Newsgroup sci.environment 112210

Directory

Adrian Vlok wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Just had an inquiry from Mark Taylor, the Environmental Officer at the
> City of South Perth
> re the above.  Does anyody have or know anybody with experince in
> controlling these types of blooms..
.
Is this the same type of alage that is harvested in the Klamath Lake, 
Oregon, USA?  IF so they might come and harvest it as it is the off 
season now.  It has developed into a majoor industry for that area.

William F. Hummel wrote:
> 
> Steve Conover, Sr. (scsr@airmail.net) wrote:
> 
> : It's the rich who have to worry about the rich.  We do not live in a
> : caste system; those who constitute "the rich" are changing all the
> : time.  Bunker Hunt used to be one of "the rich," but he is unimportant
> : today.  Bill Gates wasn't one of the rich twenty years ago, but that
> : changed, too -- and may change again.
> ----------
> You seem to be implying that the rich fall from their perch because of
> taxes.  Don't worry about it.  Taxes are not their problem.
> 
Wrong.  Taxes don't unseat the rich.  The rich are adept at tax
avoidance, and as tax rates climb, they spend a growing proportion of
their energy avoiding taxes, instead of finding productive places to
employ their capital.  
No, high taxes don't punish the rich; they punish would-be entrepreneurs
in need of that capital.  Entrepreneurs who would unseat the old rich,
if only they had access to the capital being hidden from taxes in times
of high rates.  
> : > Wealth does not distribute itself equitably of its own accord.
> 
Did you mean a free market doesn't distriute it equitably?  What is it,
then, that DOES distribute wealth equitably? ...in your opinion, of
course. 
> ...What I do
> argue against is the system of positive feedback in which those with
> wealth, through financial and/or political muscle, can tilt the playing
> field in their own favor, thereby making life tougher for the rest.  
I said the government should ensure a LEVEL playing field.  A tilted
playing field is not level, is it?  ...such as Chrysler's convincing the
government in the early '80's to tilt the playing field by guaranteeing
its loans, to save Chrysler from bankruptcy...
> I agree that the entrepreneur is a necessary part of the wealth creating
> process that benefits society as a whole, but I don't worship at his altar.
Entrepreneurs with money ARE the wealth-creating engine of society. 
Without them, the economy would stagnate; THEN all we'd have to talk
about is how best to redistribute a fixed (...no wait, a SHRINKING)
pie.  Entrepreneurs and capital would flee to better opportunities
overseas.  
So, since you don't "worship" at the entrepreneur's altar, which altar
DO you worship at?  John Kenneth Galbraith's? 
> No, we need more than just a level playing field.  We need laws that
> protect the public from monopoly pricing (anti-trust), the consumer
> from ripoffs (truth in advertising), the investor (anti-fraud measures),
> the environment (toxic waste controls), for example.  
You just described some of the justice and level-playing-field functions
of government.  
--Steve
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
 "In developing economies, parvenus are constantly 
  emerging...  But in stagnant economies the same people --
  and those whom they choose to admit into their ranks --
  hold onto power indefinitely."
  --Jane Jacobs
 "Poverty has no causes.  Only prosperity has causes... 
  Poverty can be overcome only if the relevant economic
  processes are in action."
  --Jane Jacobs
*-----------------------------------------------------------*

I read somewhere that fees to National Parks haven't increased much
since they were founded decades ago.  Considering that theme parks like
Disney and Sea World charge $5-$10 fees for parking on their private
lots despite individual entrance fees of $35 up and all else is
extra...National Parks will be a family or individual vacation and
experience bargain for years to come.

bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>>  The original observation 
>>of Antarctic ozone depletion immediately generated theories involving 
>>human disruption of the environment, and little interest was shown in 
>>investigating the chemistry, and dealing with the causes (if possible) 
>>when the theories were proven valid.
>You have it ass-backwards.  The chemical theories *PREDICTED* the
>ozone hole.  
Rubbish.  The original theories of Rowland and Molina had absolutely
nothing to do with  Antarctic ozone depletion, and were found later to
predict nothing of any consequence.
However, the observation of the ozone "hole" was immediately pounced
upon as proof of the original predictions, and CFCs were implicated
long before adequate models had been developed which fully explained
the observation.
That is not to say subsequent work by Rowland was not brilliant or
inappropriate.  Only that historically speaking, there was a lot of
politics (read: money) involved, and science took a back seat to these
motivations.
>Just another dittohead parrot, are you?  Into mental
>masturbation?  So wrapped up in yourself you think your arm-chair
>postulating is going to turn science on its ear?  To me you are just
>another contumatious punk, in a long line of egoists.  A troll. 
You might be more convincing if you spent as much time on research as
you spend writing this abusive nonsense.
> Well Jim, it would seem that we may have a master propiganda artist 
> on the echo. The guy is good! He claims to be "objective" while 
> spewing inacuracies and omitting facts.
When you attack someone like this, it makes sense to discuss what they
are saying, and back this up with an argument, rather than spewing
abuse.
> 6. Even if the ozone hole turns out to be a myth, the danger is too
> great to risk ignoring it. 
What danger?  Isn't that this discussion is all about?
> Yeah, he said objective! Hey Jim! Ever hear of Global Climate 
> Coalition? co-founded by Du Pont. Alliance for Responsible 
> CFC Policy? co-founded by Du Pont in 1980.
As I have already pointed out, Du Pont no longer holds the patents on
CFCs, and has a considerable amount of money invested in R&D; into CFC
substitutes.  And you speak of "objectivity"?
> In 1992 the average ozone was 2% - 3% lower then any previous reading
> and 1.5% lower than computer models predicted.
This is trivial by comparison with daily, seasonal and global
variations.  It is also a "spot" measurement and does not in any way
indicate a downward trend.
>>The fact that the investigation seemed from the outset to be a witch 
>>hunt for CFCs, that Dupont's patent on CFCs had recently expired, and 
>Tired, tired tired..
Do you deny my claim?  If so, why?
>>On investigation of the chemistry of ozone depletion (which I admit 
>>is an extraordinarily brilliant example of theoretical chemistry), I 
>>discovered that ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon.  The 
>>ingredients for the process, inorganic chlorine (HCl, CLONO2, HOCl) 
>>arising from the photolysis of methyl chloride, and PSCs, occur 
>>naturally. 
>No doubt, someone else has defeated this tired, overused argument.
This "tired, overused argument" is based on current ozone depletion
theory.
>>I suggested this to some emminent scientists in the field, Ralph 
>>Cicerone, and F. Sherwood Rowlands.  Both agreed with the general 
>>principles I presented, but when pushed seemed to avoid the 
>>question.  For example the former simply stated:
>> "Evidence that the polar ozone depletion is due to CFC's, similar
>> chlorocarbons and some very stable bromocarbons is quite compelling."
>>which I agree is partially true, but does not answer the question.
>Of course it does, asshole, can't you read?  WHAT!?!  You expected him
>to force the education down your throat that you never bothered to get
>on your own?  
It doesn't answer the question.  Prior to CFCs there was sufficient Cl
in the stratosphere  to cause ozone depletion.  That CFCs etc have an
effect is not in question.  What I am suggesting is that the ozone
hole has always been there, and that CFCs are enhancing a natural
phenomenon, rather than being the sole cause.
And you are in no position to lecture me on my education, Doug.  Your
ozone page does not display any real knowledge on your part re ozone
depletion.  It only shows your political bias.
>Fact is, the ignorant all seem to know it all.  But they
>don't fool anybody but those even more ignorant.
I note from your post, that you live by your doctrine.
>Drop by my ozone page sometime.  You could lean something.
>It even has daily pics of da changing hole.   
>http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-o3.html
>--Doug Bashford (1996)
Thanks, Doug, I have seen the information in your links, and read
Parsons FAQ, and quite a lot more than that.
What you don't seem to understand is that none of the material you
think proves me wrong, actually addresses the issues which I am
raising:
That ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon.
That there is no evidence of biological harm from ozone loss.
That the Montreal Protocol addresses the issue appropriately.
Now, I have posted a suitably referenced article on these issues (it
follows).  If you wish to discuss this matter further, I strongly
recommend that you address each of these issues, with adequate
references drawn from your links.  Otherwise you identify yourself as
one of those "dittohead parrots" you despise.
-----------------
1. Ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon.
The chemistry involved in polar stratospheric ozone depletion has been
well researched and is described in a number of excellent
publications.
The following description of the ozone depletion chemistry is derived 
from Parson's Ozone FAQ at http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu
/hypertext/faq/usenet/ozone-depletion/antarctic/faq-doc-12.html.
Briefly, ozone depletion results from the reaction of inorganic
chlorine compounds (HCl, ClONO2) on the surface of polar stratospheric
clouds PSCs.The inorganic Cl compounds arise from the photolysis of
organic compounds which rise to the stratosphere by eddy diffusion.
These organochlorides include methyl chloride (natural) and CFCs.
PSCs are crystals of nitrogen compounds (eg nitric acid) and water.
They occur at -80 deg C.  PSCs do not occur at greater than this
temperature.
During winter, inorganic Cl compounds HCl and ClONO2 react with the
PSCs to form large amounts of ClO.  When the sun returns in spring,
the ClO reacts rapidly as follows:
     ClO + ClO -> ClOOCl
   ClOOCl + hv -> Cl + ClOO
          ClOO -> Cl + O2
   2 Cl + 2 O3 -> 2 ClO + 2 O2
          ^^^^
In recent times ozone Antarctic ozone depletion has been measured to 
increase each year.  This correlates with the increased abundance of 
inorganic Cl due to the increase of man-made CFCs.  However there are 
a number of anomalies which cast doubt on the idea that this is the 
sole cause of the so-callesd ozone hole.
(1) Ozone depletion also correlates very strongly with PSC
concentration. 
For example consider the correlation between observed temperature
rise, and decrease in observed ozone depletion in 1988. [Shanklin].
In that case, reduced PSCs due to relatively high temperatures
resulted in a dramatic decline in ozone depletion rates.
Since inorganic Cl compounds and PSCs occur naturally, and 1993 UARS 
measurements and studies of Arctic ozone depletion [Waters et al]
[Gleason et al] show that PSCs are critical in the reaction, the 
entire observation of Antarctic ozone depletion can be logically 
expained by natural mechanisms involving cyclical stratospheric 
temperature variations.
(2) There has always been a relatively large burden of inorganic Cl 
    present.
Since direct measurement of the gaseous composition of the
stratospherehas been occurring only for the last 20 or so years, proof
by direct measurement of the natural state is not possible, and all
discussion on this subject is of course speculative.
However HCl was first measured in 1976 [Farmer et al.] [Eyre and
Roscoe].It is now well known that in the stratosphere the HCl mixing
ratio increases with altitude, rapidly up to about 35 km, and then
more slowly up to 55km and beyond.
Also it is known that the mixing ratios of naturally occurring CH3Cl
shows a rapid decrease with altitude in the stratosphere.  The
turnover in organic chlorine correlates nicely with the increase in
inorganic chlorine.  This suggests that CH3Cl may be being photolyzed
as it rises high enough in the stratosphere to experience enough
short-wavelength UV. [Fabian et al. ] [Zander et al. 1987] [Zander et
al. 1992] [Penkett et al.]
Methyl chloride (CH3Cl) comes mostly from natural (biological)
sources, and is estimated to pass from the troposphere to the
stratosphere at the rate of about 1 Mt/year.  It is reasonable to
assume that this flux has been occurring, at least at this rate, for
about a billion years.
Whilst there are well known natural sources of organic and inorganic
chlorine, and proven mechanisms for the transportation to the
stratosphere, there are no demonstrable mechanisms for the removal of
HCl from the stratosphere.  The argument that a drop off of HCl with
altitude in the troposphere is evidence of a low natural upward flux,
may also be applied to the stratosphere in reverse.
[From Parsons FAQ, Copyright 1995]
 "...the mixing ratio of HCl _decreases_ with altitude in the
troposphere,
 reaching vanishingly small values at the tropopause, and then
_increases_
 with altitude in the stratosphere.  This rules out all processes in
 which HCl slowly drifts upward from the troposphere."
This also implies that there is no downward drift either.
Therefore, if there is no significant sink for HCl in the
stratosphere, then a low flux over millenia of volcanic and biological
activity will produce a large natural burden of inorgnic chlorine
reservoir compounds in the stratosphere, at least as significant as
the natural tropospheric burden.
Consider that mixing ratio measurements for HCl from Kitt Peak go from
1.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1977 to ~2.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1990.  The
source for this is Rinland et al., J. Geophys. Res. _96_, 15523, 20
Aug 1991 (with thanks to Robert Parsons).  I assume these figures are
for stratospheric HCl only.
Assuming the above figures to be correct, then I calculate:
HCl Mixing ratio  = 2.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1990
Area of earth     = 510E6km^2 = 5.1E18cm^2
No. molecules HCl = 1.326E34 molecules
No. moles HCl     = 1.326E34/6.02E23
                  = 2.2E10 moles
Mass of HCl       = 2.2E10 * 36 grams/mole
                  = 7.9E11 g
                  = 790 kt
Assuming that the increase is entirely from CFCs (ie avoiding the
volcano debate), the contribution from CFCs is about 23kt /year or
less than 3% of total Cl from CFC flux (~1-2Mt/year).
Also calculating the mass of HCl in 1977 and extrapolating backwards,
the natural burden of HCl is about 450 kt.
Therefore inorganic Cl compound flux from CFCs is small compared to
the natural burden of HCl in the stratosphere.
BTW the contribution from natural sources -photolysing of methyl
chloride and perhaps (gasp) volcanos - is about 1/4 of that from CFCs
[WMO 1991] [Solomon] [AASE] [Rowland 1989,1991] [Wayne], or about 500
t/year.  This is the mechanism for generating the 450kt natural
burden.
One observation which suggests a natural burden of inorganic Cl
follows:
 Measurements in the Chappuis ozone absorption band by the
Astrophysical  Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution at Mount
Wilson, California,  in 1912 were studied by Gotz and others, who
reported on the ozone  decline in various publications. Katmai erupted
when inorganic chlorine  from anthropogenic sources was probably at
negligible levels. 
 Courtesy Forrest M. Mims III,  Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network
(SPAN)
Also from Parson - Copyright 1995:
                                           "The total amount of HF
 in the stratosphere increased by a factor of 3-4 between 1978 and
 1989 [Zander et al., 1990] [Rinsland et al.]; the relative increase 
 is larger for HF than for HCl (a factor of 2.2 over the same period)
 because the natural source, and hence the baseline concentration,
 is much smaller."
Translation:  there is much more natural stratospheric HCl than HF 
arising from anthropogenic sources.
The only evidence against the notion of a large natural burden of
inorganic Cl compounds is that Dobson, as quoted in his book Exploring
the Atmosphere failed to measure a significant drop in ozone in his
initial observations during the 50s and 60s.  The reasoning is that
since PSCs are naturally ubiquitous (and ASSUMED a constant factor)
then no observed ozone depletion means no stratospheric Cl compounds.
It is worth noting that one of Dobson's co-workers, Marcel Nicolet,
admitted in a TV interview, that during the 50s and 60s, anomalous
readings below 250 DU were not officially recorded because, said
Dobson: "Noone will believe them". (ref: Interview on Belgian TV "Fair
skin, stay in." Sept 18, 1992).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ozone depletion causes no biological damage.
Ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant UV increase, 
because the sun is so low on the horizon.  Also the area affected is 
almost entirely devoid of life larger than microbes.
At mid-latitudes increase in UV due to ozone depletion is very low 
compared to daily, seasonal and global variations.  This is due to an 
absence of PSCs (at mid-latitudes) and so ozone depletion only takes 
place there in the presence of sulphate aerosols from volcanic
activity (which is natural).
In urban areas of the US, UV-B levels showed no significant increase
(and in most cases actually decreased a little) between 1974 and
1985. [Scotto et al.].  This is probably due to increasing urban
pollution, including low-level ozone and aerosols. [Grant]
[from Parsons FAQ, Copyright 1995] Several studies [Kerr and McElroy]
[Mims] [Seckmayer et al.]  [Zerefos et al.] have presented evidence of
short-term UV-B increases at middle latitudes associated with the
record low ozone levels in 1992-93. As discussed in Part I, these low
ozone levels are probably due to stratospheric sulfate aerosols from
the 1991 eruption of Mt.Pinatubo;
Studies done prior to the Mt Pinatubo eruption show no more than a
correlation with the flow of ozone poor polar air during the
summertime breakdown of the polar vorticies.  At most the effects are
only a few percent, which is insignificant relative to daily, seasonal
and global variations.
There is also considerable evidence which supports the assertion that
fatal melanomas are related to UV-A and natural light (and not UV-B).
This means that it is not possible to correlate ozone depletion with
human fatality. [Balliunas]
Considering the fact that UV levels have not risen significantly in 
populated areas and that it is unlikely that small increases in UV-B
will have negative effects anyway, it is difficult formulate a
testable hypothesis, let alone devise a test to prove that ozone
depletion causes biological harm.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Montreal Protocol is expensive, and ineffective in curbing
ozone depletion.
From MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER  
LONDON, 27-29 JUNE 1990
           ARTICLE 5:  SPECIAL SITUATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES18
 1.   Any Party that is a developing country and whose annual
calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Annex
A is less than 0.3 kilograms per capita on the date of the entry into
force of the Protocol for it, or any time thereafter [within ten years
of the date of entry into force of the Protocol] until 1 January 1999,
shall, in order to meet its basic domestic needs, be entitled to delay
for ten years its compliance with the control measures set out in
Articles 2A to 2E [...]
That is over 100 Mt of CFCs, which developing countries may release
into the atmosphere, which is far more than the 1990 annual rate for 
developing countries.  What's more, further restrictions are based on 
the funding of technology transfers from developed to developing 
countries, a hidden cost in the abolition of CFCs for countries like 
Australia.
Also China, Japan, Indonesia and Korea are not party to the Montreal 
Protocol, while developed countries (which are party to the MP) like
Australia are obliged, according to the Montreal Protocol, to pay for
the changes in infrastructure in developing countries.  
Not only is the MP an ineffective solution, but it is expensive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Robert Parsons Ozone FAQ Copyright 1995.  In particular 
sections (2.6) How is chlorine distributed in the stratosphere?, and
(7.) Why is the hole in the Antarctic?
[Balliunas] Dr Sallie Balliunas PHD, 13th 
annual congress of doctors for disaster preparation - "Is the ozone 
layer threatened?" 1995.)
[Shanklin]J. D. Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey, personal 
communications,  1993-95.
[Rinland et al]Rinland et al., J. Geophys. Res. _96_, 15523, 20 Aug
1991
[Waters et al.] J. Waters, L. Froidevaux, W. Read, G. Manney, L.
Elson, D. Flower, R. Jarnot, and R. Harwood, "Stratospheric ClO and
ozone from the Microwave Limb Sounder on the Upper Atmosphere
Research Satellite", _Nature_ _362_, 597, 1993.
[Gleason et al.] J. Gleason, P. Bhatia, J. Herman, R. McPeters, P.
Newman, R. Stolarski, L. Flynn, G. Labow, D. Larko, C. Seftor, C.
Wellemeyer, W. Komhyr, A. Miller, and W. Planet, "Record Low Global
Ozone in 1992", _Science_ _260_, 523, 1993.
[Farmer et al.] C.B. Farmer, O.F. Raper, and R.H. Norton,
"Spectroscopic detection and vertical distribution of HCl in the
troposphere and stratosphere", Geophys. Res. Lett. 3, 13, 1975.
[Eyre and Roscoe] J. Eyre and H. Roscoe, "Radiometric measurement
of stratospheric HCl", Nature 266, 243, 1977.
[Fabian et al. 1979] P. Fabian, R. Borchers, K.H. Weiler, U.
Schmidt, A. Volz, D.H. Erhalt, W. Seiler, and F. Mueller,
"Simultaneously measured vertical profile of H2, CH4, CO, N2O,
CFCl3, and CF2Cl2 in the mid-latitude stratosphere and
troposphere", J. Geophys. Res.  84, 3149, 1979.
[Fabian et al. 1981] P. Fabian, R. Borchers, S.A. Penkett, and
N.J.D. Prosser, "Halocarbons in the Stratosphere", Nature 294,
733, 1981.
[Penkett et al.] S.A. Penkett, R.G. Derwent, P. Fabian, R.
Borchers, and U. Schmidt, "Methyl Chloride in the Stratosphere",
Nature 283, 58, 1980.
[Zander et al. 1987] R. Zander, C. P. Rinsland, C. B. Farmer, and
R. H. Norton, "Infrared Spectroscopic measurements of halogenated
source gases in the stratosphere with the ATMOS instrument", J.
Geophys. Res. 92, 9836, 1987.
[Zander et al. 1992] R. Zander, M. R. Gunson, C. B. Farmer, C. P.
Rinsland, F. W. Irion, and E. Mahieu, "The 1985 chlorine and
fluorine inventories in the stratosphere based on ATMOS observations
at 30 degrees North latitude",  J. Atmos. Chem. 15, 171, 1992.

Can anyone give me a good reference for measurements of UV 
radiation at ground level at the same place over the last 20 
odd years, please. I know about the annual thinning in the ozone 
layer but what effect has this had on radiation been received 
here on earth? Does the increase(?) correlate with any 
information on the known response of human skin to UV?

        Len Evens posted in part:
>I finally understand now how you got the mistaken impression that I
>believed that a significance level of 5 % (or any of the other clumsy
>statements I made) meant that I had said that the probability of the
>null hypothesis was  5 %.   While it is possible to come to such a
>conclusion logically, I don't believe that any reasonable person reading
>what I said would have read it that way.   Of course, the p-value tells
>us nothing whatsoever about the probability in the precise technical
>sense of the null hypothesis since it is calculated assuming the truth
>of the null hypothesis.   What it does if it is small is cast doubt on
>the validity of the null hypothesis in the ordinary common sense natural
>language sense of that term.   The smaller the value, the more doubt.
>
>Since I am not a statistician and I haven't examined the data in detail
>nor have I examined what Karl, et. al. did, I can't say for sure that
>they got it right.   But I don't think you can say the opposite either.
        I think what I would claim is that what they say in their
Consequences article is (at best) open to misinterpretation.
        Examples of such misinterpretation (at best) appear in two New
York Times articles in January of this year.
        On 1/8/96 ("The Blizzard of 1996: The Cause: Deep Jet-stream
Shifts make the blizzard possible" by William K. Stevevns, Sec 1, p31)
the New York Times wrote in part:
        "Government scientists say they have found more precipitation
is falling in extremely heavy one-day events than was true 20 years
ago, and they are 90 to 95 percent sure that the change has resulted
from the effects of the heat-trapping gases released by the burning
of fossil fuels like coal and oil."
        and on 1/14/96 ("Ideals & Trends; Blame Global Warming for the
Blizzard" by William K. Stevens, Sec 4, p. 4) the New York Times wrote
in part:
        "By comparing this pattern with the pattern of climate change
that computer simulations indicate should result from an increase in
heat-trapping 'greenhouse' gases like carbon dioxide, the analysts
concluded that there is a 90 to 95 percent chance that the increase
in extremes was caused by the increase in greenhouse gases."
        Both articles quote Thomas R. Karl of the National Climate
Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
        Of course it is possible the New York Times got it wrong.
On the other hand perhaps the Times reporter is accurately reporting
what he was told by Karl.
        Btw the second article also states:
        "... Mr Karl has not been known as a doom-sayer on the
question of global warming."
        I wonder what the source for this was.
                    James B. Shearer

hi ,all
I'll be very appreciate,if anyone can tell me where I can find some test  
method about ,wastewater treatment mechanics like ozonizer system,aeration 
system,diffuser, oil skimmer,reverse osmosis system....etc.
walter
my e-mail is  
f820082@erlb.erl.itri.org.tw                                                   

Steve Conover, Sr. (scsr@airmail.net) wrote:
: William F. Hummel wrote:
: > 
: > Steve Conover, Sr. (scsr@airmail.net) wrote:
: > 
: > : It's the rich who have to worry about the rich.  We do not live in a
: > : caste system; those who constitute "the rich" are changing all the
: > : time.  Bunker Hunt used to be one of "the rich," but he is unimportant
: > : today.  Bill Gates wasn't one of the rich twenty years ago, but that
: > : changed, too -- and may change again.
: > ----------
: > You seem to be implying that the rich fall from their perch because of
: > taxes.  Don't worry about it.  Taxes are not their problem.
: Wrong.  Taxes don't unseat the rich.  The rich are adept at tax
: avoidance, and as tax rates climb, they spend a growing proportion of
: their energy avoiding taxes, instead of finding productive places to
: employ their capital.  
: No, high taxes don't punish the rich; they punish would-be entrepreneurs
: in need of that capital.  Entrepreneurs who would unseat the old rich,
: if only they had access to the capital being hidden from taxes in times
: of high rates.  
: > : > Wealth does not distribute itself equitably of its own accord.
: Did you mean a free market doesn't distriute it equitably?  What is it,
: then, that DOES distribute wealth equitably? ...in your opinion, of
: course. 
---------
That's not what I meant, but it is certainly true that a "free market", 
if there is such a thing, does not lead to equitable distribution.  It 
leads to just the opposite, a society in which some get steadily richer 
and the rest scratch for a living.  Surely you know about the days of the 
robber barons.  Fortunately there is no free market to that degree any 
longer. 
: > ...What I do
: > argue against is the system of positive feedback in which those with
: > wealth, through financial and/or political muscle, can tilt the playing
: > field in their own favor, thereby making life tougher for the rest.  
:  
: I said the government should ensure a LEVEL playing field.  A tilted
: playing field is not level, is it?  ...such as Chrysler's convincing the
: government in the early '80's to tilt the playing field by guaranteeing
: its loans, to save Chrysler from bankruptcy...
: > I agree that the entrepreneur is a necessary part of the wealth creating
: > process that benefits society as a whole, but I don't worship at his altar.
: Entrepreneurs with money ARE the wealth-creating engine of society. 
: Without them, the economy would stagnate; THEN all we'd have to talk
: about is how best to redistribute a fixed (...no wait, a SHRINKING)
: pie.  Entrepreneurs and capital would flee to better opportunities
: overseas.  
: So, since you don't "worship" at the entrepreneur's altar, which altar
: DO you worship at?  John Kenneth Galbraith's? 
----------
Try another guess.
: > No, we need more than just a level playing field.  We need laws that
: > protect the public from monopoly pricing (anti-trust), the consumer
: > from ripoffs (truth in advertising), the investor (anti-fraud measures),
: > the environment (toxic waste controls), for example.  
: You just described some of the justice and level-playing-field functions
: of government.  
----------
There are those who think a level playing field means simply no artificial 
barriers.  The problem is wealth buys power, both political and economic.
Our system is supposed to provide a level playing field, but in fact it 
fails rather miserably in many ways.  You can't become a Congressman for 
less than $1 million right now and the price goes up every year.  If you 
were a billionaire, you could easily win a Senate seat if you wanted to.
The carpet bagger from Texas, Huffington, came to California and with his
fortune of a reported $80 million almost bought the Senate seat that 
Feinstein won.  No, what I mean by a level playing field is so far distant, 
it will not happen in my lifetime.    
William F. Hummel

In article <58fe0c$8g8@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
   tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
>       Evidence doesn't predict anything. People do.                   
>       People can construct different models from the same data. Before
>outcome is discussed, the question of validity; whether a model
>functions; exists, must be answered. If the data input to a potential
>model consistently manifests no measurable outcome, and the same data
>into a separate model consistently manifests a measurable outcome, a
>function exists in the latter, rendering the former invalid.
>Correctness of outcomes, on the other hand, is a question of degree.   
>       There are no outcomes for global cooling or stasis. The global
>warming model functions.                                               
>       I'm sure glad you're not a decision maker.                      
>                                                                       
>                                  
I'll concede that the global warming models (at least some of them) do 
function.  This can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that certain inputs 
lead to outputs that make sense.  However, how do we know that the output 
of the present models accurately predicts the correct temperature gain for 
a given amount of CO2 (or methane, or any other disturbance you care to 
name) that is injected into the atmosphere?  Just because a correct heat 
and material balance is done does not mean that all constraints are 
properly modelled, or that all feedback loops are correct or even 
identified.
I've beat this dead horse way too much in the past.  If you don't get 
physical data that verifies your predictions, you have no way of knowing if 
the models are correct.  If you don't know if the models are correct, you 
have no business using them to set policy.  If you want a change that has 
such political overtones, you are wasting your time trying to justify it 
with science in the first place.

In article <58fr32$p1k@News2.Lakes.com>,
   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
(Big cut of sensible global warming arguments)
>wrong its nothing more than an ostrich head in the sand approach. It
>completely ignores the emerging signal and totally disregards the
>findings of the iipc report.
This point keeps coming up.  Some of the more convinced enviros assume that 
people who don't want to take immediate action, don't want to take action 
at all.  Once again, this is way over-simplified.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!

>I work for Ontario Hydro.  We started around the turn of the century
>with the hydro plant at Niagra Falls.  This led to a significant
>building boom of using various water falls and so on round the
>province for generation. Most of the good sites were used fairly
>early.  Now we generate approximately 60% of Ontario's power
>by Nuclear.  I work in nuclear safety.
>
>And before you leap to your feet and shout "Ah Hah!"  you should
>know that there never was anybody who was harder on nuclear
>safety than a nuclear safety analyst.  It's our ass in a sling
>if anything goes wrong.  We and our families live near these
>plants. We work in these plants.  We will get blamed if any
>tiny little thing is not what it should be.  But when we are
>hard on the industry, we do it with informed criticism, not
>wild eyed froth.
  Dan,  I am an ex- Ontario Hydro employee, and was a Unit Operator
at Lakeview TGS.  I don't consider concerns about our nuclear plants
"wild eyed froth", and obviously neither does the AECB when there are
such serious concerns about even renewing operating licences at some
plants.  It's a matter of what you consider "acceptable risk", and your 
tolerence may be higher than others  (mine included).  
>I'm not hostile to wind power as such. I am hostile to people who
>make claims and can't back them up.  When I ask questions like how
>much area it would take to equal a 1200MW electrical plant, I get
>wishy-wahsy answers.  I find this rather aggravating.  People make
 I don't think anyone is proposing an out and out complete replacement
of our generating capacity with wind power, and at this stage is not 
suggesting 1200MW wind plants.  Ontario Hydro uses a mixture of 
nuclear, thermal, and hydro generation, at many different installed
capacities, and 'system' utilizes each for maximum effectivness (ever tried 
to run a reactor as a "peaking producer"?)
  Take a trip to system control and learn a little more about the actual
generation and utilization of power for "the grid".
>I'm not hostile to environmental concerns as such. I have
>a sign over my desk that says "Another Environmentalist
>for Nuclear Energy." I am hostile to people who make claims
>about their alternatives that seem to be unaware of the
>results of applying them in large scale.
 Not all "large scale" is good, and Hydro uses many small hydraulics
wherever feasable, the same can be done for alternative energy sources.
Hydro is far, far too stuck with large installed capacity, but it IS a great 
place for NUG's to work  (Non-Utility Generation for non-hydroids).
  Private producers could have a good shot at it if REAL generation costs
were in the picture.
> Occasionally
>flocks of starlings will pass over in sight of my apartment
>building.  These flocks take 10's of minutes to pass at times.
>Picture them wandering into a field of your 10MW turbines
>during an especially windy day.  Since the trees are all
>gone for 10's of km around, they will try to land on the
>pilons.  What a mess!  There would be snow-drifts of dead
>birds under the blades.
  Every form of electrical generation has it's impacts.  Hydraulics flood 
massive areas of land, and impact aquatic life.  Fossil fueled plants produce
airborne emissions, and thermal polution.  Nukes produce thermal polution,
and they STILL haven't figured out what to do with your waste, cause it IS
so dangerous.
>Numbers guy.  We need numbers backed by experiment and
>demonstration sites to be able to evaluate wind generation.
  That's what this discussion is about.  All forms of generation we use now 
have had decades or centuries of research and experimentation to bring 
them to the level of technology they are at today.  Wind, solar, wave, etc 
are in their infancy in comparison. 
  No need to jump on top of some free-thinkers just for expressing ideas.
K. Jones

		* Environmental Quotes * Daily...
	"The air is fragrant with summer- swamp scent - a blend of mud, algae,
soapflower, and buttonbush.  All around us is the sleepy music of
summer swamp - the rattle of a kingfisher, the chucking of the now
mostly quiet red-winged blackbirds, the banjo twang of green frogs, the
buzz of cicadas starting in one red maple and picking up in another.  I
learned a long time ago that one of the things swamps are good for is
slowing summers that go by too fast. "
		- Ted Williams, "What Good Is a Wetland?", Nov-Dec. Audubon magazine
	Thank you for reading.
	Love to get feedback.  Please email to my mailbox only...Thank you...
Jonathan Layburn
Founder - * Environmental Quotes * Daily...

Thomas A McGraw wrote:
> 
>    A body heading directly toward Earth, needs only a slight change in
> trajectory to miss us by millions of miles.
> 
But whether or not such a slight change is possible would depend on a
variety of factors such as its mass, when it was discovered, its orbit,
etc.    There has been some discussion of these matters in publications
like Scientific American, and it is my memory that the possibility of
having to break up an approaching object might be the best we could
accomplish in certain circumstances.   My original comments hold.   
The question was whether or not this is something that could be left to
the military, presumably the US Miltary.   I still say that detection
and deflection or break up of an object which might collide with the
Earth and prduce great damage is something which by its very nature
requires international cooperation.   It is not basically a military
problem, and while military technology could be involved in dealing with
a threat, thinking of it that way is a mistake.   Militaries exist to
either deter or to fight wars with foreign human enemies, not to deflect
asteroids.
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

On 8 Dec 1996 01:36:48 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>In <587ngd$l83@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
>writes: 
>>>: And *that* was a great time to be alive, eh , Yuri?
>>
>>Brian's good point aside, Yuri's claim is bloody unllikely to have
>>been true.  More plausible is that each encroaching ice-age brought
>>immense die-backs, to say nothing of horrible wars at the margins
>>between different human groups.
>
>This is more than plausible;
>many groups have died off completely.
>Nevertheless, Yuri's claim is, in a sense, true:
>on the *average*, the human population of the globe only
>increased slowly: by the factor of maybe thirty of fifty
>in a million years. 
Yes. And, to borrow the AIDS activists slogan a bit,
STABILITY=DEATH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell                   http://www.carnell.com/
brian@carnell.com   

On 8 Dec 1996 12:40:43 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>: Let us avoid the apparently contentious word "stable",
>: and just say that through the Paleolithic
>: the global human population grew very slowly,
>: though it had its ups and downs.
>: The growth accelerated in the Neolithic;
>: even more in the Bronze Age and in the classical
>: antiquity; even more in the Middle Ages;
>: and it really skyrocketed with the Industrial
>: Revolution. 
>
>This is what I meant to say originally.
>
>Yuri.
So you would prefer to have lived in pre-industrial times?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell                   http://www.carnell.com/
brian@carnell.com   

James B. Shearer wrote:
        Btw the second article also states:
>         "... Mr Karl has not been known as a doom-sayer on the
> question of global warming."
>         I wonder what the source for this was.
>                     James B. Shearer
I believe this has also been reported in Nature or Science.   There is
no real way to know why science reporters think this without asking
them.    I would conjecture that they asked around among climatologists
they know and that is what they have been told.   Since this is not
really a scientific statement but rather a statement about a science, I
imagine ordinary journalistic standards apply.   While Stevens might
have misunderstood some of Karl's science, I doubt if he could have got
something like this entirely wrong, but of course I could be wrong.
In any case, Karl has a very extensive publication record and is an
established authority in observational climatology.   One can judge his
biases by studying his publications in some detail.
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

Had Shoemaker-Levy been headed toward the earth when detected near
Jupiter, a delta v of 1/4 meter/sec would have sufficed (at that time)
to prevent it from hitting the earth.  A few hundred kilotons of
energy would have done it.  Given inefficiencies, a few megatons of
nuclear explosive would have sufficed.
However, we couldn't have gotten the explosives to the comet right
away.  Maybe an emergency effort could have met it half way.  In this
case the energy requirement would be multiplied by 4.
This assumes that the nuclear explosion was at a distance and the
energy delivered in the form of x-rays that would vaporize the nearest
20 cm of surface of the comet, giving the comet as a whole a gentle
push.  If the comet were already broken up there would be
complications.
Any such emergency action would have a substantial chance to not work.
The astronomers I asked all said that there was no chance that
Shoemaker-Levy would head for the earth because it was too closely
bound to Jupiter's orbit.
There was a discussion of all this in _Nature_ a few years ago.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.