundreds Poisoned by Misuse of Pesticide
From: Vince Clause
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 18:36:06 -0500
Recently in southeat Mississippi USA, two unlicensed exterminators made a mistake that has
caused hundreds of people to have to be evacuated from there homes. It is possible that some
people may have already died from this contamination. These 43 families have been put up in
hotels, while more wait for word on the possible toxicity of theirs.
The pesticide used was methyl parathion. Two men, both aged 61, are facing charges for
operating a pest control business without a license, as well as additional charges for the misuse
of the chemical.
The clean up costs for the blunder made by these two idiotrepreneurs is expected to be as
high as $50 million.
This is a classic example of the hidden costs of or reliance upon chemicals to solve our
problems. These problems do not only exist in the agriculture, and pest control industries.
In the construction industry, the Einstiens are often not much brighter or aware of all the
ramifications of their actions, as our two exterminators(poisoners) exibited, as mentioned above.
Dumping of chemicals, and the misuse of others runs rampant in the painting and remodeling trades.
Often when a products environmental costs are calculated, the figures represent the best
estimations of misc. dumping. Having spent 10 years running a business in this industry, I am
emphatic in reporting that these indecents are not isolated. For many unregulated outfits, in
right to work states, regular and indiscriminant dumping is the method of choice.
Hidden costs are real. Once made apparent, the alleged cost benifits of some non-green
products evaporates quickly, about as quickly as it takes to dump a pail of a solvent in the yard,
or down a storm drain.
What do you think?
Vince Clause - Editor/President
"The Amalgamated Web" A FREE Virtual Publication
Come visit us at the link below.
----> http://www.ecosafe.com/taw/v1i1/ <----
DARE TO BE DIFFERENT, DARE TO DREAM!
A production of V R C Enterprises Inc. http://www.ecosafe.com
An SRB with its eyes set upon a wondeful vision for a better tomorrow.
Subject: Re: THE SUPPRESSION OF IDEAS/Wake up NOW - PEOPLE!
From: Belial
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 20:33:45 -0800
Cluster User wrote:
> 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
Name three of the universities, and the researchers directly involved.
> 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
IF this were truly a breakthrough science would love to publish
it. If it is unsubstatiated urban mythology, then post it on
alt.urban.legends.
> 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...
Where was this addendum published?
>
> 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
What stake do university researchers have in the oil industry?
Wouldn't the researchers from 90 universities want the patent on the
device which could utilitize this energy? MAss production of the
engine would bring millions in revenue.
> 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
Yep you're right considering the coincidence that petrol
engines have existed since the 1800s. Electric automobiles still
cannot reach the same speed as a petrol engine over a long distance.
Plus the fact that you must recharge the batteries for 4+ hours after
driving 200 miles might discourage people from buying these cars.
> 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.
Well it would make more sense to buy these expensive
cells, when their cost goes down. Most Americans would not be
able to afford them at $100,000.
>
> 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.
Where's your research for that?
>
> 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
I think you mean the story about lemmings.
> 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...
>
Because we are naughty people. Naughty! Naughty! Naughty!
> Let's at least get electric cars to insult each other in... maybe that
> would be an improvement, and a start.
Belial
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 02:23:46 GMT
In article ,
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE (Franz Gerl) writes:
>
>> In "Nature" of November 21st there is an assessment of the
>> incidence of skin cancers due to ozone depletion and the
>> likely future course. The effects on humans are according
>> to serious science are considerable (especially under the
>In addition, the model assumed melanomas are UV-B induces,
>whereas the literature is still debating whether they are
>UV-A or UV-B induced.
This has little effect on the estimated _incidence_, since only
a small fraction of skin cancers are melanomas. It does significantly
affect the estimated mortality, since the melanomas are much
more likely to be fatal.
It's not an "either or", really. AFAIK No one disputes that
photon-for-photon UV-B is much more effective at inducing melanoma
than UV-A. What Setlow et al. found in their fish experiments
was that the much larger flux of UV-A more than compensated for
the greater nastiness of the UV-B, so that most of the cancers
under normal solar exposure would be attributed to UV-A. The
result is important, although I am amused that the "ozone skeptics"
who cite Setlow et al. nearly always omit the fact that the
experimental subjects were fish, since these are often the
same people who are ordinarily so skeptical about extrapolating
carcinogenicity from rats to humans :-).
As far as I can tell, the question of the role of UV-B in malignant
melanoma is wide open, and will remain so until the actual
mechanism is unravelled (as has been done for the nonmelanoma skin
cancers.) The epidemiology seems to point towards an important
role, but we all know how tricky that can be; the only animal results
are rather far removed from humans.
Subject: PNEWS: An Environmentally Unsound Peace
From: GOLEM
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 22:24:06 -0500
[*********PNEWS CONFERENCES************]
From: Radartwo@aol.com
An Environmentally Unsound Peace
by Barry Chamish
Israel's most influential environmental leaders say peace in the
Middle East will be an ecological disaster for Israel. At least,
the kind of peace envisioned by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
In late 1993 Peres published a book called The New Middle East in
which he outlined his plan for a peace based on economic inter-
dependence between Israel and her neighbours. The book was not
well received by economists. Dr Eugene Lerner of the University
of Chicago commented that,"such a work of economic naivete had
not been written by a world leader since the 1930s."
Nonetheless, Peres turned his personal vision into Israeli state
policy and in October 1994 at the regional economic summit at
Casablanca, Morocco that he helped organize, he unveiled his
country's economic direction in a thick booklet distributed to
all participants.
Under Peres's stewardship, Israel was planning to become the
economic and financial hub of the Middle East. Traffic from as
far away as Iran would pass through the country on the way to
destinations as distant as Morocco. Eight lane highways complete
with roadside motels, restaurants and service stations would
crisscross the nation as they made their way to Israel's border
stations and ports. The seaports and railway system would be
greatly expanded to accomodate shipments of oil and natural gas
from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia which would be offloaded at
the Red Sea Port of Eilat, transported by new train and pipe
lines to one of the country's Mediterranean ports where they
would be refined and shipped to Europe.
Joint projects in tourism, manufacturing, energy and trade would
bind Israel to her neighbours and prevent war by virtue of self-
interest. Duty free zones in which joint manufacturing ventures
would hawk their wares tax-free would be sprinkled along the
borders, a huge boardwalk would link the beaches of Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Israel and Egypt and a canal linking the Red and Dead
Seas would provide infinite hydroelectric power and desalinated
water for Jordan and Israel.
Peres put his plan into action with the beginning of construction
of an eight lane highway from the Negev to the Galilee. What he
had not counted on was the ire of environmental groups which
organized farmers and villagers along the route to stand in the
way of the bulldozers.
The government learned what a powerful force environmentalism is
in Israel in 1993 when a national campaign stopped construction
of a 24 sq. km. Voice of America rebroadcasting station in the
Negev Desert. It was about to learn the same lesson again as the
proposed super highway was put on ice, perhaps temporarily, by
protest.
The road, so central to Peres's transportation hub vision, will
be 300 km. long and chop up 30 million square metres of land to
build. Azariah Alon, a founder of the Israel Society for the
Protection of Nature (ISPN) notes,"If it's ever built, the
highway will destroy dozens of towns with noise and air
pollution, wreck the view and the landscape and physically divide
communities."
Alon's contention is supported by a report by Yadin Roman in the
magazine Land and Nature which estimates that Peres's roads will
double Israel's ozone level within a decade to the point that
roadside communities will have the air quality of Mexico City or
Athens.
Alon is just as unhappy with Peres's tourism plans which are
aimed at bringing 8 million, mostly Arab visitors to the country.
"We have 180 km. of coastline and half of that is taken up by
naval bases and ports. The so-called peace tourists would have to
be entertained and that would mean new marinas, hotels, casinos
which would kill off all the nature of our coastline." Other
environmental leaders have expressed fears that the planned
inter-nation boardwalk on the Red Sea, along with the expanded
oil port will spell the end of the world famous coral reefs of
the Gulf of Eilat.
Alon is just as concerned about the land. "I have no doubt Peres
secretly promised the PLO the right of return for anyone claiming
to be a Palestinian refugee. Israel's population density is
currently higher than Holland's. If a couple of million more
people are added to the territories, the region will become as
crowded as Singapore. Simply, the ecology will collapse."
By far the most destructive project of all is a proposed 180 km.
canal linking the Red and Dead Seas along the Jordanian border
which will exploit the 1,200 ft. difference in elevation to
produce hydroelectric power. This is a case of deja vu again. In
the early 1980s, the government was committed to building such a
canal but rejected the idea as an economic impossibility and a
threat to the environment. Besides requiring the destruction of
much of southern Israel's landscape, the waterway is to be
situated directly above an earthquake-prone rift. If the canal is
damaged, large amounts of seawater will escape and pollute the
large and vital underground Negev aquifer.
A delegation of ecological leaders headed by Yoav Saguy,
director-general of ISPN expressed their concerns at a meeting of
high-ranking Foreign Ministry aides. They were told outright
that,"This subject is closed. Peres, Christopher and Majali
(Jordanian PM) have already signed a go-ahead on the project."
Peres's arrogance in believing the environment can be sacrificed
for his version of economic peace is alienating and rallying the
environmentalists, most of whom were advocates of his peace
process. Yossi Lashem, director-general of the Nature Preserve
Authority promises "a war of public awareness on behalf of
hundreds of thousands of people about to wake up one morning to
find that instead of in a green environment, their homes are
trapped in a crowded suburb within a highway interchange and that
the only remaining green is a square metre of lawn in front of
their doors."
-------------
Barry Chamish, Israeli journalist is a regular participant on PNEWS.
------------------------------------
via PNEWS
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
To subscribe to PNEWS-L [1500+ subscribers], send request to:
"SUBSCRIBE PNEWS-L "
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.applicom.com/pnews/
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 02:41:50 GMT
In article <57v319$ruu@sun3.uni-essen.de>,
Joshua B. Halpern wrote:
>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.
While HCl does not photodissociate in the stratosphere (although the
other major reservoir, ClONO2, does to some extent), it is still
a source of Cl atoms. The normal, i.e. non-ozone-hole, mechanism
is H abstraction by OH, i.e. OH + HCl -> H2O + Cl. (Wayne p. 131)
This is what maintains a low level of active Cl in the stratosphere at
all times. Inside the ozone hole you have the much more efficient
heterogeneous reactions which yield a much higher active/reservoir
ratio.
This is the reason why F-based radicals (which, I suppose, ought
to be called "FOx" :-) ) are _not_ important for the ozone balance.
HF is too strongly bound to lose its H to OH, so HF is a true sink
for F rather than a reservoir.
------
Robert
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: liberty@airmail.net (LQuest)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 03:35:15 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>ericbl wrote:
>>
>....
>>
>> Agree.
>I note:
>You sound more rational than most others on this topic. Let's check it
>out....
>>
>> I don't even use the term "capitalism" anymore. Why? Because the market
>> is not an "ism". The market wasn't purposefully invented by anyone.
>> Nobody sat down and penned a manifesto. Instead, the market evolved with
>> human civilization over tens of thousands of years. It is as much a part
>> of us as is family and language which were also not purposefully invented,
>> but rather evolved over time as well.
>I interject:
>Good start. I agree.
>You continue:
>>
>> There are three basic reasons why socialism fails:
>I sigh:
>Uh-oh....
>>
>> 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.
>I note:
>This seems to be an attitude adopted by capitalist planners as well.
>haven't you noticed how layoffs, Greenspan's response, and share price
>are all related? It seems some have identified the right variables for
>inflating share price doesn't it?
You note wrong dood! Your statement above seems to assume that the actions
of the Fed and the complex responses of various corporations (a State created
entity) amounts to "Capitalism" -- a rationally dysfunctional conclusion at
best. READ MY LIPS :-() :In America, we do NOT have Capitalism! What we have
is a mish mash of politically correct, coercive regulation perpetrated by a
clueless gaggle of pin headed bureaucrats -- literally the blind men trying to
describe the elephant! In fact, except on a small, person to person scale,
real Capitalism (free market) does not exist anywhere on Earth!
>You conitnue:
>> 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
>I note:
>Greenspan represents the epitomy of government intervention - a market
>czar puppet master of stock prices. The tax code also seems to favor
>market investment.
Oh really! Then why is the IRS in bed with every stock broker? Why are
capital gains so ruthlessly taxed (read stolen)?
>You continue:
>>
>> 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.
>I add:
>This may be true - the first part certainly. Whether the second part -
>I don't know that Cuba was short of anything not brought about by the
>U.S. boycott. Are the Chinese short be cause of this? The soviets had
>another problem that seems to be pan-economic system,
>called corruption.
Ah yes "corruption"! -- a human condition that is exacerbated in the extreme
by Statist control of an economy. Free markets with a strong moral reverence
for property rights will ALWAYS suffer from less corruption because it is so
much easier to gain reward for honest work.
>You continue:
>>
>> Third, socialism destroys technological progress. Again, technological
>> progress is made as the result of the distributed nature of the market.
>I note:
>Perhaps you should name some socialist systems so we can see if this is
>true. I think there are some significant current examples of capitalism
>retarding progress as well.
-- All empowered and exacerbated by coercive Statist politics.
[remaining pointless nit picking flushed]
--Mike
"We have sunk so low it has become the obligation of every
decent, thinking individual to re-state the obvious!" -- George Orwell
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 15:23:03 +1100
Franz Gerl (gerl@Theorie.Physik.UNI-Goettingen.DE) wrote:
>Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In addition, the model assumed melanomas are UV-B induces,
>: whereas the literature is still debating whether they are
>: UV-A or UV-B induced.
>:
>I already proposed that the anti-environmentalist should
>do experiments on themselves to show that UV-B is
>relatively harmless. Any takers?
1. You seem to favour the idea that CFCs should be banned because it
is POSSIBLE that they may be causing biological harm. This line of
thinking, taken to the extreme woould mean that you would never get
out of bed in the morning, because you couldn't be sure that such an
action would result in disaster.
2. You seem, Franz, to be very selective about which piece of
scientific evidence you believe in. eg you like the idea that UV-B
causes cancer, you don't like the idea that the same scientific
technique suggests that melanoma is caused by UV-A/blue light.
3. Your constant references to "anti-environmentalists" shows that
(politically speaking) your fly is undone.
>Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
>: I wasn't aware of this. Please explain why the rate of depletion should
>: increase, keeping in mind that PSC abundance is a limiting factor.
>:
>This is becoming very boring. Since you have not demonstrated
>that you know what happens, when a buffer is depleted I assume
>you don't know, and you don't want to know either. There is
>no way I could explain this to you then.
Since ozone depletion occurs, one must assume that the buffer is
exhausted, wouldn't you say?
So, Franz, let me ask you again, why would the ozone depletion rate
increase keeping in mind that PSC abundance is a limiting factor.
>: Or like background radiation, has an hormesis effect.
>:
>What is hormesis? Another kind of anti-environmental propaganda?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your belt is now unbuckled, and your pants are at your knees.
Since you are so often calling for me to look up the answers in an
appropriate textbook, let me suggest a medical dictionary, or a
text on physiology.
Hormesis implies that radiation, whilst harmful in large doses, is
also harmful when the body is deprived of it. This is drawn from the
notion all aspects of our natural physical environment, at appropriate
levels, are of benefit to health.
>: That there is a measured effect, or that there is a connection with
>: stratospheric temps remains in question, don't you agree, Franz?
>:
>You are asking me to prove a negative. How can I show you that
>everybody with some knowledge agrees that stratospheric
>temperatures will fall? Show me somebody who does not agree
>with that instead.
I am inclined to agree with the idea, since it makes sense that a
moderate drop in stratospheric temp should arise from increased CO2.
But the observation has not yet been made, and besides, if the truth
was based solely on majority opinion, the earth would still be flat
and at the centre of the universe.
After all we ARE in sci.environment.
...Greig
Subject: Re: Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 06:27:47 GMT
In <01bbe079$983e3960$6b093593@Rick> "Richard W. Tarara"
writes:
>
>
>
>> >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
My source was U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base;
these are midyear figures.
>It's important to keep in mind that 1.00 IS NOT ZPG, 0.00 IS.
This is true; and these rates are obviously moving towards
zero - and beyond zero. It is important to keep
in mind that population growth is a lagging indicator;
population still keeps growing even after fertility
falls below replacement levels, as it did in many
countries.
>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.
No: the absolute growth is already decreasing:
year populatiion rate absolute
increase
-----------------------------------------------------
1989 5,194,206,959 1.67 87,337,583
1990 5,281,544,542 1.58 83,947,792
1991 5,365,492,334 1.52 82,302,295
1992 5,447,794,629 1.48 81,284,496
1993 5,529,079,125 1.44 80,305,662
1994 5,609,384,787 1.45 82,033,007
1995 5,691,417,794 1.41 80,933,222
1996 5,772,351,016 1.38 80,362,443
1997 5,852,713,459 1.36 79,912,950
1998 5,932,626,409 1.33 79,640,559
1999 6,012,266,968 1.31 79,210,215
2000 6,091,477,183 1.28 78,710,475
>as posted earlier, even (what seems like) a modest growth of 1% cannot
be
>sustained long term (thousands of years)
With present trends, the rate will be negative in
just a few decades.
> {in 17,000 years there would be
>more people than atoms in the Universe!}.
We should be so lucky to encounter *that* kind of
limit. Limiting growth for *that* reason
would be like bending when you see
a rainbow, for fear of bumping your head
into it.
For how long has the known universe
been at its present size? Answer: a year or two:
the estimated number of galaxies increased by
a factor of five recently, due to Hubble's
observations. That's a lot of real estate.
Is this *all* the universe?
There is no data on that: there's a horizon
beyond which we know nothing; the Big Bang
bubble is finite but might be a local phenomenon in
a larger whole.
Is this the *only* universe?
Not known; but there's a strong suspicion that
there may be others.
A hundred years ago the known universe was infinite,
euclidean, static, eternal and unique; now it is finite,
curved in higher dimensions, expanding, rather recent,
and perhaps one of many.
A hundred years from now? No one knows.
Thousands of years from now? Utterly
beyond the horizon of prediction and
even imagination. Kids might be creating
universes then as our kids create soap bubbles...
a wild fantasy of course; but not known to be
impossible.
But we can be *certain* that at least many trillions of
human beings can be sustained comfortably in this solar
system alone. When we get that many (not soon, if ever!),
we can take another look. It will all look very different
then; no use second-guessing our wise descendants.
Subject: Re: Nuclear Planes (was Re: Nuclear Safety disinformation )
From: Gregory Greenman
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 22:46:17 -0800
Craig DeForest wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Reactors that use fast neutrons aren't inherently less controllable than
> those that use thermalized neutrons -- it's the delayed neutrons (which
> are
> used by all conventional fission reactors) that allow controllable
> reaction
> rates.
>
> If I remember right, 0.65% of the neutrons produced from Uranium fission
> are
> delayed. I seem to recall that the number is more like 0.75% for Pu,
> which
> would mean that Plutonium reactors should actually be easier to
> control. The
> prompt neutrons have a mean lifetime of milliseconds, meaning that a
> prompt-critical chain reaction can easily change in intensity by factors
> of
> e over that time. A delayed-critical chain reaction (one which needs
> the
> delayed neutrons to sustain itself) changes on timescales of the overall
> neutron
> lifetime including the delayed neutrons' latency, which is more like a
> few seconds.
Craig,
You're correct about the "beta", the delayed neutron fraction for
Uranium being about 0.65%, however the delayed neutron fraction for
Plutonium is about 0.3% (Plutonium has a smaller delayed neutron
fraction than Uranium).
The controllability question for fast vs thermal reactors has to do
with the effective neutron lifetime. For a thermal reactor, the
effective neutron lifetime is about 100 microseconds. The effective
neutron lifetime for a fast reactor is about 0.1 microseconds.
Therefore, for the same amount of excess reactivity, the fast reactor
will increase in power with a logarithmic derivative that is about
1000X as fast as the thermal reactor.
Because the proposed fast reactor (breeder) designs used Plutonium as
fuel, one had to insert less reactivity (0.3%) vs a Uranium fueled
thermal reactor (0.65%) to get a prompt criticality.
Also for any given excess reactivity, the fast reactor ramped up in
power much faster than a thermal reactor (1000X log derivative above).
However, Plutonium fueled fast reactors, like the Argonne IFR design
(which I worked on a decade ago) could be made inherently/passively
safe via prompt feedback mechanisms such as Doppler broadening of
absorption resonances. That's what really matters; can it run away,
and for a properly designed Plutonium fueled fast reactor, the
answer is no.
Greg Greenman
Physicist
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 06:38:46 GMT
In <32a33077.625770396@nntp.st.usm.edu> brshears@whale.st.usm.edu
(Harold Brashears) writes:
>When the discussion concerns the
>decision making power in an economy, it can be centralized, or
>decentralized to some extent. The two extremes are a pure capitalist
>on the decentralized end, and a pure socialist economy on the other.
>If you know of another way in which decisions may be made, I would be
>interested in hearing it.
>
>In my opinion, we have never seen either, only gradations. I don't
>think we ever will, actually, since neither will suffice of itself.
>Capitalism requires, in my opinion, controls. Socialism is simply too
>inefficient to provide the resources people require.
That leads to the question of whether we have too much capitalism,
too much freedom, or not enough.
I believe we have never had enough of it.
Deregulation seems always to work, always to make things
better. Government could be a hundred times smaller,
and still be huge.
