Newsgroup sci.environment 112528

Directory

B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>The best solution when participating in an
>active thread is to use the WWW. Both Alta Vista and Deja News
>offer access to current threads - you can even post from them.
Thanks for the advice Bruce.
>The tragedy of this thread is that there may be specific 
>scientific issues that require clarification, but a careful reading 
>of Robert's superb FAQ would  have provided pointers to the 
>literature. 
Actually Bruce, I have read the FAQ (several times), and spent some
time looking through the literature.  I don't really wish to contend
any of the conclusions in that literature, but I find Parsons is
somewhat opinionated on the fringe issues (ie bio harm).  That is not
a criticism (I am also opinionated), just an observation.  I agree
with every word of the FAQ re chemistry and atmospheric dynamics, but
I disagree on certain matters of history, validity of observational
data, and potential harmful effects of ozone depletion.  On the later
the FAQ tries desperately to prove harm, and includes little
discussion or contrary literature.
>The post that started this thread was a mixture of
>denial of too much of the accumulated scientific evidence and
>spurious conspirary claims involving CFC producers. 
I admit that the original post was full of rhetoric, and sci.env was
the wrong place for it.
On the issue of conspiracy claims, I recant!  But I'm not sure what
you are referring to when you say "denial" of scientific evidence.
>Several specific posts with references might have motivated
>a more rational discussion with references, but as you didn't
>bother, why should others?.   
Since my original post, I have made every effort in this regard.
Surely it is time to call off the dogs, and concentrate on the debate.
...Greig

In article <58m249$dgp@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
   tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
>In <58l2p6$760_013@pm0-45.hal-pc.org> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
>writes: 
>>
>>In article <32ADE98A.A65@ix.netcom.com>, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>Jim Scanlon wrote:
>>>> 
>>>......
>>>.....
>>>> 
>>>> The mutability of species is confirmed by the fossil record,
>embryology,
>>>> anatomy, experimental observation, and now, by molecular analysis.
>>>> 
>>>> As to how this occurs, there exists an enormous body of evidence 
>>gathered
>>>> over the last century, from different sources, against intense 
>>hostility,
>>>> which supports the neo-Darwinian approach.
>>>
>>>etc.
>>>
>>>I reply:
>>>
>>>A nice, rational summary.
>>
>>I agree.  BTW, I also happen to believe that much of the theory of 
>>evolution is in fact correct.  Adaptation of species has been
>demonstrated. 
>>Whether we can demonstrate that one species can evolve into another is
>a 
>>bigger question.
>>                                                                      
>    "We" don't demonstrate anything. We either observe mutation or we
>don't. One either accepts that evolution takes place or not. One can't 
>accept adaptation and have a question as to whether species evolve from
>one to the other. You can't say that you accept and reject it at the
>same time. You either accept it or creation. Acceptence of one is a
>rejection of the other. I understand your type though; when someone
>shows you a fork in the road, you take the fork.                       
>                                                                       
We have observed that species adapt to their environment.  We have not 
observed one species evolve into another one, nor have we found true fossil 
missing links that clearly demonstrate this.  At this point, it's not a 
foregone conclusion that man adapted from apes, but it is a good theory.
And, by the way, acceptance of one is not total rejection of the other.  It 
is perfectly reasonable to hold the belief that God created man through the 
action of evolution.  However, I realize that you will try to hold me to 
the literal interpretation of the bible, and tell me that I must believe 
that the earth was created in six 24 hour days.  I don't strictly believe 
this either, but we are getting off the point.
BTW, what "type" are you?
>                                                                       
>                                                                       
>                                                                       
>                       
>>Apparently, many people assumed that just because I mentioned
>evolution 
>>that I didn't believe in it.  I mentioned it to point out that it is
>still 
>>considered a theory rather than a fact.                               
>                                                                       
>  A theory starts as a hypothosis that attempts to explain an
>observation. Then, scientific tests are devised to create evidence to
>support the hypothosis. These tests are repeated and changed many times
>by many different operators. Over time, a consensus is developed that
>graduates the hypothosis to a theory. For example, gravity is a theory.
>  Theories themselves can never BE facts. Rather, theories are made up
>of facts.                                                              
>                                                                       
>                                                                       
>                                                                      
>I expect that many things that are 
>>presently taken as established fact are closer to theory.             
>                                                                       
> It's a fact that there are theories, but a fact can never BE a theory.
>  Your sentences are riddled with logical errors.                      
No; your interpretation is riddled with misunderstanding.  I was speaking 
of the many posters in this group that often don't seem to distinguish 
between fact and theory.
>                                                                       
>                                                                       
> One should be 
>>careful about holding on too tightly to currently accepted ideas, as
>there 
>>are occasional paradigm shifts that become upsetting to the
>closed-minded.
>                                                                       
>    The closed-minded don't get upset, they block. Try to convince
>someone from the Flat Earth Society that it's round. 
Try to convince an environmentalist that we should do more study on the CO2 
emission "problem" before we take action.

Dave Newton  wrote:
>Sorta like a useful response, only different.
>
>John Hughes wrote:
>> Kjones@interlynx.net wrote:
>>>Nukes produce thermal polution, and they STILL haven't figured out what 
>>>to do with your waste, cause it IS so dangerous.
>> You are Wrong. I do something with the waste every day.
>
>   What do you do with the nuclear waste?
>
Simple.  Initially, you leave it right where it is.  No waste is
removed from a nuclear reactor on a continuing basis, it is only
removed from the reactor during refueling periods, which occur
about every 18-24 months in most plants.
During that refueling period, about 1/3 of the core material is replaced
the rest remains in the reactor, but in a new position.
The removed material, which has been contributing to heat generation
for an average of 4-6 years, is put into a deep swimming pool.  In
most plants in the US, that is where the compact waste remains.  In
other plants, some of the older "spent" fuel has been removed from the
pool and placed into relatively simple, extremely durable containers
which were then filled with an inert gas to prevent any corrosion. The
pressure of the gas in the containers is monitored to provide early
detection of any leakage paths.  The containers are either stored on
a concrete pad resembling a small parking lot, or placed into 
concrete bunkers with sealed access panels.
If you took all of the spent fuel that has been generated in nuclear
power reactors in the United States over the period from 1957 when
the Shippingport reactor first began generating power until the
present time, and put it into those dry storage containers, you could
fit all of the containers on a single football field without adding any
layers.
Now that you understand that process, here is a very simple question.
Where does the fossil fuel industry, which fuels about 65% of the 
electrical generating stations in the US, place its deadly waste 
products?  What is their plan for dealing with the potentially 
catastrophic effects of a gradual build-up in the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere?
Rod Adams
Atomic Energy Insights
available from
http://www.opennet.com/AAE

General query:  References, preferably on the web, for actual
measurements of emissions, e.g. NOx, HCl, SOx, CO, particulates,
aerosols from studio ceramic kilns, or close analogs.
A ceramist has asked me to look into the question for him.  I have found
some stuff about cement kilns, but not about the smaller studio kilns.
I'd especially like to find some direct measurements.
Can anyone here help?
Gavin Stairs, Engineer
University of Toronto Physics (HEP)
stairs@physics.utoronto.ca

Rick & Bea Tarara wrote: Again, one CAN be
> self-sufficient on a small rural farm--one cannot be in a city.
> 
> > Your "sink" idea rather reminds me of the idea that the countryside
> > supports the cities, which is of course not true.  Famines always
> > happen worst in rural areas; cities can buy food anywhere.  It is the
> > cities which provide the rural areas with the income they need to buy
> > the necessities -- energy, clothing, manufactured goods.  Food?  Hell,
> > anywhere there's sunlight or salt water.
> 
> How much food is grown in Manhattan?  Haven't seen many dairy farms in
> downtown Chicago.  Phoenix's water supplies?  Coal mines, iron mines, in
> downtown Pittsburgh?  Sorry--the raw materials, the FOOD, and often even
> the water that supports cities comes from the rural surroundings (not the
> suburbs which are only slightly less dense cities)--and certainly the
> energy resources as well.
> 
> .
The only people who are neccessary are those who produce the 
base-farmers, forestry, fishing, and mining.  ALL ELSE ARE PARASITES. 
When the parasites overload the host, the host dies and so does the 
parasites.  It is all simple biogly.  
Dale Wagner
Gardiner OR

Kevin Sterner wrote:
> 
> I would put my money on it's (danger) 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.
> 
For years now all I've heard on either side is personal opinions and guesses.
Many of which (on both sides) seem to be biased for various reasons.
Sounds like what we need is a good verifiable double-blind study to assess
exactly what the risk really comes out to be.
Of course we will need to find about a thousand people willing to radiate 
themselves for science!              Any volunteers?
Jay

Belial wrote:
> 
> 
>         What stake do university researchers have in the oil industry?
Isn't the question what stake do the deep-pocket people have in the universities?
If you were running a Multi-Billion-Dollar business wouldn't you occasionally
award research grants to your favorite school in order to foster more and
better education? 
Would you as a university researcher bite the hand that feeds you?
> Wouldn't the researchers from 90 universities want the patent on the
> device which could utilitize this energy?  MAss production of the
> engine would bring millions in revenue.
> How much do Universities currently profit from owning patents now?
Jay

Kjones@interlynx.net wrote:
> 
> >I work for Ontario Hydro.  We started around the turn of the ....
...... 
> >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.
> 
> K. Jones
I don't know who wrote all this exactly but in was in this post. Well
here is a completely non-wishy washy number on the key parameters so you
can calculate how much area to put in 1200MWe of wind capacity. Rotor
swept area can be estimated by using 400-500W/sq.meter. Current state of
the art machine are 500 to 1000 KW in size (say 50m) and conservatively
you can put in a down wind spacing of 10 rotor diameters and a cross
wind spacing of 3 to 6. If you want to be really conservative just put
them all 10 rotor diameters apart.
See ya,
Bill McEachern

Hi All,
Does anyone know of any jurisdication which has in place regulations
regarding the emission of N20 from coal fired boilers? Barring that does
anyone know anyone that would know?
thanks,
Bill McEachern

>>>>>>> A  CONSERVATION  ACTION  <<<<<<<
======= CNC Embargo on  herpetological imports from Madagascar =======
 Based on accummulated evidence, and in the interest of the
 conservation of Malagasy herpetofauna, Cape Nature Conservation (CNC),
 the conservation authority of the Western Cape Provincial
 Administration, South Africa has placed an embargo on all imports into
 the province of herpetofauna from Madagascar with effect from November
 1, 1996.  CNC is of the opinion that the apparent indiscriminate
 exploitation of reptiles and amphibians from Madagascar 
 is reaching unacceptable proportions and that this resource will not
 sustain exploitation of this nature.  Therefore, until proven
 otherwise, this embargo will stay in place.
 Dr Ernst H.W. Baard
 Specialist Scientist (Herpetology)
 Cape Nature Conservation
 Private Bag 5014
 Stellenbosch 7599
 South Africa
           ============  STATEMENT  OF  SUPPORT ===============
    We support the above Cape Nature Conservation (CNC) initiative to bar
the commercial import of reptiles and amphibians from Madagascar.
    Despite the global publicity about the alarming loss of biodiversity in
Madagascar, our conservation matters are dealt (purposefully?) within a
complicated but inefficient administration.  This means that illegal and
unsustainable exploitation of our country's wildlife can't be stopped as
long as there are outside importers, especially at this time.  We also urge
all other understanding countries to join this embargo.
    Meanwhile, we think that the relationship between South African and
Malagasy biologists and conservationists should be developed.  We call on
both countries' institutions (Universities, Research centers, Parks, and why
not individuals) to conceive collaborative projects in which specimens are
conceded exclusively for "on-loan" programmes to promote sustainable
benefits for all parties.
    This statement of support is endorsed by the following Malagasy people:
	Jonah Andrianarivo  
        Herilala Randriamahazo 
	Mialy Rabe Ranjanivo 
	Vola Hanta Ratsifandrihamanana <100572.2434@compuserve.com>
	Fanja sandborg. 
	Jonah Henri Ratsimbazafy 
        B Selma Mohammed 
        Sahoby Raharinirina 
        Désiré Dauphin Rasolomampionona 
        Bruno Rabarison 
        Sylvain G. Razafimandimbison 
        Freddy RAZANATSIMBA 
CC:
- Madagascar governmental authorities
- Whoever is concerned with the conservation of our Earth's biodiversity

John Christensen wrote:
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help with this query.
> 
> I’m looking for information about the chemical characteristics of
> petroleum refinery tank bottoms.  I assume these tanks need to be
> cleaned occasionally.  Does anyone know: 1) how the tanks are cleaned;
> 2) if the material removed from the tank is analyzed for disposal; 3)
> what the typical chemical characteristics of the tank bottom materials
> are; and 4) where the tank bottom material is typically disposed.
> 
> Johnny C.
> email:  dogtubs@xmission.com
Ther is an API spec that covers construction aspect. On cleaning I can't
help. My guess would be that they don't get cleaned much as well most
petro chemicals are solvents.
Bill McEachern

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:23:31 EDT, Toby Reiter 
wrote:
>                                                       Longer lives 
>are only valuable when the elderly can be encouraged to serve as leaders 
>and sages in a human quest for societal improvement, and human 
>consumption over a lifetime is decreased dramatically.
Toby,
With modern multi-media you can include the violins in the background,
too.  However, I think that if you consult a few old people you will
find that they are perfectly happy to keep on living even if it means
another day of begging to rustle up the cash for the next pack of
tobacco and bottle of wine.  Or maybe another day at the club, trying
to knock the little dimpled ball into the hole.
Your values are sweet and nice -- but this does not give you the right
to go around condeming other people's lives as worthless.
                                                         -dlj.

On 11 Dec 1996 15:50:58 GMT, "Richard W. Tarara"
 wrote:
>                           .  Cities
>didn't form originally until agricultural technology had produced food
>surpluses.  Up until then, you either grew you OWN food, or hunted for it. 
This is false, except for "large" cities.
You cannot grow your own food until you have identified seed.  This
requires an accumulation of gathered plant surplus which is most
unlikely without prior division of labour, at minimum between hunters
and gatherers, plus the profitable trade between them.  Then you have
to identify which seeds work where at what time of year -- a Research
and Development project which can only have major effects if it
spreads by word of mouth from those who discover to those who follow.
Translation:
The information revolution comes first.
The commercial revolution comes second.
The agricultural revolution, which is still going on, comes last.
                                              -dlj.

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:31:20 EDT, Toby Reiter 
wrote:
>p.s. You obviously don't live in Ohio.   States in the industrial belt 
>which continue to be industrialized have some of the worst water quality 
>in the country, mostly because the U.S. government regulates businesses 
>in how fast they can poison other people and animals, and not whether 
>they should be doing it in the first place.
Toby,
The Monongahela River used to burn from time to time before the white
people arrived in North America.  The original inhabitants used to
skim the oil and rub it on arthritic limbs.
The river is now cleaner than it was in 1976, in 1776, or in 1276 --
because we made even more valuable ways of cleaning up nature's oil
spill.  Think Quaker State.
                                                              -dlj.

Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> 
> In article <32ADE434.7F24@to.foil.spammers>,
>         Eric Anderson  writes:
> >The morbid side of me would love to see the ensuing melee among all you
> >greens when it turns out the only way to "save the Earth" is to launch
> >several nuclear missiles into space.  (Of course, there are other
> >ways--but they would take much longer to deploy and implement.)  I
> >suspect Greenpeace would prefer the asteroid strike.
> 
> But if we interfered with the asteroid, wouldn't that be "unnatural?"  Do we
> have the right to interfere with nature's supreme omnipotent will?  :)
If we can it is natural. If we can't, then it wasn't.
JCA

Jay Smith (JaySmith@concentric.net) wrote:
: 
: For years now all I've heard on either side is personal opinions and guesses.
: Many of which (on both sides) seem to be biased for various reasons.
: Sounds like what we need is a good verifiable double-blind study to assess
: exactly what the risk really comes out to be.
: Of course we will need to find about a thousand people willing to radiate 
: themselves for science!              Any volunteers?
Me (as well as thousands of other workers in the nuclear power industry, 
etc.)  There have been several studies (US shipyard workers, DOE workers) 
that support the idea of *health benefits* at low to moderate doses 
(generally less than 20 rem).  My lifetime excess exposure is only around 
5 rem, perhaps is should increase it since I'd like to live a looong time ;-)
tooie

 Toby Reiter  wrote:
: 
>> >On 10 Dec 1996 06:04:21 GMT, sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
>> >>Comparing our current situation to the past may show us some areas of
>> >>improvement, but it also shows us that at no time have we had the
>> >>destructive potential that we do now. And that we're not putting that
>> >>potential to much better use than we ever have.
dlj wrote:
>> This just isn't true.  This may seem like a small point: our
>> destructive potential was far greater ten years ago than it is today.
>> In that decade the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world has
>> declined by perhaps as much as 40%. All the major powers, including
>> France and China, have ratified and come under the aegis of the
>> nuclear test ban treaty.  The Union of South Africa has given up its
>> nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapons programs of Iraq, Egypt and
>> North Korea have been halted.
  
>> Not bad.  We haven't gone far, but we're going in the right direction.
>> Going slowly in the right direction is far better than going wrong at
>> great speed.
>Because we have not chosen to shift the economy towards an understanding 
>of a Greater Economy (Wendel Berry) or Ultimate ends (Herman Daly), it 
>must continue to create a system in which we become more potentially 
>lethal than previous generations. 
Having seen me destroy McGinnis's claims ("another beautiful theory
murdered by an ugly little fact")  Reiter chooses to repeat it, but
assigning a different bunch of authors to the same load of bollocks.
>                                                     Simply saying that nuclear weapons are 
>being dismantled does not discount the fact that these weapons are still 
>terrible biophysically hazardous. 
Or at least would be -- were it not that we entrust their disposal to
a bunch of extremely caeful and expert people.
>                                                          In addition, economic choices made 
>today which have poor environmental ramifications will have much more 
>devastating effects in the near future (e.g. China, a country of over a 
>billion, fueling all of its industrial needs with coal).
Love it!  These guys can always come up with an unlimited supply of
horrible predictions about the future.  This is to be expected, since
they have done such a horrible job of predicting in the past.
                                                                -dlj.

TL ADAMS (coltom@west.darkside.com) wrote (while foaming at the mouth):
: tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy) wrote:
: > 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 
: > 
: 
: How do you seperate the two.  What a spurious arguement.  The NPI
: can not divorce itself from the mining/processing/enrichment/waste
: generation/decommissioning process, and then say but during generation.
: emissions are low.
: 
: If you want a source of information against the NPI, look at estimated
: clean-up costs for Paducah, Fernald, TVA.  Don't even get me started
: about what the costs for Hanford would be.
: 
: Let us see a little more history on the cost of waste storage and
: decommissioning, before you start blowing that U-238 horn.
: 
Alas, but I don't divorce the two.  I simply had data for emissions from 
commercial facitilies (which are very low) and presented such.  I also 
correctly stated that the front end is responsible for the majority of 
the dose committment.  Do you feel that one can not separate the 
pollution caused by finding, recovering, transporting, and refining 
petroleum with the emissions from automobiles?  How often do you find 
tailpipe emissions listed that account for the above.  Your mindless 
ranting may win you converts on alt.save.the.earth but I'm not buying. 
Multiply the the plant emissions by 1000 and the result is still 
neglible.  Most anti-nuke clowns ignore the total fuel cycle and dwell on 
plant emissions, which are miniscule.  Include the total fuel cycle and 
guess what, they're still miniscule!
How do cleanup costs relate to health effects?  At least they are being 
cleaned up.  Maybe if the general public got over it's irrational fear of 
radiation and worried about the millions of lbs. of toxic waste released 
into the environment, we could make some real progress.  Your silliness 
in equating Hanford with commercial nulcear power is obvious and 
insulting. 
tooie

I have no objection to niche theory as applied to animals.  I suppose
it would apply to humans in some trivial sense if you define the human
niche broadly enough.  However, it provides no information about the
long term human future.
This thread started with Dave Braun's statement that rats and roaches
would probably outlive humans.  Do the niche theory references Braun
gives say this?  If so, what is the argument?  If not, and Braun
infers it from niche theory, what is his argument?  If there is no
argument from niche theory, why raise it.
Humanity is indeed subject to natural selection, but it isn't easy to
say what is being selected for these days.  The eugenicists said it was
stupidity, and they might have been right.  Alternatively, it might be
susceptibility to kooky religions that demand large families.
[I have proposed that the most important theological problem these days
is reconciling Mormonism with Hasidic Judaism.  In about 250 years,
the Mormons expanding East from Utah and the Hasidic Jews expanding
West from Brooklyn will meet in Indiana, the rest of us having dwindled
away.]
Humans might be displaced by something else in the human niche, but
nothing else is visible at present.  I suspect Dave Braun, as have
other eco-romantics before him, imagines the rats and roaches to be more
fit than humans.  What is the evidence for this?
-- 
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.

> As Herman Daly states in his introduction to _Valuing the Earth_, if a
> human population has a decreased infant mortality rate and an increased
> life expectancy (i.e. humans, in general, are having a much more
> permanent stay on earth), than the total flow of energy and matter used
> by these people must be reduced.  Decreases in infant mortality are 
> only
> positive when coupled with increased knowledge of birth control and
> social or political encouragement towards smaller families.  Longer lives
> are only valuable when the elderly can be encouraged to serve as leaders
> and sages in a human quest for societal improvement, and human
> consumption over a lifetime is decreased dramatically.
> 
> Toby Reiter
There was a huge amount of discussion during the last session of the
legislature concerning how the elderly were going to be treated as far
as their entitlements, (SS, Medicare, etc.).  Thos in charge of these
matters have to come up with a way to keep from denying care and
security to those citizens who are surviving longer these days. What if
they could reduce the number in the society by 10% that would be a
savings that would be a long term cure. How to reduce the population by
10%? Raise the speed limit on the nation's and state's and county roads
to 75.  It has been demonstrated that it is quite efficient,
indiscriminate, no one to blame way of limiting the population.
And the people love it!
JCA

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:06:24 GMT, wf3h@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>The fact is the Roman Catholic view of family life, including sex,
>>leaves plenty of room for birth control.
>
>"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or
>in its accomplishment....proposes, whether as an end or as a means to
>render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" "the Catechism of
>the Catholic church", paragraph 2370. doesnt sound like plenty of room
>for birth control to me.
If I was interested in paragraph 2370 of "the Catechism of the
Catholic church", I would ask -- as no doubt would many Catholics.
Meanwhile I stand by the accuracy of what I said above about the Roman
Catholic view of family life, including sex.
>you know, it's funny...at the cairo and beijing conferences when
>discussions took place about family planning, the holy see allied
>itself with Iran and Iraq in opposing wider distribution of family
>planning information. We have recently fought a war against an
>imperialist iraq, and iran is presumed to be behind the recent bombing
>in Saudi Arabi which killed a number of US service personnel. the
>vatican routinely allies itself with terrorists and killers merely to
>ensure that women remain pregnant.
Nothing funny about it, but it is incorrect to an accidental
parallelism of voting as an alliance.  The Arab Fascists think that
keeping people ignorant will help them keep their male-supremacist
societies stable. This is a giggle.  You can't keep people ignorant in
the age of television.  The stupid buggers also think that they can
have ignorance, stability, and high birth rates, which they believe to
be a good thing.  There has never been a time when high population
growth helped stability.  You need a matching high death rate to stay
stable with a fertile population.
The RC Church, by contrast, has no illusions that religious teaching
can have very much effect on birth rates.  Compare the birth rates of
equally pagan-Catholic Philippines and France.  
The RC Church does, however, believe quite plausibly that the
integrity of religious doctrine is important to its credibility and
its salutary effect, if any, on believers. 
                                                          -dlj.

On 11 Dec 1996 18:29:18 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
>: On 9 Dec 1996 18:43:06 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>: I take
>: it you are conceding the truth of what I say about Roman Catholic
>: Doctrine.
>
>Dave,
>
>You sound like a complete idiot in search of an argument now. You don't
>believe a single thing about this doctrine, and yet you spout about its
>"truth"???
Yuku,
This is a simple grammatical error on your part -- but leads one to
doubt some of the claims you have made about your education.
Nowhere do I say that RC Doctrine is true.  My claim is that what I
had written earlier was a true account of what that doctrine is.
                                                         -dlj.

> BTW, I can't think of a better way of disposing of those pesky nukes
> either.  In fact, I think it would be prudent for us to test this method
> when asteroid Austin returns in 2012.  It'd be way cool if we could
> deflect it to impact on the moon.  Or better yet, deflect it into Earth
> orbit (that ought to use up a significant chunk of our stockpile) and
> then mine the sucker, assuming it has a useful composition. (Though
> perhaps this method would leave it too radiated to be useful.)
> 
> Eric
  eric@as.arizona.edu
There might be a better way! How about digging tunnels into the earth
about 2,000 feet down. At the bottom of the shaft, dig a spherical
chamber. In digging the shaft, a series of breech locks would be
installed to contain the pressure. In the spherical chamber, suspended
so that it is positioned exactly at the center of the sphere is an
atomic bomb.  The spherical shape is filled with graphite. Or whatever
kind of substance one would like to try. The breeches are sealed, The
device goes off, the material is under tremendous heat and pressure,
when it begins to cool it turns into a tetrahedronic lattice. Imagine an
industrial grade diamond 30 feet in diameter! What to do with gems that
big? Transmitter material.  We could become the communications central
for the universe!
Anyway aren't these objects made with the money collected from the
people? Does not that mean that the value of those gemstones in the care
and keeping of the government should be distributed when they are
marketed or profited from?
Would anyone like to buy my share of the objects.  You might think this
is a fable, but if you just think of it, the Nevada Nuclear Test Ground
is just a whole bunch of what was just described.  I told this to a
friend of mine. About a month later, he sent me a clipping from a San
Francisco news paper which said that the government announce the latest
in a series of underground nuclear tests called Project Diamond Fortune!
And you know what is really scary? That there are a lot of the people
who are in charge of deploying and even using the atomic weapons that in
their possession who can't or at least don't pronounce N-U-C-L-E-A-R as
new-clee-ar. Many of them say new-que-ler.
JCA

jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
->[have to run now. Thank you for a reasoned,
->civilized response. A good example to all.]
Ow! No need to be so cruel!

On 11 Dec 1996 04:26:53 GMT, "Sam McClintock" 
wrote:
>To simplify the argument I brought us down to here:
>I think your statement pretty much sums it up.  You have admitted that
>all the models point to warming,
not true
> that mankind is responsible for
>putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,
obviously
> but then seem inclined to
>say "see, it won't be so bad." 
That particular argument says that IF the models which I am suspicious
of are taken at face value (as global warming proponents are wont to
do, then it won't be as bad as many people have said. You
mischaracterize my arguments.
> You have no idea if it will be bad or
>not, yet you admit it is a complex system, and you conveniently
>(understatement) ignore that all the models indicate it will take
>decades to reverse any trends in emissions OR warming.
But you equally iconveniently ignore all the models that indicate that
waiting a decade or two will make little difference.
>The world will keep turning and man is ingenious enough to
>figure a way to prevent these emissions without too much of a strain. 
I wish I believed that, because then I wouldn't be as strong an
advocate towards waiting around. And maybe you are right and all is
goodness and light when we dramatically retool our entire
transportation and energy sectors to prevent these emissions, without
too much of a strain.
>But if you are wrong, your kids and relatives are going to find a
>special place in their heart for you - one you'd rather not see.
And if I'm right and your policies are followed, the equivalent
statement applies.

On 11 Dec 1996 18:43:58 GMT, bodo@io.org (Byron Bodo) wrote:
>In article <58ip37$q7k@news.inforamp.net>, dlj@inforamp.net says...
> 
>>Medicine is not relevant to prevention.
>
>One of the most patently idiotic remarks I've seen in some time!
>
>And just where do the mosquitoes contract the parasite, if not from
>infected individuals? 
Cats, dogs, frogs, I dunno.  Prevention, however, comes from either
killing or avoiding the mosquitoes.
Still, I would find your idea that we have to cure all the mosquitoes
first amusing, if the situation were not so grim.
                                                                 -dlj.

On 10 Dec 1996 16:32:31 GMT, joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) wrote:
>Well I contradicted you - even provided a reference.  Can you cite a
>reference for your numbers above?  Can you give us any idea about where
>you got those numbers from?  
>
>_The Coming Plague_ Laurie Garrett, 1995 - quoting the World Bank figures.
>
>That's my reference, where is yours, please?
Laurie Garrett, the hysterical panic-monger du jour, the Jeremy Rifkin
of bugs?  That is your idea of a reference??
I probably picked my numbers off some fund-raising letter that floated
through here.  The only claim I make for them is that they are no less
plausible than yours -- and incidentally, since yours are totals and
mine are rates, are not contradicted by yours.
                                                    -dlj.

In article <32AE2386.59D1@gov.on.ca>,
   "Maurice J. Goodwin"  wrote:
>I'm a hydrogeologist and am seeking references on the rationale of time 
>requirements for designs of waste disposal facilities. If other 
>newsgroups would be more appropriate, please advise.
>          If the concept of "critical  contaminant" is used, ie. the
>leachate contaminant in groundwater that most closely approaches its 
>regulatory limit at the landfill's property  boundary,  then chloride is 
>the contaminant that defines how much natural and/or engineered 
>protection is needed in designs for municipal, non hazardous waste 
>landfills. Chloride is  an aesthetic parameter ie. is not health related.
>          There are two landfill  design  philosophies. The first  is
>that time is not a factor in the requirements of the landfill design
>(ie. the peak  concentration in groundwater has to be < X mg/l   at the
>property  boundary, regardless of when this is predicted to occur). This
>philosophy can be considered to be either a shining pillar of
>environmental responsibility, ie. not passing pollution problems along to
>future generations... or zealous overkill. For example, if it is decided
>to site a sufficiently large landfill in thick, very low permeability
>deposits, one of the geological settings *traditionally* considered to
>be preferred  for landfills, this approach can lead to the requirement of
>very expensive engineering (geomembranes) to protect an aquifer from
>chloride exceedences in several hundred years.  Of course, if a landfill
>setting has long term, natural hydraulic protection instead,(ie.
>sufficient inward flow of groundwater) then there is no need for
>geomembranes to protect the aquifer ( but they  may  be necessary to
>limit the inwards flow to the landfill).
>          The second philosophy, arguably more "practical" than the
>first, is that  some contamination is allowed under some circumstances at
>some future time.  I suspect that the rationale for this philosophy would
>have some basis in economics, risk analysis and resource management, 
>which is why I tried a broader sweep than just the geology newsgroups.
> 
> It is this second approach that I am seeking info on so any references 
>or referrals would be welcome.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>Maurice J. Goodwin, M.Sc.,
>Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
>2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12a,
>Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
>M4V 1L5                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
>(416)-323-5216               *   A conclusion is the place     *
>fax: -323-5031               *   where you stopped thinking.   *
>          * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *         
>          
>http://www.gov.on.ca
Look at the recently adopted "subtitle D" regulations for landfills in the US. 
The reg. and supporting documents may answer many of your questions. 
RMVF

As the following post is apparently humor, I have nothing to add.  My
prediction was wrong about what this reply would look like; McCarthy
snipped ALL of the post he replied to (I predicted nearly all). If
anyone would like to see what I posted, I will repost it.
Even if M.'s questions below are stated sincerely, I see no point in
answering them, as they were covered already in the previous post, or are
easily answered by a perusual of the two references I cited, in addition
to a little additional reading in evolutionary biology and ecology.
Surely McCarthy is capable of that. 
		Dave Braun
On 12 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> I have no objection to niche theory as applied to animals.  I suppose
> it would apply to humans in some trivial sense if you define the human
> niche broadly enough.  However, it provides no information about the
> long term human future.
> 
> This thread started with Dave Braun's statement that rats and roaches
> would probably outlive humans.  Do the niche theory references Braun
> gives say this?  If so, what is the argument?  If not, and Braun
> infers it from niche theory, what is his argument?  If there is no
> argument from niche theory, why raise it.
> 
> Humanity is indeed subject to natural selection, but it isn't easy to
> say what is being selected for these days.  The eugenicists said it was
> stupidity, and they might have been right.  Alternatively, it might be
> susceptibility to kooky religions that demand large families.
> 
> [I have proposed that the most important theological problem these days
> is reconciling Mormonism with Hasidic Judaism.  In about 250 years,
> the Mormons expanding East from Utah and the Hasidic Jews expanding
> West from Brooklyn will meet in Indiana, the rest of us having dwindled
> away.]
> 
> Humans might be displaced by something else in the human niche, but
> nothing else is visible at present.  I suspect Dave Braun, as have
> other eco-romantics before him, imagines the rats and roaches to be more
> fit than humans.  What is the evidence for this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 
> 

And don't forget the Chinese having being dumping such waste into the
Sea of Japan.
Pretty soon Godzilla will be rising from the depths I suppose.
"Hoffman, Nick N"  wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> 
>> Help!
>> 
>> Can anyone help me. I am looking for any information concerned with
>> plans to dispose of radioactive wastes by emplacement in the seabed. 
>---snip---
>I believe the Russians have undertaken a number of real-world
>experiments in the Arctic Ocean on this topic, using containment
>cannisters cunningly concealed as unservicable nuclear submarines. 
>Nick Hoffman	Geophysicist Extraordinaire
>		"Insert Disclaimer of your choice here"
"I'm not sure how I feel about all this.  
I'm a middle-aged white guy which means I'm constantly 
reminded that my particular group is responsible for 
the oppression of every known minority PLUS most wars 
PLUS government corruption PLUS pollution of the environment 
not to mention that it was middle-aged white guys who killed Bambi's mom.
	-- Dave Barry --

A hoax.  Viruses can't be activated by simply opening a data file.
"Alessandro Greggio"  wrote:
>RECIVED AND FORWARDED FOR INFORMATION
>************************************************
>Date:    Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:42:01 CDT
>From:    Larry Keith 
>Subject: ATTENTION - New Virus!
>     Attached for your immediate attention is an e-mail sent by a Radian
>     Airforce client. I have forwarded it to you for your information.
>     This appears to be an important new virus to be aware of. You may want
>     to send this information to your colleagues as you deem appropriate.
>     Sincerely,
>     Larry Keith
>     Radian International LLC
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: Blalock, Carolyn, , SAF/AQCS
>     To: 'Barager, James Col'
>     Subject: FW: fwd: VIRUS ALERT
>     Date: Tuesday, December 03, 1996 12:36PM
>     Sir, FYI.
>     v/r
>     Subject:  Virus Alert
>     Importance:  High
>     If anyone receives mail entitled: PENPAL GREETINGS! please delete
>     it WITHOUT reading it.  Below is a little explanation of the message,
>     and what it would do to your PC if you were to read the message.  If
>     you have any questions or concerns please contact  SAF-IA Info Office
>     on 697-5059.
>     This is a warning for all internet users - there is a dangerous
>     virus propogating across the internet through an e-mail message
>     entitled "PENPAL GREETINGS!".  DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANY MESSAGE ENTITLED
>     "PENPAL GREETINGS!"
>     This message appears to be a friendly letter asking you if you are
>     interested in a penpal, but by the time you read this letter, it is
>     too late. The "trojan horse" virus will have already infected the boot
>     sector of your hard drive, destroying all of the data present.  It is
>     a self-replicating virus, and once the message is read, it will
>     AUTOMATICALLY forward itself to anyone who's e-mail address is present
>     in YOUR mailbox!
>     This virus will DESTROY your hard drive, and holds the potential to
>     DESTROY the hard drive of anyone whose mail is in your inbox, and
>     who's mail is in their inbox, and so on.  If this virus remains
>     unchecked, it has the potntial to do a great deal of DAMAGE to
>     computer networks worldwide!!!!
>     Please, delete the message entitled "PENPAL GREETINGS!" as soon as
>     you see it! And pass this message along to all of your friends and
>     relatives, and the other readers of the newsgroups and mailing lists
>     which you are on, so that they are not hurt by this dangerous
>     virus!!!!
>     -------------------------  end  ------------------------------
>-- 
> ============================================
> Alessandro Greggio          pad134k1@pd.nettuno.it
>Ch. Eng.     University of Padova    ITALY
> ============================================
"I'm not sure how I feel about all this.  
I'm a middle-aged white guy which means I'm constantly 
reminded that my particular group is responsible for 
the oppression of every known minority PLUS most wars 
PLUS government corruption PLUS pollution of the environment 
not to mention that it was middle-aged white guys who killed Bambi's mom.
	-- Dave Barry --

On 12 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>  Toby Reiter  wrote:
> >Because we have not chosen to shift the economy towards an understanding 
> >of a Greater Economy (Wendel Berry) or Ultimate ends (Herman Daly), it 
> >must continue to create a system in which we become more potentially 
> >lethal than previous generations. 
> 
> Having seen me destroy McGinnis's claims ("another beautiful theory
> murdered by an ugly little fact")  Reiter chooses to repeat it, but
> assigning a different bunch of authors to the same load of bollocks.
Actually, I just entered this thread. No the world is not going to get 
better until people start realizing that our world will not be killed in 
an instant but in a century or two. Humans, in general, are too 
short-sighted to sense long term suicide. In order to make humans more 
aware of impact on earth, immediate feedbacks need to be given. The 
perfect case of instant feedback is a counter in the Baltimore aquarium 
which ticks off acres of rainforest being destroyed each second.  Even 
better would be a label on each product "the creation of this product 
caused x and y lethal chemicals to be dumped in nature. It led to the 
destruction of x acres of rainforest", etc. Until people realize that 
current levels and methods of production and consumption are leading us 
to certain death, we cannot afford to act indifferent about the future.
> >Simply saying that nuclear weapons are 
> >being dismantled does not discount the fact that these weapons are still 
> >terrible biophysically hazardous. 
> 
> Or at least would be -- were it not that we entrust their disposal to
> a bunch of extremely caeful and expert people.
Even the best experts in the world can't overcome the fact that nuclear 
fission should never have occurred within the biosphere. Sure nuclear 
energy is good for some things, like sunlight, but genuine radioactive 
uranium really doesn't have much place outside of the ground.
> >In addition, economic choices made 
> >today which have poor environmental ramifications will have much more 
> >devastating effects in the near future (e.g. China, a country of over a 
> >billion, fueling all of its industrial needs with coal).
>  
> Love it!  These guys can always come up with an unlimited supply of
> horrible predictions about the future.  This is to be expected, since
> they have done such a horrible job of predicting in the past.
This is not a prediction, this is a fact. If you have a country of over a 
billion inhabitants trying to raise its industrial and living standards 
to that of the U.S. and then fueling that drive on coal energy, you are 
talking huge amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfates in the air--global 
warming and acid rain.

On 12 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:23:31 EDT, Toby Reiter 
> wrote:
> 
> >                                                       Longer lives 
> >are only valuable when the elderly can be encouraged to serve as leaders 
> >and sages in a human quest for societal improvement, and human 
> >consumption over a lifetime is decreased dramatically.
> 
> With modern multi-media you can include the violins in the background,
> too.  However, I think that if you consult a few old people you will
> find that they are perfectly happy to keep on living even if it means
> another day of begging to rustle up the cash for the next pack of
> tobacco and bottle of wine.  Or maybe another day at the club, trying
> to knock the little dimpled ball into the hole.
>  
> Your values are sweet and nice -- but this does not give you the right
> to go around condeming other people's lives as worthless.
Before the turn of the century, the elderly were often perceived as the 
wise and seasoned members of society.  However, at some point in this 
century, we have ceased to respect and utilize the knowledge base which 
the elderly possess.  I do not believe elderly choose to live a life of 
golf and shuffleboard, but that they are socially forced into this 
position. The primary reason for this is the severing of the sacred bonds 
which existed between generations for the passing down of knowledge from 
the old to the young.  If senior citizens in this country once again 
resumed their rightful positions as sages, instead of being simply 
classified as dottering old geezers, than this country would profit 
tremendously.
Just because I recognize that the elderly in this country are not being 
used to their best potential doesn't mean I feel them as worthless. I 
just feel that a consumption-based society, in which little effort is 
given towards social and moral improvement, and almost all resources are 
dedicated to economic improvement, automatically, out of the need for 
consumer segregation, separates different generations.

Lelani Arris wrote:
> 
> Reply-To: Moderator of conference "mlist.ecix1" 
> From: Lelani Arris 
> 
>                           ECO NEWSLETTER
> 
>                           AGBM5 - GENEVA
>                           NGO NEWSLETTER
> 
>                                AGBM5
> 
>                          December 9, 1996
>                              ISSUE #1
> (big snip)
At last other countries are waking up to the massive adverse effects for 
questionable environmental gains if industrialised nations decide on 
mandatory emissions reductions.  The only problem is that this will 
further alienate those who have taken as truth the initial ambit claims 
of imminent environmental disaster.  The anger and pessimism would have 
been more useful if directed towards constructive initiatives on energy 
and raw materials efficiency.
Regards, Martin

Kym Horsell wrote:
>And once again the Ebeling/Limbaugh "after much research,
>I found that Ozone depletion is natural and the CFC witchunt is
>a leftist conspiracy" clap-trap is trotted out...
>
Then how do you account for the scientific analyses of Nobel prize winners
Rowland and Molina, and follow up studies by the NAS, that calculated ozone
depletion from CFCs to average only a tenth of a percent (or less) a year?
(2% to 14% total depletion over a century, before equilibrium).
The truth is that the natural variability of the global ozone layer is so
much greater than the theoretical damage from CFCs that such damage cannot
even be measured.  Well, perhaps with 50 years or so of baseline
measurements, but not so far by a long shot.
Here's a 'Ebeling/Limbaugh' question for you.  Why did the global ozone
layer *increase* from 1986 to 1990?  ("Global Average Ozone Change from
November 1978 to May 1990", J. Geophys. Research, 9/20/1991)
Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com
------------------------------------------------------------
"What you have to understand, is that this is about money.  If there were
 no dollars attached to this game, you'd see it played in a very different 
 way.  It would be played on intellect and integrity.  When you say the 
 ozone threat is a scam, you're not only attacking people's scientific 
 integrity, you're going after their pocketbook as well.  It's money, 
 purely money." 
 - Melvyn Shapiro, Chief Meteorologist, NOAA - Boulder
   Insight Magazine, April 6, 1992  -
------------------------------------------------------------

On 12 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:31:20 EDT, Toby Reiter 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> >p.s. You obviously don't live in Ohio.   States in the industrial belt 
> >which continue to be industrialized have some of the worst water quality 
> >in the country, mostly because the U.S. government regulates businesses 
> >in how fast they can poison other people and animals, and not whether 
> >they should be doing it in the first place.
>  
> Toby,
>  
> The Monongahela River used to burn from time to time before the white
> people arrived in North America.  The original inhabitants used to
> skim the oil and rub it on arthritic limbs.
>  
> The river is now cleaner than it was in 1976, in 1776, or in 1276 --
> because we made even more valuable ways of cleaning up nature's oil
> spill.  Think Quaker State.
After reading some of your posts, I'm beginning to become a little 
scared.  There is no way you can sat that humans can operate an ecosystem 
better than nature--it's just not true. Water quality in the U.S. 
overall is much worse than before European colonization. There are much 
fewer forests in the U.S. than there were before, and the forests that do 
exist are almost entirely second or even third growth, and as a result 
have lower biomass to land ratios, and are much weaker in terms of 
diversity and efficiency of the system.
I'm wondering where you're coming from. What is your particular 
background, and what is your purpose? On my end I am a college freshman 
in an introductory environmental studies course. I know my knowledge is 
limited, but from what I have read I can see that most of what the 
environmental movement would have implemented in the U.S. and around the 
world would have better economic as well as environmental ramifications 
for humans and all other members of the biosphere.  My purpose is to try 
and create a society in which social connections are improved, emphasis 
is placed on moral and ethical improvements are put above economic ones, 
and humans live a sustainable equilibrium within nature.
Waiting to hear your response....
Toby Reiter

Greig Ebeling  wrote:
> If ozone depletion does not cause biological harm, then why do we need
> to go to all this effort to make the hole disappear?
How silly of me. I am so terribly sorry, but I seemed to have overlooked
that criteria.  Please explain to us how losing the ozone layer will not do
any harm.  It would be an important point.
> A poor attempt at civility.  And if you were genuinely interested in
> debating this issue you would not spend so much time and effort
> attacking the player rather than the ball.
Sorry, just too much fuel to work with.  After reviewing your posts from a
year back, I see we are thrashing over old ground that has already been
refuted, and you just decided to put them back up for comment.  I was
curious though that you seem to have dodged the concepts of volcanos
putting up chlorine into the stratosphere.  Care to elaborate?
Sam McClintock
scmcclintock@ipass.net
. . . In order to CRITIQUE the research, you must READ the research.

ANNOUNCING  a short course:
MANAGING RISKS AND STRATEGIC DECISIONS 
IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
A practical, hands-on approach to modern techniques in
risk management and strategic decision making for all
aspects of petroleum exploration and production -
prospect evaluation, resource allocation, diversification
and risk sharing, corporate planning, and strategy 
development.
Dates:	March 5-7, 1997 and October 22-24, 1997
Location: Golden, Colorado
(Colorado School of Mines campus)
Instructor: Dr. Michael R. Walls
Dr. Walls is a professor of Mineral Economics at the
Colorado School of Mines and is the founder and 
Managing Director of Strategic Systems Group, a
Denver-based consulting firm.
Who should attend:
The Seminar is an advanced course designed for staff 
and middle- to senior-level managers actively involved 
in a variety of functional levels in the petroleum industry.  
Oil company vice presidents of exploration and production, 
finance and planning, as well as exploration/engineering 
managers, economics/planning personnel, and financial 
managers will all find the Seminar stimulating and insightful.  
In addition, individuals performing similar functions in 
consulting firms as well as general mangers from smaller 
companies will find the Seminar beneficial.
Seminar Fee: $1,095.00 (US)  Seminar fee will be 
discounted by $100 if payment is received by 
September 30, 1996.  Note that the fee includes continental 
breakfasts and lunch each day, as well as coffee breaks, 
tuition, and a notebook of the lecture and case study materials.
For a brochure with course outline and complete
details contact:
Office of Special Programs and Continuing
Education at the Colorado School of Mines.
Phone: 800/446-9488, ext.3321 (8-5 MST)
E-mail: space@mines.edu

"D. Braun"  writes:
> biologial evolution. So, maybe you can describe how and why it is that
> Homo sapiens sapiens is immune to natural selection? Why did our ancestors
> go extinct?  They had societal adaptations and technology as well--- and
Our ancestors didn't go extinct. They just died.
Think about it...

Bill  wrote in article
<32AED9B8.6B6A@qscigeo.u-net.com>...
> Help!
> 
> Can anyone help me. I am looking for any information concerned with
> plans to dispose of radioactive wastes by emplacement in the seabed. I
> know that the United States and Europe investigated the possibility in
> the 1980s but little appears to have been done on this issue since. Does
> any one know of more recent studies or published literature on the
> subject - especially anything published in the 1990s.
> 
Dumping of solid radioactive waste into the sea was limited by the London
Dumping Convention in 1975. Waste was continued to be dumped in the
N.Atlantic and Pacific until 1982. The Soviet Block dumped solid waste
after that time.
BNFL pumps liquid waste into the Irish Sea via pipelines, the amounts are
published each year with dose assessments contact BNFL Safety, Health and
Environment Directorate, Risley, Warrington, WA3 6AS, UK for details. Ask
for a copy of the 1995 Annual Report on Radioactive Discharges and
Monitoring of the Environment. Vol. 1 contains measurements and dose
estimates, Vol. 2 gives all the disposal limits authorized by the DoE. BNFL
will supply these reports free.
For details of old disposals try Environmental Impact of Radioactive
Releases, Symposium Proceedings (May 1995), published by the IAEA (ISBN
92-0-104495-X). There were a number of papers presented that discussed
waste disposal at sea, particularly Soviet disposals into Barents and Kara
seas.
Dave