Subject: Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors.
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 20:23:39 -0700
Steve Conover, Sr. wrote:
>
....
I interject my opinion here to, uh, fill some holes...
> Are you concerned that (a) entrepreneurs are not creating enough new
> work,
I note:
If trained and capable people are out of work or are underemployed, i.e.
electrical engineers doing janitorial work, they are not - although
entrepreneurs are not the only segment of the society who are not
providing sufficient work. Note I did not imply responsibility. For an
entrepreneur to find a good idea is rather difficult, and a profitable
one even more so. There are lots of entrepreneurs who are not making
money or jobs, although they'd love to be doing both.
> or (b) that the general population cannot fulfill the requirements
> of the new work being created,
I note:
It seems the problem is a great demand for computer-related skills and
certain skills and training in the health care industry, judging from
the want ads in Portland, and a large number of people with other skills
and abilities for which there is little demand, as well as a large
number of people without the skills for either computer- or
medical-related work. A significant imbalance, part of which may
straighten itself out over time.
> or (c) that the old guard is failing in its attempt to protect >obsolete work?
I note:
The 'old guard' and the 'new guard' have eliminated a lot of work, not
because it is obsolete, but because it does not fit with the now aging
'computer product or services cut the jobs to put downward pressure on
wages and compensation' take-your-pick economy, that we're living in.
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: doregan
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 01:57:41 -0800
A. Whitworth wrote:
>
> In article <58383a$4t4@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
> >Well, Hertz moderates Avis, Nissan moderates Toyota,
> >compuserve moderates aol, Shell moderates Exxon,
> >Harvard moderates Yale - the list is rather long,
> >it includes millions of competing
> >enterprises. They are all powers, all moderate each
> >other.
>
> But cartels - and oil companies are fine examples - can and
> do exist. Monopolies, dupolies and oligopolies prevent this
> moderation taking place..
..
Add Microsoft to the list. That's why I use Netscape and WordPerfect.
Dennis
Subject: Re: Nuclear Planes (was Re: Nuclear Safety disinformation )
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 04:56:24 GMT
On 6 Dec 1996 19:14:29 GMT, redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>
>> Actually I lived in a commune of the most advanced designers of the
>> generation during the last year of college first time around. People
>> were always flying in from New York and Berkeley to find out what we
>> were all up to. I assure you, there is no stupidity of which
>> designers are incapable.
>
>In wich country and city did you go to college?
Magnus,
This was in Toronto in the early sixties.
>
>Did you notice and design principles in the air? There seems to be
>differences in design philosophy in different countries. Its a pity
>you dont remember where they had made the design fault you refrered
>too.
I was the only one doing industrial design in the gang, and only on
the strength of my experience as a machinist at that time. I fell in
with some bright engineers as a result of what I was doing, but I did
not start out as an engineer.
> And yes, people do all kinds of mistakes, that is why I would
>like to see building of more of the good designs and ongoing research
>efforts to be able to replace dangerous and damaging technology.
The Soviet problem was not one of engineering or design. It was this:
the biggest player was also the referree. This meant that thee was no
feeling of real responsibility anywhere. "The party" was the
gathering place of all the fast hustlers. The Gosplan was the major
economic criminal. Etc.
In a situation like that, design goes into museums to export to the
US, Japan, and third world countries celebrating their revolutions --
to show off Soviet "vision".
Other than that, it had no real world effect.
-dlj.
>
>Regards,
>--
>--
>Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
>Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
>Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 05:01:55 GMT
On 6 Dec 1996 02:10:20 GMT, "Rick & Bea Tarara"
wrote:
>Well you can set a practical limit by finding out the total amount of fresh
>water on the earth and divide by the average water usage per person
>(including that used for growing crops and raising livestock). I don't
>have those numbers handy (or even know where to find them).
Yes, you could do it that way. Let's just assume that the average
human has 1/100th of a square mile of land and it rains six inches
that year: 32 acre-feet right thare. Do you want to drink it, one
eight ounce glass at a time, three times a day?
I don't have my calculator handy, but I know what an acre looks like,
so I know you can drink all day, all night, and still take baths.
> Of course
>you'll offer to desalinate the oceans--but one of my points to jw was that
>this takes ENERGY which we 'ain't' got.
This is horseshit. Incomig sunlight is several hundred watts, a big
fraction of a horsepower, per square yard, everyplace between the two
Tropics. Even in the subtropic and arctic regions, the incoming
amounts to a vastly greater amount of energy than is being consumer --
not be the people living there, but by the entire human race.
> However, if you want to get really
>'crazy' take the total amount of water on the earth--about 1.5x10^21 kg
>(almost all in the oceans) and divide by 50 kg the approximate amount of
>water in an adult person. You get about 3x10^19 people. jw would be
>thrilled, this is 30 million, trillion people. Of course that ties up ALL
>the earth's water, none left for crops, bathing, drinking, any other
>biological life, etc. Each person would have to carefully recycle every
>gram--but of course this is ridiculous. It does, however set an absolute
>limit, although I suspect that the amount of other elements necessary for
>human life and their abundance on earth would set an even lower limit--any
>biologists out there with that number?
Um, well, that gives us one way of being crazy.
Since in my lifetime we are only worrying about a population of 12
billion or fewer, and stable at that, I really can't get too upset
over these 3*10^19 people.
Particularly since they don't exist.
>Of course each of these 30 million,trillion people get a whole 17 square
>millimeters of the earth's surface for themselves! We can use the whole
>earth for this since all the ocean's waters are tied up in people.
Like I said, they don't exist. You're frothing on.
>Even at jw's trillions, we have a problem with space. At 1 trillion,
>that's only 100 square meters per person (of dry land). Obviously you have
>to build up, down, or go undersea to spread this trillion out, but any of
>that takes HUGE amounts of energy--for construction, heating, cooling,
>sanitation, lighting, etc., etc. Even 1 trillion is a ridiculous figure
>for an earth population, and the technological and energy constraints on
>establishing large colonies in this solar system are also out of the
>question. But, for jw and those who decry any kind of population control,
>at a 1% annual population growth we WOULD hit a trillion in only a little
>over 500 years from now!
Froth, froth. Our birth rate is dropping. The absolute number of
births is dropping. The number of possible mothers in the world will
start dropping before 1998. Population is coming under control,
thanks to the choices people are making about how to live.
I doubt that you even know what a thousand of anything looks like, so
callow and stupid are you in throwing around these nonexistent
"trillions".
>If anyone has fresh water stats I also would like to see them. What we
>need is:
>
>Total fresh water supply: could probably use average rainfall over land
>time area.
Excuse me, weren't you the one lecturing us?
>Average water use per person: (including water needed to produce food)
>Energy cost per unit to desalinate salt water:
Not needed: Rain does it for us.
>From a Biologist or BioChemist a figure of rare elements necessary for
>human life.
Will an accountant do? Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and a few odds and ends. The phosphorus runs out first:
when we have trillions living on the Dyson Sphere. We shall recycle
the dead assiduously.
>The amount per person and the total estimated amount (near the surface) of
>the earth.
Hunh? If you're talking trillions, Earth is a tourist resort by then.
?But I'll give you Bucky Fuller's old jape about density: if you held
a normal cocktail party on all floors of the buildings of Manhattan,
you could invite the human race.
Obviously the East River subway would be a little bit crowded when the
party broke up...
-dlj.
>
>
>--
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+++++++++
>Richard W. Tarara
>Department of Chemistry & Physics Free Physics & Energy Instructional
>Software
>Saint Mary's College available at:
>Notre Dame, IN 46556
>219-284-4664 http://estel.uindy.edu/aapt/rickt/software/
>rtarara@saintmarys.edu
>http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/tarara/
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+++++++++
>
>
Subject: Re: Wind Power
From: biff
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 09:39:43 -0800
Kenneth T. Cornelius wrote:
> There are some caveats, naturally. For one thing I suspect without
> being able to prove it that the five cents per kilowatthour figure
> derives from cherrypicking, so I've got to be a bit dubious about it.
Whenever super-low rates are projected for ANY form of energy (remember
the 'virtually free' rates touted for early fission projects?) they
should be taken with a grain of salt. Look at existing projects, and
see how much they're getting paid, and whether or not they're
profitable. Since many of the SO4-contract projects are falling off the
premium pricing structure, it's difficult to make enough money to keep
turbines running. New turbines are more efficient, and less
maintenance-intensive, so this helps to keep costs down. With a 30-year
working life on new turbines, it's not impossible to build profitable
projects with the $.05/kWH rate. But nothing's easy. Keeping costs
down on such projects is a major concern.
> The main technical obstacle to a complete switchover to wind is the fact
> that the wind don't blow all the time. Energy storage is vital. One
> way to go is wind-electrolysed water and H2 fuel cells. There are
> undoubtedly others, but lots of development needs to be done.
Well, this brings us to a crossroads of alternative energy
philosophies. Currently, alternative energy projects are small-time,
compared to the sheer amount of power consumed daily here in the U.S.
But because we're accustomed to having any amount of power available at
any given moment, most folks tend to think that if any amount of time
which power is not being produced is inherently BAD. It is not.
Rather than have alternative energy plants
(solar/wind/geothermal/biomass/etc.) try to operate 24/7 as conventional
power plants, the simpler solution is simply to work on balancing the
loads from a diverse power grid. For example, when there's a heat wave
going on, and the solar plant is cranking out the megawatts, then you
can scale back the production from the nuke plant. When the wind is
averaging 50mph and the wind turbines are whizzing (like it is right NOW
in Tehachapi, btw!), you can scale back production from the coal plant.
The utilities tend to resist anything that makes it harder on them, but
balancing the overall loads on the grid makes for a much stronger power
infrastructure. Working on balancing the power output from ALL
available sources makes it much easier to have larger amounts of clean
energy, and still retain 24/7 power capability. It's a compromise that
benefits everyone.
But trying to make a wind project with a 34% capacity factor act just
like a nuke plant with a 98% capacity factor seems to me to be looking
at the wrong solution. Alternative energy plants should produce what
they can, while they can, and the utilities should work on balancing the
loads. Makes for a cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable grid (in my
opinion, of course.)
> A couple or three years ago there was quite a stir in the windpower
> business, such as it was. Seemed like all kinds of people were snoofing
> about scouting wind sites, making big talk and much smoke. One big
> project that I recall was Northern Power and Kenetech near a place in
> southern Minnesota called Buffalo Ridge. Kenetech had gone public with
> stock at $16 and it went to about $22 before beginning a long slide to
> Chapter 11 and its current value of 9 (cents, that is). The whole
> windpower thingy just deflated suddenly for some reason. I am trying to
> figure out just why that was. A whole industry gets killed off and the
> papers don't even mention it.
Deflated? Perhaps for Kenetech. But that was just bad business. There
are many articles written about the fall of Kenetech, so I won't repeat
the stories here. But wind power is NOT completely dead in the US.
Zond is planning to construct the second phase for Norther States Power
next year sometime.
> It seems obvious that congress pulled the rug out somehow. Likely
> this was done at the behest of the oil industry. But who, when, and
> what? C'est la question. Anyone care to testify?
While it's kinda fun to speculate on various utility conspiracy
theories, I suspect bad management had more to do with Kenetech's
failure than Agents Mulder and Scully. But, I dont' know. Any
ex-Kenetechies have some juicy stories to tell?
=+=++=+=+=N+I=R+V=A+N=A+n=e+t=+=R+a=w+D=a+t=a+F=o+r=R+a=w+N=e+r=v+e=s+=+=+=+
Joe Griego |
Zond Corporation |
Anemometry Dept. |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 17:55:04 GMT
On 6 Dec 1996 12:00:12 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> It goes like phases of the Moon: for two weeks you love everything I
> say, because it's just like you learned from your dada in the
> Depression, and then you get two weeks of whining at me.
David, dear, if you want uncritical love, go get married in Hawaii.
(oh, sorry, I forgot -- that profiteer, Hanson is there.)
-----------------------------------------------
Mason A Clark masonc@ix.netcom.com
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
www.netcom.com/~masonc
Vickery on the "Deficit" and notes on Vickrey
www.netcom.com/~masonc/vickrey.html
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210/vickrey.html
---------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: lead barrier for computer tower???
From: doregan
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 02:34:44 -0800
Dan Moore wrote:
>
> In article <57njrv$6pi$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, 73654.3446@CompuServe.COM says...
> >
> >Being apprehensive about the radioactivity coming from my computer
> >tower, I bought a large sheet of lead and formed a cover for the
> >tower. Now... did I read somewhere that lead is toxic... or is
> >that just if I eat my tower?
> >
> >thanks for any enlightenment.
> >
> >Sharyl
>
> I'm sure there are plenty of folks around here
> to correct me but I think that lead won't help
> a bit. The frequency of radiation coming off your
> computer should be so low that the lead will be
> transparent or a most translucent to it so you will get
> the double whammy of radiation and lead.
>
> Two solutions lay open to you; the purchase of an ELF
> blocker or the product offered below. Good luck.
>
> Dan Moore
>
Yes, lead won't do any good, especially for the magnetic field component. It will
"block" the electrical field component.
Most newer computer monitors are manufactured to standards that reduce EMF fields
from what was available a few years ago. Similarly, CPUs are manufactured to
minimize interference with other household electrical appliances. I would expect that
the most significant source of EMF from your tower wouls be from its power suppy.
You may feel more comfortable (figuratively, that is) by moving the CPU a little
further from you.
To get a sense of what you are dealing with, see if you can obtain a milligauss
meter and measure the magnetic fields at random locations in your home (?) and
at different positions around your computer. You7 can even try it with and without
the lead "shield." See if your local electric utility will take the measurements
for you. Many will do it for free if you are their customer and own your home.
I'd suggest that you first read up on the EMF research conducted over the past 20
years or so. John Moulder has an "EMF FAQ" that is pretty good as a starting point.
The NAS(?) released a major report about a month ago that largely dismisses EMF
as a significant health issue. If you are interested in a summary, E-mail me at
doregan@ix.netcom.com.
Buy the product listed below and you will be wasting your money. Then again, if
it will give you peace of mind, I guess it's worht it.
> ********************************************************
> NEWS RELEASE
>
> Can Revolutionary New Software Cure Computer
> Radiation Blues?
>
> Quantum Byte Users Say "Yes"
>
> She tried changing her posture at her computer work station. She
> lightened, then darkened, her screen -- but the nagging dicomfort would
> not go away. What started as eye strain and tension in Donna Levitz's
> neck was beginning to feel like exhaustion throughout her whole body.
> WHAT IS GOING ON? she wanted to know.
>
> It's called electromagnetic radiation and, unfortunately, Donna Levitz
> is just one of tens of thousands to fall prey to its debilatating sway,
> according to indications from the latest EMR research. Electromagnetic
> radiation emanates from computers, stereos, refrigerators, TV's and even
> household wiring -- in short, anything carrying electricity.
>
> Quantum Byte(tm) -- A Unique Solution To
> Electromagnetic Radiation
>
> Donna searched for solutions to her EMR problem. An EMR screen shield
> didn't seem to do the trick -- she had too much other computer equipment
> on her desk.
>
> Then a friend told her about Quantum Byte, a software program which
> installs UT Code (tm) on the computer's hard drive.
>
> UT Code first discovered in 1975, has been used in electronic devices
> over the past 10 years to neutralize the negative effects of
> electromagnetic fields. Unlike shielding devices, which attempt to
> reduce the size or intensity of EMFs, UT Code uses an advanced
> superconductive technology to change the QUALITY of the fields, making
> them more orderly and coherent. This reduction in electronic noise,
> chaos, and interference can transform the harmful electromagnetic field
> around the work station into a healthy, creative environment.
>
> Quantum Byte Really Works
>
> Donna installed Quantum Byte one morning and then got on with her work,
> wondering if she could surive until quitting time at 4:30 p.m. Later,
> she looked at her watch and realized _it_was_6:30_p.m.!_ She had
> unknowingly worked two hours overtime.
>
> "I was waiting for that feeling of exhaustion before looking at my
> watch, and it never came. I had no tension in my neck, no eye strain.
> In fact, I felt fantastic -- energetic and almost blissful," Donna said.
>
> Donna is not alone. Thousands have used UT Code products with similar
> results. Elaine Duncan, in a review for Computer Monthly, reported,
> "Over a few months, I noticed subtle but definite cumulative effects:
> less tension in the neck and shoulders, less irritability and most
> importantly, elimination of a kind of low grade physical and mental
> agitation that really interfered with my creative processes."
>
> Is There Research to Show It Works? Yes!
>
> Dr. Nicolai Lyubimov, Director of the Brain Research Institute in
> Moscow, has researched UT Code. He says that experiments on individuals
> using products equipped with UT Code show "more orderly brain wave
> activity and that correlates with their subjective experiences. This
> means more creativity, less stress, greater productivity, and improved
> health."
>
> Quantum Byte retails for $199 and comes with a 60-day money back
> guarantee. For more information write to Global Coherence Inc.
> 40% of proceeds go to the Fund for Dihydrogen Monoxide Victims.
>
> The company also markets Quantum Power Conditioner(tm) ($89), a six
> outlet power strip with UT Code; and the Quantum Home(tm) ($295)
> containing a UT Code microprocessor capable of handling the EMF of a
> 3,000 square foot home.
> =====================================================================
>
> --
> **********************************************************
> * *
> * Godless humanism *
> * Marxist atheism *
> * Morally destructive *
> * God hating, God fearing *
> * Rampant, runaway empiricism *
> * Naive realism *
> * Totally void of meaning *
> * Staggering misunderstandings and distortions *
> * Lying, dishonest, liar, lies *
> * How empty a philosophy! *
> * Luantic fringe *
> * Question marks, theories, big bangs, maybe, *
> * maybe, maybe this, maybe that ... not really. *
> * Adept at pretending *
> * Patently absurd, and borders on fantasy *
> * Foolish, regardless of what you may have been told *
> * *Shazaam* magic *
> * Massive transmogrifications *
> * Sounds like religion to me *
> * A mere faith in what is unseen and untested *
> * Satan's attempt to fool mankind *
> * The only people who believe are the uninformed *
> * You have to be BLIND to believe *
> * A corrupt ideological doctrine *
> * Empiricism has become the deity *
> * Reject empiricism! It is evil! *
> * *
> * Descriptions of Science from the net *
> * and elsewhere. Send me your best. *
> * *
> **********************************************************
Subject: Re: US National Park Fee Bullshit. (Was: Park Fees Should be O)
From: mohn@are._delete_this_.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 08:07:31 GMT
ook@ook.org (ook!) wrote:
>What really kills me is that entrance fees go to the USDA coffers, so park
>visitors are propping up Tobacco Subsidies, cushy office furniture in
>Beltsville, and Wayne Adnreas' vacation condo in Florida, and aren't doing
>jack shit for the resources they're stomping on.
I can't believe this. I know that National Forests are USDA in light
of their historic role as our national timber plantations, to be mined
to extinction (I don't approve, that's a descriptive statement not a
normative one). However, I believe that National Parks are Department
of the Interior's as are BLM lands.
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers. If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: jai@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 05:39:58 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
As far as a year 0 (BCE or CE) is concerned, note that
there is a convention for astronomers to regard 1 BCE as
0 CE, 2 BCE as -1 CE, 3BCE as -2 CE, etc.
Jai Maharaj jai@aloha.com jai@eskimo.com jai@mantra.com
%:%:% Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer %:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:%
In the article <32a8adb9.24056093@news.hol.gr>,
of Fri, 06 Dec 1996 23:43:53 UTC,
request.it@the.newsgroup (*FTD) wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 1996 03:32:19 -0800, "D.M."
> wrote:
>> You need to go back to school and learn basic math.
>> Jan 1 2001 is the start of the second year of the
>> millenium. Dec 31 just marks the end of the first
>> year. Why do you think they call this century the
>> 20th, not because we are in the 19th, but because
>> we are in the 20. It just gos to show you that even
>> 10 year olds can post to the net. - dword@foothill.net
> Looks to me like you are the one who needs math
> lessons. A century consists of... 100 years (unless
> we calculate centuries different in Greece :) ).
> Since there is no year 0 it starts the 1st day on
> 1/1/1 and it ends on 31/12/100 AND NOT 31/12/99
> because that would be 99 years!!! Apply this all the
> way up to 31/12/2000 and you will see that the 21st
> century begins right on 1/1/2001. Now, as far as when
> the celebration is taking place. This is clearly a
> mistake done over the... centuries, probably because
> of... bad math :) *FTD When something wrong is done
> many times, it becomes right (unfortunately!) - *FTD
PGP information:
ftp://ftp.prairienet.org/pub/providers/pgp/pgpfaq.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Digital signatures verify author and unaltered content.
iQCVAwUBMqkGAOlp/UA/8L65AQEVgAQAqS47GeYJp4KnoopR2nt6dtAKSAi6063Y
pWRgdcvoMd2WXs17ls1QhujjRKwnC9qNhHz/hsE7l8Qr+edvKjdi0Ddub7QgD3BP
WqzUroDIJaejeprAw3ilxKSDLjM1hX6ItkywI9XzaVTYSEThpMyhLzxZrlgnzwMl
fEUpIV5Fk5c=
=7qhi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu (Kevin Sterner)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 05:00:27 GMT
In article <32A8B7F5.24A@erols.com>, Dennis & Denise Nelson writes:
> Cohen is a physicist or health physicist, Gofman a physician. Each has spent
> a career in the nuclear arena. Gofman has specialized in the long term health
> effects of nuclear radiation. He was fired from the Livermore Labs, where he
> was head of health programs in the 1960s, for exposing health effects from inhaled
> or injested radionuclides from bomb testing, not just the external gamma exposure
> which was the criterion for health effects at the time. In my opinion the nuclear
> establishment has consistently and deliberately underrepresented the long term
> health effects of radionuclide contamination of the environment. I would put my
> money of Gofman.
But even if all you say is true, you haven't told us all we need to
make a decision, namely, what is the amount of radionuclide contamination
to the environment as a result of domestic nuclear power? (And I don't mean
the enviroment as a whole, but the environment where the public actually
lives.) How does that compare to the exposure we get from natural
sources, and to what we get from bomb testing (which exists completely
independently of whether or not we use nuclear power, and cannot be
ameliorated by any public policy decision regarding nuclear power)?
I would put my money on its being vanishingly small. Gofman may be
right about the dangers of inhaled radioisotopes, but wrong about
the actual level of risk to the public health.
-- K.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner | U. Penn. High Energy Physics | Smash the welfare state!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: lee14@rohan.sdsu.edu (lee)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 10:14:12 GMT
: > Harold> Actually, judging solely on the probabilities, you should worry a lot
: > Harold> more about an asteroid or similar body hitting the earth than some of
: > Harold> the problems you mention. We have excellent evidence that asteroids
: > Harold> hitting the earth are not at all uncommon.
: >
: > Harold> Your chances of dying from an asteroid strike are pretty high, I
: > Harold> regret to say. I am sorry I know the actual figures, but I believe it
: > Harold> was in the neighborhood of 1 in 7000. The reason they probabilities
: > Harold> are as high as they are is because even one strike can be expected to
: > Harold> kill large numbers of people.
: >
: >The fact that a hit would kill a lot of people in no way affects
: >the probability of an individual being killed by an asteroid.
: If you mean by killed asteroid or meteor, that varies with the
: estimates of the frequency of the event and the number of people
: estimated to be affected. The numbers I have seen yield a value in
: the neighborhood of 1 in 7000.
: > Harold> And it is a danger we are absolutely certain is real, even if
: > Harold> self-concerned people laugh at it.
: >
: >Yes, it is a real danger, and long term planners should be looking at it.
: >Right now it is far too expensive given the risks, but in 20-40 years,
: >space flight will be a lot cheaper, and the plans could be reasonably
: >realized.
: I hope so.
: Regards, Harold
pretty nifty idea using star wars orbital platforms for meteor defense. but
what is your 1 in 7000 odds refering to, the probability of a particular
individual dying from a meteor that actually hit the planet or of a meteor
hitting the planet?
why is a meteor strike more credible or threatening than the environmental
destruction going on today? a sizable meteor strike would certainly cause
death and suffering in the impact zone, but also global environmental change
as well from the ash and dust blown into the atmosphere. wait a minute.. that
is already going on today! how ironic.
why are your calculations even credible? has astronomy been so advanced that
probabilities for meteor collisions are so accurate? i say this to point out
the hypocrisy and double standard and polarization in this thread where
'green' theories and predictions are laughed at yet a (semi)serious discussion
of a meteor strike is going on. i acknowledge that a meteor strike is probable
due to geologic evidence. past meteor strikes are credited with the possible
destruction of the dinosaurs, an ice age or two, whatever. corresponding with
the strike was mass die off of life. hell, there's mass extinction going on
today without a meteor. people are the meteor. or cancer, in the words of
senator i cant remember at this point.. oh well.
anyway, an event like a meteor strike is a on/off, come or not situation while
global warming/climatic change, deforestation, desertification, over-population
and over-consumption are on going, progressive events getting worse and worse.
if people have the ability and desire to stop a meteor, why not the destruction
going on by our own hands???
'Chemicals! Chemicals! I must have chemicals!'
J.S. Lee
Environmentally Friendly Engineering
San Diego State University
Subject: Re: Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:12:49 EST
yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> Matt Regan (mregan26.student@manhattan.edu) wrote:
>
> : Well I may be new to these parts, but I have to agree with mike. Yuri,
> : you may have some points to make, but assaulting a man held dear by a
> : large part of the planet, including myself with bizarre and TOTALLY
> : UNFOUNDED charges such as yours earns you the disinguished Matt Regan
> : "DUH" award. Congrats!!!
>
> What are those "bizarre and unfounded charges"? Are you denying that the
> Vatican is the main sponsor of overpopulation in the world today?
>
> Yuri.
Dear Yuri,
Please get an atlas. Look at a world map showing population density.
Look at a world map showing distribution of religions. Note that there
is no corelation between high population density and Roman
Catholicism. The most densely populated countries such as China, India
and Japan are not predominantly RC. Less densely populated countries
such as France, Spain and Italy are predominantly RC.
You have been given the facts about what the RC Church teaches. I
have told you before where you can read it for yourself if you don't
believe my summaries. You have ignored that the RC Church explicitly
states that it recognizes population and economic factors as good
reasons for couples to choose to avoid having children.
I have also told you where you can find studies from unbiased sources
such as the World Health Organization about the effectiveness and
suitability for the Third World of natural methods of family planning.
You do not appear to have read any of them or to have paid the least
attention to what I told you they contained.
You have also apparently ignored my requests to give some details
about your alleged experiences in the Third World that have so
strongly convinced you of a conclusion that flies in the face of all
this evidence.
I gave up on responding to your posts months ago because I did not
know how to deal with the way you ignore facts. You just keep saying
the same untrue things over and over again. The terrible thing is
that people start to believe things that they see repeated this way.
I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you are saying, Yuri.
But you are wrong. You cannot support your claims. If you put half the
energy into doing something constructive for the poor that you put
into ranting against the Vatican the world would be a better place.
I know you think that you are helping people somehow by demonizing the
Pope, but you are not. You are not going to be able to truly serve
others until you face the truth.
Jayne
Subject: Re: Environmental Philosophy
From: lee14@rohan.sdsu.edu (lee)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 11:52:58 GMT
John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Julia H. includes
: The earth already cannot support those on it's face. It does
: not matter that theoretically it could, it only matters that
: people are dying who needn't and species are becoming
: extinct that just shouldn't and that for so many of the
: creatures on this planet, human and otherwise, life is
: miserable and impoverished. Yes I'm afraid of the "boogey"
: man- but at least I'm willing to look him in the eyes, I'm
: not such a coward as to deny his existence.
: Julia H. is looking at the wrong boogey man. The suffering is caused
: mainly by bad politics, not by overpopulation.
: However, there isn't as much suffering as formerly.
: --
: John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
bad politics and bad business by industry/industrialists, positivists and
unscrupulous capitalists.
not by overpopulation? look around, past the borders, past provincial
boundaries. latin america, china, africa, all with population problems,
problems involving poverty and starvation, deforestation/desertification,
crime, pollution, disease, homelessness.
not as much suffering where? as compared to when?
--
'Chemicals! Chemicals! I must have chemicals!'
J.S. Lee
Environmentally Friendly Engineering
San Diego State University
Subject: Re: The Netherlands Fallacy (was: Christianity and indifference to nature)
From: lee14@rohan.sdsu.edu (lee)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 13:01:50 GMT
Paul F. Dietz (dietz@interaccess.com) wrote:
: TL ADAMS wrote:
: >Well, having had p-chem, thermo undergrad and graduate level, my
: >honest opinion is that most of poster's babbling about thermo
: >could not go to bathroom without producing a wet pair of shoes,
: >and a rusty zipper.
: I'm always open to correction of errors. What was it that I said that
: was incorrect, and why?
: Paul
the second law of thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy transfer
and also accepts as axiomatic the impossibility of 100% efficiency. the first
law is unofficially refered as 'you can't get something for nothing' and the
second as 'you can't even break even'. perpetual motion machines, 100%
energy tranfer is impossible. this is out of my thermodynamics text, under-
grad level. as applied to biological systems, ie. the food pyramid, primary
producers will always have more mass than 1st order consumers that in turn
have more mass than 2nd order and so on down the line. if this is not true,
then the pyramid adjusts through starvation and death until it returns to a
stable configuration. most biological texts seem to conform to a 10% ratio,
that is, every trophic level only gets 10% of the energy of the lower level.
a person eating a steak requires more energy from grain to cow to feed than a
person eating pasta or potatoes. not to be down on eating meat, which i do
on occasion, but just to illustrate the effect of 2nd order vs. 1st order
consumption.
--
'Chemicals! Chemicals! I must have chemicals!'
J.S. Lee
Environmentally Friendly Engineering
San Diego State University
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: scotterb@maine.maine.edu
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 96 09:26:11 EST
In article <32A358F1.50CE@hydro.on.ca>, dan.evens@hydro.on.ca says...
>
>scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>You compromise on everything but compromise.
Actually...no.
I said very clearly that in my personal actions I won't compromise. I won't
go kill people in a war just because government policy is against my ethics.
I won't try to overthrow the government, spit or disrespect soldiers or
commit treason because I oppose war. My protests would be peaceful and
respectful. But I won't compromise my personal morality.
>I declare that if something is a principle it must not be compromised.
>Giving up your integrity is something you only get to do once.
Very abstract. Again, I don't give up personal integrity. But in a
democracy people have different moral and ethical views, and if there is no
compromise on public policies, if everyone has their abstract principles
which they refuse to compromise upon, then democracy falls apart, and the
result has historically always been something worse.
To be sure, you need some fundamental agreements on basic values and norms to
even have a viable democratic polity. But once you have those, compromise on
policy is always possible.
>I liked the episode where they picked up three frozen people from
>early in the 21st century. One of them was a former CEO of a large
>corporation. The first thing he did was out-think Piccard about
>knowing "when the other fellow's mouth was dry."
Um, I suggest you re-watch that episode. Picard was just as aware of what
was going on as he was. Also, the CEO was laughable for placing such
importance in money...Riker even wondered how they made it to the 24th
century after having such petty beliefs. Of course, given that Roddenberry
was a Social Democrat, it's not surprising that the Federation and Star Trek
represents social democratic values. Social Democracy does not deny
exchange, does not deny competition (hence the poker games you mention), and
really does not deny markets. It only opposes exploitation which limits
liberty and equality of opportunity. And we're working to that end, step by
step...
ciao, scott
Subject: Yuri receives objectivity of the week award (was Re: Yuri receives some other award
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 14:53:39 GMT
I see... Jayne the N(atural) F(amily) P(lanning) cultist is back in the
fray... Came back to feed the starving masses some more baloney, Jayne?
Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne@mmalt.guild.org) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
[Yuri:]
: > What are those "bizarre and unfounded charges"? Are you denying that the
: > Vatican is the main sponsor of overpopulation in the world today?
: Dear Yuri,
: Please get an atlas. Look at a world map showing population density.
: Look at a world map showing distribution of religions. Note that there
: is no corelation between high population density and Roman
: Catholicism. The most densely populated countries such as China, India
: and Japan are not predominantly RC. Less densely populated countries
: such as France, Spain and Italy are predominantly RC.
Jayne,
The impact of the evil policies of the Vatican is two-fold. Directly, they
attempt to destroy the efforts of governments to implement effective
family planning. Recent example: the Philippines.
Indirectly, they undermine the efforts of concerned people in the world
bodies, such as the UN and the World Bank to do same. Example: the recent
Population Conference in Cairo.
I have explained all this many times, but some who are hard of hearing
would rather not hear.
: I have also told you where you can find studies from unbiased sources
: such as the World Health Organization about the effectiveness and
: suitability for the Third World of natural methods of family planning.
Complete garbage and lies. Jayne does it again.
If the so-called NFP is unsuitable for women here, on which they
overwhelmingly agree, why would it be suitable for women in the 3 world?
: You do not appear to have read any of them or to have paid the least
: attention to what I told you they contained.
I've exposed your untruths many times. "NFP" IS A FALSE MYTH that only the
totally deluded 1 % of Catholics buy.
: You have also apparently ignored my requests to give some details
: about your alleged experiences in the Third World that have so
: strongly convinced you of a conclusion that flies in the face of all
: this evidence.
I recogize this as diversionary tactics. Nevertheless, I will specify that
I had many years experience living in Mexico, Philippines -- Catholic
countries -- as well as Thailand, India, Malasia, and quite a few other 3
world countres.
Stop supporting the Evil, Jayne. It will be good for your Soul...
Blessings,
Yuri.
--
#% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow
astronauts ====== Vice President Dan Quayle
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 09:50:26 -0600
Rick Carroll wrote:
>
> D.M. wrote:
>
> > You need to go back to school and learn basic math. Jan 1 2001 is the
> > start of the second year of the millenium. Dec 31 just marks the end of
> > the first year. Why do you think they call this century the 20th, not
> > because we are in the 19th, but because we are in the 20.
> >
> > It just gos to show you that even 10 year olds can post to the net.
>
> Moron...maybe 10yos can _POST_ on the net..just not accurately. The 1st
> year of AD was year # 1. Not year #0. This was the 1st century. In
> year #100, only 99 years had gone by. In year #101, 100years had gone
> by. This became the 2nd century. Go a few hundred years in the
> future..and walla! 1901 is the beginning of the twentieth century..2000
> is the 99th year of the 20th century...2001 is the beginning of the
> 21st..
>
> Thus, Clinton wont be leading us into the next millenium..
>
> -Rick
> cyberman@dmv.com
I am sure I am not the first person to make this comment, but let me do
it anyway. Whether or not we consider the year 2000 the beginning of a
century is a matter of convention. It is true that our current
calendar in principle starts with the year one, there being no year
zero. But it is also true that the calendar has been manipulated to
correct for shifts with respect to the earth's motions about the sun.
This is all what humanity chooses to make of it. It was not inscribed
on the back of the tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai (which of
course was before our calendar took effect anyway). In fact most
people seem to think that the year 2000 marks a special point and we
enter the twenty first century at that point. Just because this
conflicts with a previous convention doesn't mean very much.
In any case, it doesn't seem to me to make much idfference one way or
the other. If you want to wait until the year 2001 to celebrate the
beginning of the next millenium, all the more power to you. Personally
I think I will go along with the apparent majority and do it on Jan. 1,
2000. Perhaps the fact that I am a bit older prejudices my view. I
would like to live as far into the next millenium as possible. :-) :-)
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: The Netherlands Fallacy (was: Christianity and indifference to nature)
From: dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:53:52 GMT
lee14@rohan.sdsu.edu (lee) wrote:
>: I'm always open to correction of errors. What was it that I said that
>: was incorrect, and why?
>the second law of thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy transfer
>and also accepts as axiomatic the impossibility of 100% efficiency. the first
>law is unofficially refered as 'you can't get something for nothing' and the
>second as 'you can't even break even'. perpetual motion machines, 100%
>energy tranfer is impossible. this is out of my thermodynamics text, under-
>grad level. as applied to biological systems, ie. the food pyramid, primary
>producers will always have more mass than 1st order consumers that in turn
>have more mass than 2nd order and so on down the line. if this is not true,
>then the pyramid adjusts through starvation and death until it returns to a
>stable configuration. most biological texts seem to conform to a 10% ratio,
>that is, every trophic level only gets 10% of the energy of the lower level.
>a person eating a steak requires more energy from grain to cow to feed than a
>person eating pasta or potatoes. not to be down on eating meat, which i do
>on occasion, but just to illustrate the effect of 2nd order vs. 1st order
>consumption.
You are confusing energy (or mass) flow with the mass of the organisms
at a trophic level. The two are not necessarily related in a simple
way. OF COURSE energy flow between trophic levels declines as you go
upwards, and I didn't argue otherwise.
Paul
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:12:14 GMT
In article <32a8adb9.24056093@news.hol.gr>,
*FTD wrote:
[...]
> Looks to me like you are the one who needs math lessons.
>
> A century consists of... 100 years (unless we calculate
>centuries different in Greece :) ). Since there is no year 0 it starts
>the 1st day on 1/1/1 and it ends on 31/12/100 AND NOT 31/12/99 because
>that would be 99 years!!!
>
> Apply this all the way up to 31/12/2000 and you will see that
>the 21st century begins right on 1/1/2001.
>
> Now, as far as when the celebration is taking place. This is
>clearly a mistake done over the... centuries, probably because of...
>bad math :)
It's even simpler than that. Although we put the number of the year on
calendars and in dates as if it were a cardinal number, it is, in fact,
an ordinal number. This is most clearly seen in old-style dating like,
"In the ninteen hundred and ninety-sixth year of Our Lord". Thus the
first decade of such numbers includes the number 10, the first century
of such numbers includes the number 100, and the first millenium of
such numbers includes the number 1000.
The reason there is no Year 0 is that 0 is not an ordinal.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: Uranium oxide & pollution control?
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 7 Dec 1996 17:02:16 GMT
packer@cais.cais.com (Charles Packer) wrote:
>I read about the use of uranium oxide as a catalyst for removing
>pollutants from factory emissions and such. But the article, in
>the NY Times on Tuesday, didn't say where the uranium oxide is
>obtained, other than that it's a by-product of the "nuclear industry."
>I'm particularly interested in whether it has anything to do with
>"depleted uranium" from nuclear reactors. Depleted uranium is
>used mainly for military armor now, but obviously the market for
>it would expand if it could used in pollution control.
Given EPA regulations re radioactive emissions, the whole think is a
political farce. No catalyst contrivance could be constrained to sub
picocurie/liter leakage. Look at the Official propagandistic swill of
radon in homes. Uranium oxide doesn't just sit there, it decays.
Depleted uranium is the waste stream deficient in U-235 from uranium
enrichment processes. There is no point in specifically adding U-238 to
reactors unless you want plutonium.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: tradewnd@digital.net (Dr.John Tlon)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 16:54:25 GMT
Rick Carroll wrote:
>Moron...maybe 10yos can _POST_ on the net..just not accurately. The 1st
>year of AD was year # 1. Not year #0. This was the 1st century. In
>year #100, only 99 years had gone by. In year #101, 100years had gone
>by. This became the 2nd century. Go a few hundred years in the
>future..and walla! 1901 is the beginning of the twentieth century..2000
>is the 99th year of the 20th century...2001 is the beginning of the
>21st..
>Thus, Clinton wont be leading us into the next millenium..
Actually, he will, as long as he stays healthy, doesn't resign, isn't
impeached, and isn't abducted by aliens. He will be President during
the first two-thirds of January 2001.
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 17:58:05 GMT
Kevin Sterner (sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu) wrote:
: In article <32A8B7F5.24A@erols.com>, writes:
:
: > In my opinion the nuclear establishment has consistently and
: > deliberately underrepresented the long term health effects of
: > radionuclide contamination of the environment. I would put my
: > money of Gofman.
:
: But even if all you say is true, you haven't told us all we need to
: make a decision, namely, what is the amount of radionuclide contamination
: to the environment as a result of domestic nuclear power? (And I don't mean
: the enviroment as a whole, but the environment where the public actually
: lives.)
The latest information I have (1992) is a total population dose commitment
of 47 person-rems for an at-risk population of about 150 million, this
would work out to .0003 millirem. Even if assuming someone stood at the
edge of the exclusion zone 24 hours a day for 365 days, the most a person
could conceivably receive is a few millirem.
: How does that compare to the exposure we get from natural
: sources, and to what we get from bomb testing (which exists completely
: independently of whether or not we use nuclear power, and cannot be
: ameliorated by any public policy decision regarding nuclear power)?
Depending on where you live, the average yearly dose is 200 - 500
millirem. Some areas of India and Brazil have background readings of
12,000 - 15,000 millirem/year. There is an increasing body of work that
suggests that low levels of radiation actaully have a positve effect on
health. Even the maximum conceivable dose from Three Mile Island was 75
millrem. The National Cancer Institute has shown no relationship between
cancer rates and commercial nuclear power plants, see the following:
(http://www-dceg.ims.nci.gov/reb/nuclear.html) The front end of the
fuel cycle (mining, milling) contributes the majority of the dose
committment to the public. As far sources of radiation goes, commercial
nuclear power is near the bottom of the list.
tooie
Subject: Re: US National Park Fees
From: striplic@flash.net (Cliff & Carolyn Stripling)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 18:08:46 GMT
My opinion on the matter is that the user should pay for the upkeep and
operation of the parks. In fact, it would not bother me if the parks
actually made a profit. In addition, I think that visitors from other
countries (while never discouraged to come and visit) should pay an
additional appropriate fee. As citizens we are already supporting the
parks to some degree through the other taxes we pay.
Our parks are beautiful but facilities in many are in need of repair,
improvement, upgrading and in some cases replacement. I have seen too
much disrespect for our parks in the form of valdalism and unthinking
behavior. Perhaps stronger fees will help provide a sense of worth and
value to people for the parks and also provide for better security,
information and education on how we should enjoy and treat (protect)
our parks.
Things I have seen in our national parks that proper education, respect
for nature and more security might help to prevent... Initials and
names carved everywhere from rocks to outhouses...Diving off, fishing
from bridges, swimming, parking or camping when clearly marked "not
to"...Shampooing, bathing or washing clothes (with LOTS of soap) in
pristine rivers and lakes...Hacking of tree trunks with hatchets and
axes...Trash and garbage thrown everywhere...Washing babies
bottoms and washing dishes in the sinks of restrooms...Forest fires
caused by careless camp fires and flipped cigarrettes or
matches...Switchback trails with cut through trails that cause
erosion...desecrated natural and archeoligical sites with grafiti or
purposely valdalized...Burning campfires where not allowed and
scorching the earth. Poop and paper along side the trail and not
buried. What are we... less than animals?
The fees (and fines too for that matter) can't be too high if it will
help stop some of the above.
Cliff
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 11:12:11 -0700
On 7 Dec 1996 10:14:12 GMT, lee14@rohan.sdsu.edu (lee) wrote:
>why is a meteor strike more credible or threatening than the environmental
>destruction going on today? a sizable meteor strike would certainly cause
>death and suffering in the impact zone, but also global environmental change
>as well from the ash and dust blown into the atmosphere. wait a minute.. that
>is already going on today! how ironic.
Because the science is more accurate in its predictions.
Dealing with warming has the following problems:
-there is no strong observational evidence of anthropogenic
global warming
-there is no past data about the impact of sudden rises in CO2
-thus global warming prediction is currently based on models,
and the models have varied a lot with time, and have failed to
adequately predict the past 150 year, rendering them suspect.
Furthermore, they predict only a minor impact on the problem if we do
go to great lengths.
-if we assume that the models are correct, we have a great
difficulty in predicting the impact of any resulting changes -
especially since with current technology they will involve significant
economic upheaval with the *certain* effect of increased deaths. Our
mileage standards in the US are by themselves responsible to 2000-3000
deaths per year. A major economic change would be worse.
-we have a political problem generating the sustained will to
make a difference, especially in developing countries who are poor but
in a phase where they are greatly increasing their energy usage. This
problem will lead to major defectors (China, for example) which will
make the impact even less on the warming problem, while damaging the
political will in the compliant countries.
But... there is reason for hope, even for those of us who do not want
government to dictate how safe our cars can be or how much is our fair
share of energy...
There is no need for haste. The longer we wait, the more we
know. Furthermore, the longer we wait, the better the technology will
be to minimize the impact if we must move.
I advocate:
-not restricting CO2 emissions at this time
-re-opening the nuclear power debate, with the hope
that nuclear power would be available to alleviate
the impact
-continuing research into global warming, including
modeling, paleoclimatology, and study of current warming effects if
found.
Subject: Re: Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 19:18:33 GMT
On 6 Dec 1996 16:48:06 GMT, joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) wrote:
>
>Mr. Lloyd-Jones - you are a lovely example of a little knowledge being a
>dangerous thing.
So she says. She then goes on to agree with everything I say. Her
long screed supports with some enthusiasm and even the occasional fact
all of my major points:
1.) There is a great deal of uncalled for disease in the US, most of
it caused by lousy public health policies. You bring up the case of
Houston, and I am glad to have the example. Houston is a city so badly
governed that it does not even have zoning; the ship canal is a sewer;
the entire place varies between ticky-tacky and pure slum, with
occasional outbreaks of incredible wealth. Of course it's diseased:
that's how you construct a human reservoir for disease.
2.) Soap and good diet are the major defences against disease. Good
roads, good drainage, and good housing are also major helps.
3.) Major progress on malaria will come only with and from the spread
of middle-class European life styles in Africa. The importance of
medicine in this regard is trivial compared to the importance of food,
housing, roads, drainage, and other major aspectts of economic
development.
4.) The overuse of antibiotics is a Bad Thing.
We share the sense that gin and tonic can be treated jocularly; her
degree of scepticism is greater than mine -- yet she speaks of
particular strains of mosquito which are _now_ resistant to quinine, a
turn of phrase which suggests the truth of tonic water's usefulness.
Perhaps she can elaborate on this distinction.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: "Sam Hall"
Date: 7 Dec 1996 20:05:43 GMT
A. Whitworth wrote in article
<58918s$8is_005@leeds.ac.uk>...
> In article <01bbe172$e9b69900$23979dcc@ericbl>, "ericbl"
> wrote:
> >
> >A. Whitworth wrote in article
> ><57uv00$80s_017@leeds.ac.uk>...
> >>
> >> I don't disagree with capitalism
> >> in principle. I just think that the practice is totally
> >> twisted, and that it needs to change.
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps, if you would have actually read the points I was
> making about the
> >long evolutionary nature of the market you would have
> learned something
> >about the futility of purposefully planning and
> implementing a better
> >system whatever you call it.
>
> Please do not accuse me of not having read your points just
> because I do not agree with them. You thereby assume that
> you are right and everyone else is wrong - this is not
> necessarily the case.
>
> You say that the market has evolved, and that humans cannot
> come up with a better system. But the market does not
> somehow exist independently. It is a human construct. I have
> never suggested that the market can somehow be done away
> with and replaced with "something else". But adjustments can
> be made in the current global system. Perhaps they will
> happen automatically - in which case the market will be
> vindicated, and I'll shut up! Perhaps they will come about
> through environmental catastrophe such as a two-foot rise in
> sea levels (this is a hypothesis - I do not slavishly
> believe the global warming scare-stories). Or perhaps they
> require political will on a global scale. Capitalism will
> remain, but it's emphasis will be different. There is
> nothing sacrosanct about its operation.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "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.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
Yes there is something sacrosanct about capitalism. It is the natural state
of mankind. Any other system has to be imposed by force. The other name for
capitalism is "the free market", that is, capitalism is what happens when
men and women do what appears to them to be in their best interest. Any
other system forces people to defer to someone else those decisions.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon)
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:16:22 GMT
In article <32A72772.5B739083@math.nwu.edu>, Leonard Evens
wrote:
> gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> >
> > charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
> >
> > >BTW, when a large asteroid heads our way, we will need something to purturb
> > >its path enough to miss us. Can you think of a better tool than a nuclear
> > >explosive to do this? There may yet be "good" uses for these weapons.
> >
> > talk about misplace priorities. charlie worries about astroids hitting
> > earth a extremely remote chance but ignores the very real problems of
> > global warming,ozone depeltion, species diveristy and clean ari/water.
>
> On a long enough time scale, the possibility of asteroid collisions is
> serious enough to be concerned about, particularly since we are now
> entering a period of technical capability where we may be able to do
> something about such matters. (I'm not sure nuclear explosives would ne
> cessarily be the best approach, but it is a possibility.) For the
> moment, the most prudent course is to keep track of near earth objects
> and invest a modest amount in that effort. This does not preculde
> acting on other problems of concern to humanity.
I would just like to emphasize one phrase from Len's response, namely,
"...the most prudent course is to keep track of near earth objects..." At
the rate we are accumulating orbiting space junk (the shuttle has been
nicked, or dinged at least twice) it may be hard to do anything a hundred
years from now.
Jim Scanlon
--
Subject: Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors.
From: "Don Dale"
Date: 7 Dec 96 15:39:43 -0500
Michael Tobis wrote,
>All modern countries prop up the value of labor by artifical means,
>and all democracies agree that full employment is a sign of effective
>government. They hide the hole-digging part from themselves by elaborate
>artifice.
Agreed.
>If public sector intervention in the economy is minimized, people will
>starve, because the demand for labor is much smaller than the supply.
Given the fact that the value of labor is artificially propped up,
preventing the market from clearing, true.
>We should face this fact and act accordingly.
Yes, by deregulating the labor market in order that it may clear.
>Anyhow, I don't see that displaced labor due to misplaced government
>action constitutes a pure cost - if the action is worthless and harmless
>the net cost seems to me to be zero. The presumption that "otherwise the
>same effort would be going to creating wealth" strikes me as unsupported
>and largely insupportable.
If I make you do push-ups for an hour instead of what you were planning to
do, that creates a cost (disutility) to you. If I compensate you for that
disutility (by offering you just enough money to offset it), then you're no
longer worse off, but I had to get the money from somewhere.
Don
Subject: Re: Environmental Philosophy
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 96 19:48:42 GMT
In article <6DEC199621081263@elroy.uh.edu>,
st26h@elroy.uh.edu (JAMES BENTHALL) wrote:
>In article <587p49$9f8_003@pm2-123.hal-pc.org>, charliew@hal-pc.org
(charliew) writes...
>>In article <32A75B2C.4FDA@us1.channel1.com>,
>> julia h wrote:
>>(BIG CUT)
>>>By definition any of us that have access to this news group know
>>>nothing first hand about poverty. Open up your eyes, these so-called
>>>"American standards" are not for all Americans. The earth already
>>>cannot support those on it's face. It does not matter that
>>>theoretically it could, it only matters that people are dying who
>>>needn't and species are becoming extinct that just shouldn't and that
>>>for so many of the creatures on this planet, human and otherwise, life
>>>is miserable and impoverished.
>>>Yes I'm afraid of the "boogey" man- but at least I'm willing to look
>>>him in the eyes, I'm not such a coward as to deny his existence.
>>>
>>>julia h.
>>
>>Your response is somewhat typical. You implicitly demand that I (and
>>others) get into the same impoverished "rut" that many others are in,
>>apparently due to feelings of guilt that you are doing better than the
>>impoverished. Fortunately, I have no such feelings of guilt, because I
>>have worked my rear end off for as long as I can remember, to ensure that
I
>>didn't become impoverished. In the U.S. of today, there is absolutely
>>nothing stopping any specific individual (other than themselves) from
>>accomplishing their own goals, if they are willing to work long and hard
>>for those goals. The continuing petty attempts to elicit sympathy are
>>falling on deaf ears where I am concerned. You may as well try a
different
>>argument.
>>
>>Have a nice day.
>
>The ol' "I worked my butt off and deserve everything I have" saw. Just
>thank God you're white Charlie.
>
> james benthall
Hey, let's tell it like it is. I have female, black, hispanic, etc.,
coworkers who are doing just fine. In fact, a female is the plant manager
of the refinery I work at. In addition, I have black friends who run their
own business, work for NASA, etc. As far as I can tell, the big difference
in this country is educational level, not skin color. There are stupid
whites, Indians (both eastern and western), Hispanics, Blacks, etc., and
there are smart and industrious members of those same groups in this
country. I'm sick and tired of people trying to convince me that I somehow
have ill-gotten gains because I am caucasian. It's time a few whites were
bold enough to tell the whole world that they happen to be proud of their
heritage, even in this politically correct, irrational, press driven world
we find ourselves in today.
