Newsgroup sci.environment 112819

Directory

On Fri, 13 Dec 96 09:00:15 EST, scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>In article <58j37o$soc@nntp1.best.com>, jamesd@echeque.com says...
>>So bad though the Russian mafias undoubtedly are, they are a
>>considerably lesser evil than the current Russian government,
>
>You are making things up just you can justify your unjustifiable ideological 
>bias.  The current Russian government is undertaking reforms, and trying to 
>take a corrupt system and remake it.  Their privitization has gone too fast, 
>leaving a void, which mafia rats have filled, spreading terror, killing 
>people, and basically SCARING AW
He went way too far, but you're not without problem. What reforms?
What privatization? Yeltsin talks reform and privatization, but his
actions tell an entirely different story. The idea that the current
Russian government is trying to reduce the size of government and get
rid of corruption is simply a nonstarter. Sure Yeltsin isn't going to
go the way of the Communists, but his idea of capitalism still bears a
strong resemblance to state-sponsored socialism.
What little privatization there has been of the Russian economy seems
to have appeared in spite of, not because of, the Russian government.
Russia is privatizing thanks to the dire financial straits of the
government. And of course many of the economic woes of Russia are
caused and exacerbated by blatant government mismanagement.
When the Russians find they don't have enough coal this winter because
striking miners in Siberia refuse to work after not being paid for
months (while Yeltsin found plenty of money to finance the Chechnya
debacle), I don't think it's capitalism they should be blaming.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B2.1ADF1A60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pipo On line
for: Hans Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html
Madam
Sir
I'm working at a case study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel ?
Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by Email
Yours sincerely
Pipo on Line
for: Hans Smellinckx
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B2.1ADF1A60
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	
Pipo On line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 =
Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: =
http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html


Madam
Sir

I'm working at a case =
study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive =
more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in =
order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the =
reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was =
the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel =
?

Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by =
Email

Yours sincerely


Pipo on Line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx



------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B2.1ADF1A60--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B2.30ACC4A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pipo On line
for: Hans Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html
Madam
Sir
I'm working at a case study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel ?
Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by Email
Yours sincerely
Pipo on Line
for: Hans Smellinckx
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B2.30ACC4A0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	
Pipo On line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 =
Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: =
http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html


Madam
Sir

I'm working at a case =
study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive =
more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in =
order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the =
reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was =
the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel =
?

Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by =
Email

Yours sincerely


Pipo on Line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx



------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B2.30ACC4A0--

charliew wrote:
> I would probably advocate the
> removal of warning labels on cigarettes, but for a different reason.  We
> already know that cigarettes are harmful.  We also know that 25% of the
> population is so stupid, that warning labels will not do them any good.
Are you saying that informed intelligent people would never choose to
smoke, despite the risks, because its extremely pleasurable?  Are you
sayin that smart people who'd like to quit cannot, because nicotine is a
powerful addictive drug?
> 
> The translation is: I, unlike you, do not intend to try to save everyone
> from themselves.
But you are fully prepared to say that people who make choices you
dislike must be stupid.

In article ,
John McCarthy  wrote:
>I am talking about technological humanity, of course.  Many land
>animals survived the extinction.  Therefore, the atmosphere remained
>breathable.  Humanity is well dispersed in the world now.  I'm not
>claiming that everyone would survive, but human technology is
>adaptable enough so that some would survive.  If the change were slow,
>then the whole of humanity would survive.  This applies to any of the
>models of the Permian extinctions I have heard of.
If indeed the end-Permian was a gradual event rather than catastrophe, as what
little evidence there is suggests, I don't doubt technological humanities
ability to avoid extinction.  I do doubt that the survival of many of
the terrestial vertebrates of the time in a catastrophe would guarantee ours
but instead let me instead ask, John McCarthy, then how does he know
we would have survived the late Ordovician extinction when there were
no terrestial vertebrates as indicators.  
Let me also add a quote from David Raup from his book Extinction, after
expressing some frustration at the range of exotic mass extinctions causes
suggested by non-specialists, he says: "But the alternative - the
assumption that we know all the good candidates - is unacceptable."
Andrew Taylor

In article ,
Steinn Sigurdsson   wrote:
>Our ancestors didn't go extinct. They just died.  Think about it...
Well chronospecies are awkward things but you can quite sensibly
claim that the species that all our ancestors but most the most recent
belonged to are extinct.  Its easy if you rely on a morphological
species definition.   If you insist on a purely reproductive definition
the contortions become interesting.
Also in that vein when a species swamps a sibling species after removal
of a reproductive barrier, you can sensibly say there has been a
species extinction even though members of the swamped species have
extant descendants.  There a number of examples of this in progress
currently, where man has  removed the barrier.
Andrew Taylor

In article ,
John McCarthy  wrote:
>If you impoverish society, you will get a lot less money for promoting
>biological diversity.  Saving the California condor is costing a lot
>of money, but an efficient economy can afford it.
If you impoverish society, there will a lot less money available for
destroying the environment.  For example, in recent years, a large
market has arisen for live fish for consumption (mainly I guess in
restaurants) in Hong Kong and other Asian cities.  This very expensive
as it requires considerable labour and air freighting the fish live.
Unfortunately, many of these fish are taken from
coral reefs using cyanide which is very environmentally destructive.
If Hong Kong and the other citites were not so economically prosperous
this trade would not occur.
I'm certainly not advocating impoverishing anyone but its clear
economic growth is a mixed blessing environmentally.  I'd also bet
if John McCarthy had directed US federal government and California state
policy over the last 50 years the California Condor would be extinct.
Andrew Taylor

John Flanery wrote:
> There is no conflict between employment and the environment.  Oh, certain
> jobs should be eliminated, but the overall employment level is controlled
> by the Federal Reserve, not by the amount of economic regulation.
> 
Thomas Hopkins recently studied regulatory compliance costs in
"Regulatory Costs in Profile" done for the Center for the Study of
American Business.  In 1995 regulatory compliance costs were $668
billion.  Of that $218 billion was just paperwork, $223 billion was due
to environmental regulations and $227 billion was for price and entry
controls.  Even if you assume that environmental regulations create no
paperwork (which would be like assuming that the world is flat)
environmental regulations still cost on average $1905 per employee in a
business with less than 20 persons.  $1824 per employee in a business
with 20-499 employees and $1025 per employee in large businesses with
over 500 workers.  So imagine if you ran a business with 10 employees. 
By these figures, you would be paying $18240 just to comply with
regulations.  That is enough money to hire another person. So, its hard
for me to believe you when you tell me regulation doesnt effect the
general employement level.
Now for your second assertion. The federal reserve does not control the
general employment level in this country, the market does.  Your
assertion is a good example of machine age thinking, something we at the
Bionomics Institute are trying to overcome.  The economy is not some
sort of automobile, with the fed having its foot on the gas pedal.  The
economy is a complex ecosystem.  Sure if the fed raised the federal
funds rate tremendously there would be, some increase in the
unemployment level.  But that is only because wall street trusts Alan
Greenspan to make the right decision.  The fed only controls the federal
funds rate, which is the interest it charges to make loans to other
banks.  This does effect the interest rates that we deal with everyday,
but it is the market that actually changes them.  A couple of months
ago, there were some rumors going around that the fed was going to raise
the federal funds rate and that very day, interest rates rose by
themselves.  
If this hasnt convinced you, how about this.  Imagine if the federal
government cut defense spending by 25%, wouldnt that effect the
employment level? (it did in california).  Imagine if IBM went bankrupt,
wouldnt that effect the employment level?  Imagine if regulatory
compliance costs went down to zero and $668 billion were availible this
year for investment.  Wouldnt that raise employment? The economy is vast
and complex and many different things create the current level of
unemployment.  
Max Jacobs
************************************************************************
The Bionomics Institute
http://www.bionomics.org
Viewing the economy as an ecosystem
************************************************************************

Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne@mmalt.guild.org) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: > Philip R (jamaican@sprynet.com) wrote:
: >
: > : Religion has little effect on birth rates in the modern world as a lot of 
: > : people see religion as (christianity) as something you can mix and match 
: > : to suit themself.
: >
: > But how do you draw the line between religious norms and cultural norms? 
: > The lines of division are not always clear.  The fact that the Pope is
: > imposing the norms of a European white male on the natives should count
: > for something. 
: Except it is not a fact.  
Yes, it is.
: I challenge you, Yuri, to produce evidence to support your claim. Show
: us an actual statement by the Pope that imposes cultural norms on
: natives.
The evidence? She has the nerve to ask for evidence...
Jayne, you're a pathetic cultist. Your cult, "Natural Family Planning" 
(NFP) is only 1% of Catholics.  99% of Catholic women think you're loopy.
They use the real family planning. You, a mother of many kids, have the
amazing brazenness to natter about the efficacy of NFP... 
I can't believe the idiocy of this whole thing. 
Now you've found an atheist buddy, dlj, with who apparently you agree on a
lot of things... Add to this chapter of Bizarro!
The evidence? Well, Pope went to Africa the other day and told them
contraception is a mortal sin. Sorry you've missed this...
Stop the lies, Jayne. They're bad for your soul...
Blessings,
Yuri.
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
I take a totally different view of God and Nature from that which
the later Christians usually entertain, for I hold that God is the
immanent, and not the extraneous, cause of all things. I say, All 
is in God; all lives and moves in God        ===        B. Spinoza

In article <58mm39$ba8@news.udel.edu>, tjreedy@udel.edu says...
>The World Bank/IMF are inter-nation-al socialist/statist 
>governemnt-to-government institutions and their evil effects have nothing to 
>do with private free-market enterprise.  Yes, the world would be better off 
>without them.  This is an argument for capitalism, not against.
Yawn.
Anyone who claims that the World bank and IMF are socialist is, to put it 
bluntly, an ignorant idiot.
Look at the policies of these institutions, look at the free market reforms 
they force states to make before they give loans, look at the view points of 
the economists who make up these institutions.  They are all hard core 
capitalists.  Anybody who has a brain and has taken time to understand these 
issues realizes that.  Only fools who want to fantasize about conpiracies adn 
the like in order to feel as if they somehow see reality better than others 
would make the type of claim you make.  Wake up and face reality, bub.

Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne@mmalt.guild.org) wrote:
: While I am pleased that Bob has quoted this source, he does not appear
: to have understood what the CCC said on this topic.  He left
: out the first half of paragraph 2370 which says,
: "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based
: on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity
: with the objective criteria of morallity. 
But it is not in confirmity with the real world. It is not in conformity
with the reality of poverty, hunger, suffering and the destruction of
Nature that result from the increasing problem of global overpopulation.
: These methods respect the
: bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favour
: the education of an authentic freedom.  In contrast. . ."
These methods encourage poverty, hunger, suffering, the destruction of
Nature, AND VIOLENCE AND WARS that result from the increasing problem of
global overpopulation.  These methods are false and hypocritical, part of
the agenda of evil patriarchal dominatation and destruction of the Earth
and of human societies.
Jayne is a Trojan, not a condom -- the horse.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
I take a totally different view of God and Nature from that which
the later Christians usually entertain, for I hold that God is the
immanent, and not the extraneous, cause of all things. I say, All 
is in God; all lives and moves in God        ===        B. Spinoza

In article <32B2272C.728C@songs.sce.com>,
John Hughes   wrote:
>Kenneth T. Cornelius wrote:
>>  Further, today windpower can work with the
>> existing technology without provision for energy storage until it forms
>> a far larger proportion of generating capacity.  That means a tremendous
>> amount of windpower capital can right now be added to the mix and used
>> profitably, and we've got a long way to go to reach that point.
>
>I enjoyed your post and I agree with the above statement. I propose the
>goal of building enough wind machines to produce 20% of the
>kilowatt-hours used annually in the U.S. within 20 years. I call this
>the "20/20 Plan". 
I've a couple of quetion about the use of wind power (and some other
suggested alternative sources) that've always bothered me a bit.
Wind power tends to be of variable output; when the wind's blowing, you
get lots of power. When it's calm, zip. Doesn't this mean that the rest
of the power infrastructure has to be built for sufficient capacity to
cover windless days? And if the convential capacity has to be built
anyway, isn't the windpower somewhat superfluous? And, since, in a
sense the capacity has to be built twice, isn't the true marginal cost
of windpower much higher than commonly cited? That is to say, while
generating, a windmill represents wasted capacity at a conventional
plant? 
Since wind power is variable, and can even somewhat abruptly stop,
doesn't this severely complicate the intra-grid connectivity? I realize
there are some sites, largely coastal, where the wind is pretty
reliable over over a day, but certainly most interior areas aren't.
Fossil, nuclear and hydro plants have the advantage of being pretty
predictable.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes: 
>In article <58r0gc$kh@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) 
>wrote:
[...]
>>On the other hand, humanity could
>>inflict disasters on itself that
>>would be quite different from any of
>>the natural ones. We are growing stronger
>>vis-a-vis nature, but not vis-a-vis ourselves.
>>E.g., there is a minority among environmentalists
>>that favors extermination of mankind by means
>>of artificial epidemics. Such an attempt
>>would probably fail, but not certainly.
>>We are not guaranteed against extinction.
>>Only dispersal in outer space can provide the guarantee.
>>
>>[After various things with which I disagree, dbraun 
>>says:]
>>> > Alternatively, in a 5, 10, or 50 million year time span, we
>>> > may also so adapt to changing conditions that we will become the
>>extinct
>>> > common ancestor to several other species. 
>>
>>This seems possible - and could happen much sooner,
>>due to artificial human evolution that is
>>becoming possible.
>
>Woe to those who think they are smarter than nature!  
That's what they said to those who introduced anesthetics
in surgery and in obstetrics...
>Meddling with the 
>human genome is frought with untold dangers that we are not even aware
of.
>To sum it up - there is also a biodiversity in the human genome 
Sure, sure: but there's a very simple safeguard: 
save the original version for back-up. 
Also - *of course* and *sine qua non* -
change one organism at a time, not all the species 
at once. 
This is easy to achieve - not through some elaborate
system of controls and planning, but just the *opposite*:
by laissez faire, freedom of experimentation, parent
power.
Then there will be many competing directions of artificial 
evolution, and errors can be corrected, while achievements
can be combined.
Whether it's good or not, artificial human
evolution is inevitable, if we retain some
degree of freedom. Here is the scenario, in 
7 easy steps.
(1) You can't forbid people to fix fatal genetic defects, 
can you? 
(2) From there, it is one step to non-fatal
but serious defects, and then...
(3) defects that are only defects by comparison, 
like less than perfect vision.  And once *that*
is adopted as a norm, then 
(4) why not work for perfection
in every definable respect: reflex speed, memory
etc.?  
(5) If we knew what genius is - and if we
liked what we knew - then that could next become
a new standard. But I believe that genius and
standard are incompatible concepts: so at
this stage we are into experimental progress
in many directions.
(6) That leads to *speciation*.
It can be nicely combined with fanning out in space,
so that no Homo sapiens species need be 
dependent on being tolerated on another
species' planet. They could mix and
cooperate, but they ought to have their 
home bases which they can adapt to their taste.
The last time when two species of Homo
sapiens (sapiens sapiens and sapiens 
neanderthalensis) coexisted on Earth, one of them
eventually disappeared. No one knows why,
and we've come a long way since; still, it
is better to be safe. 
This spatial separation, in its turn, will accelerate 
speciation.
(7) In the course of mere thousands, and not
millions, of years, one can expect 
hundreds of diverse Homo supersapiens species -
our great(very great!)grandchildren -
spreading out through the galactic neighborhood.
Good luck, kids - good luck, gods - *bon voyage*.

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:38:35 EDT, Toby Reiter 
wrote:
>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.
Human beings are a product of nature.
Ergo, the way human beings manage the ecosystem *is* the way nature
manages the ecosystem.
Your attempt to personify "nature" as some high minded manager is a
bit silly.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On 10 Dec 1996 04:05:09 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>Some strenuous manual work like mining or carpentry or construction labor
>is rather well paid.  Agricultural work is not.  It depends on
>unionization.
But you forget to mention how unionization achieves high wages -- by
limiting the supply of workers. This also has the effect of
impoverishing non-union workers.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

In <01bbe77a$52fd9f00$6b093593@Rick "Richard W. Tarara"

>This topic came up originally in trying to discuss jw's contention
that the
>solar system could support trillions of people.  Assuming some of
those
>trillions (even one trillion) resided on earth, it makes sense (to me)
that
>most of this population would reside in cities.  
Both assumptions look hasty to me.
First, trillions of people in the solar system does
not imply at least one trillion on earth. That would
only be a reasonable inference if all these
people lived on planet surfaces.
Second, even if a trillion did live on earth,
the resulting density would be suburban, not urban
- even discounting the surface of the oceans
(and that would be an error).
If, then, most of these people came to live in
cities, that would be a matter of preference,
not necessity. Quite possible - if the cities
are made attractive enough.
>The problem with cities is
>that they are high-density consumers of resources, those that produce
>energy, food, raw materials, etc.  
If the problem is *density*, and not *quantity*,
then we have solved this problem already -
high density has been achieved in cities, and
has been accommodated.
>My particular area of concern is energy.
> Cities require high density energy production (or conversion)
>centers. 
>Today these are provided in a number of ways that won't necessarily be
>available in the future. 
Production or conversion? Prevailing
methods of energy *production* must
change, because more energy will be needed.
Probably solar energy or fusion or both will provide
the bulk of energy - unless something better comes up.
But why should present methods of conversion 
cease to be available? 
> Energy sources such as solar and wind ARE NOT
>well suited to high-density demands.  
Electrical power is. Its source becomes irrelevant
at the point of consumption.
>My argument was that this is ONE
>factor that will effectively limit the size of cities and consequently
the
>sustainable population of earth
I see: you are speaking of city *size* - not
of total urban population. Size
increase *does* create new problems (soluble, it seems).
But  cities needn't grow in size
at all to accomodate a trillion people - it
is enough that their *number* grows.
A trillion could even be settled in suburban 
conditions. 
There are advantages in greater city size
- this is why cities keep growing. This growth may 
continue, but only if there are no insurmountable
obstacles. The whole problem is self-regulating.

In article <58u6hp$jpa@staff.cs.su.oz.au> andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) writes:
 > 
 > In article ,
 > John McCarthy  wrote:
 > >I am talking about technological humanity, of course.  Many land
 > >animals survived the extinction.  Therefore, the atmosphere remained
 > >breathable.  Humanity is well dispersed in the world now.  I'm not
 > >claiming that everyone would survive, but human technology is
 > >adaptable enough so that some would survive.  If the change were slow,
 > >then the whole of humanity would survive.  This applies to any of the
 > >models of the Permian extinctions I have heard of.
 > 
 > If indeed the end-Permian was a gradual event rather than catastrophe, as what
 > little evidence there is suggests, I don't doubt technological humanities
 > ability to avoid extinction.  I do doubt that the survival of many of
 > the terrestial vertebrates of the time in a catastrophe would guarantee ours
 > but instead let me instead ask, John McCarthy, then how does he know
 > we would have survived the late Ordovician extinction when there were
 > no terrestial vertebrates as indicators.  
 > 
 > Let me also add a quote from David Raup from his book Extinction, after
 > expressing some frustration at the range of exotic mass extinctions causes
 > suggested by non-specialists, he says: "But the alternative - the
 > assumption that we know all the good candidates - is unacceptable."
 > 
 > Andrew Taylor
I'll pass on the Ordovician extinction, because I don't know about it.
Going back to the original question, one ask the fans of rats and
cockroaches, what kind of an event is it that either of them would
survive and technological humanity not.
-- 
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.

Kevin Jones wrote:
> You *use* as much as a 1200 - 3200MW Nuke plant generates?
> 
> Wow.
I don't understand this question. The original posting said "they STILL
haven't figured out what to do with your waste", and I said that they
have.
John Hughes
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own and not my employer's

"D. Braun"  wrote:
[edited]
>
>Well, it would all depend on which scientists, in what fields, signed the
>document. One Steven J. Gould would equate to dozens of lesser scientists,
>ranked on the basis of publication frequency and rigor. I'll admit that
>I'm a peon, with one publication and two in the works, but they didn't
>ask me to sign. You?
I don't think anyone around these parts is that suggestible as to sign
a document of the type referred to.  And certainly no one I know would
ask me to sign such.
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic 
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and 
being honest."
     - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.   
	"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47

In  Toby Reiter
 writes: 
>The concept is waste equals food.  
No arguing about tastes. :-)

In article <32AEF309.698@bionomics.org>,
Max Jacobs   wrote:
>Thomas Hopkins recently studied regulatory compliance costs in
>"Regulatory Costs in Profile" done for the Center for the Study of
>American Business.  In 1995 regulatory compliance costs were $668
>billion.  Of that $218 billion was just paperwork, $223 billion was due
>to environmental regulations and $227 billion was for price and entry
>controls.  Even if you assume that environmental regulations create no
>paperwork (which would be like assuming that the world is flat)
>environmental regulations still cost on average $1905 per employee in a
>business with less than 20 persons.  $1824 per employee in a business
>with 20-499 employees and $1025 per employee in large businesses with
>over 500 workers.  So imagine if you ran a business with 10 employees. 
>By these figures, you would be paying $18240 just to comply with
>regulations.  That is enough money to hire another person. So, its hard
>for me to believe you when you tell me regulation doesnt effect the
>general employement level.
>
>Now for your second assertion. The federal reserve does not control the
>general employment level in this country, the market does.  Your
>assertion is a good example of machine age thinking, something we at the
>Bionomics Institute are trying to overcome.  The economy is not some
>sort of automobile, with the fed having its foot on the gas pedal.  The
>economy is a complex ecosystem.  Sure if the fed raised the federal
>funds rate tremendously there would be, some increase in the
>unemployment level.  But that is only because wall street trusts Alan
>Greenspan to make the right decision.  The fed only controls the federal
>funds rate, which is the interest it charges to make loans to other
>banks.  This does effect the interest rates that we deal with everyday,
>but it is the market that actually changes them.  A couple of months
>ago, there were some rumors going around that the fed was going to raise
>the federal funds rate and that very day, interest rates rose by
>themselves.  
>
>If this hasnt convinced you, how about this.  Imagine if the federal
>government cut defense spending by 25%, wouldnt that effect the
>employment level? (it did in california).  Imagine if IBM went bankrupt,
>wouldnt that effect the employment level?  Imagine if regulatory
>compliance costs went down to zero and $668 billion were availible this
>year for investment.  Wouldnt that raise employment? The economy is vast
>and complex and many different things create the current level of
>unemployment.  
Seeing as how this study was done by a pro-business think tank I wonder
how accurate the figures are but giving the benefit of the doubt, are you
recommended that all regulatory compliances be disregarded?  That would
fit in line with what many businesses would like.  Imagine, they could
pollute all they like, higher children and legally own sweatshops, offer
no medical or retirement plan to workers, pay nothing to the government. 
Boy wouldn't that really get the economic "ecosystem" going!  As complex
as our economy might seem to you, it pales in comparison to the complexity
of a singled-cell organism much less a true ecosystem.  As a Green
supporter, I would love to see some regulation go, not all regulation is
bad.  Some may seem absurd, but since we are talking of the environment,
its protection is not.  
      ****                   David Whitt     davwhitt@med.unc.edu
     ** ***
         **                  No one can make you feel inferior
         ***                 without your consent.
         ****                                 -Eleanor Roosevelt
        ***  *
       ***   **   *          People often find it easier to be a result
      ***    ******          of the past than a cause of the future.
     ***       ***

On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:46:26 +0000 (GMT), CDS4AW@leeds.ac.uk (A.
Whitworth) wrote:
>I'm very proud of my (English) culture.... don't get me 
>wrong. But I also recognise that I have a head-start on many 
>other people thanks to my birth. Had I been born, say, 
>Ethiopian, with the same intelligence, body, and relative 
>level of affluence (compared to other members of my culture) 
>I would almost certainly be poor now. I thank God that I was 
>not, sometimes. And I try to do something about it, within 
>the limits placed on me as a member of a particular culture. 
>You can be proud of your culture at the same time as 
>recognising its deficiencies. 
But you don't seem to ask the important question -- why does that
inequality exist? And would a mere transfer of wealth help? Ethiopia
is in the dire straits it is in today largely because of the actions
taken by Ethiopians against other Ethiopians.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On Tue, 10 Dec 96 02:33:03 GMT, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In the U.S., manual labor is not highly regarded.  Your pay is proportional 
>to how smart you work, not how physically hard you work.  Note that many 
>jobs involve hard mental work, which is more difficult than meets the eye.
In all free market economies, wages are based on the marginal utility
of labor.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> Joan Shields (joan@med.unc.edu) wrote:
>
> : Anyway, yes, the Vatican has not been a big fan of birth control (other
> : than the "Rhythmn Method") however, there are others who are also not big
> : fans of it.  Wasn't it back in the Reagan Administration that birth
> : control and family planning aid to third world countries was cut? 
>
> Joan, 
>
> This was mostly the work of "pro-lifers" of whom the Vatican bots are a
> very large component. 
Pro-lifers are concerned with the issues of abortion and euthanasia. 
They would not get involved in influencing policies relating to birth
control and family planning unless abortion was involved.  
The United States had tied foreign aid to birth control programs. Some
people objected to a policy of "we won't give you any food unless you
also accept contraceptives that don't even pass our own drug
standards." No doubt some of these people were RC. That people found
this policy morally objectionable in no way demonstrates that they
were mindless "bots" as you call them.  
[]
> : Still, it's not necessarily the availability of birth control that ensures
> : family planning.  Like I said in a previous post - when the economic and
> : social status of women rises birth rates tend to drop.  It's education -
> : the use of birth control, breast feeding, lowering of the infant mortality
> : rate... etc.  It's these things that are most important.  
The most recent issue of _Childview_ has an article on this topic.
This is a publication of World Vision Canada, an organization for
providing Third World aid that has no connections with the RC Church. 
It even competes with RC organizations for funding in some cases.
Therefore the comments in this article are unlikely to have been
influenced by RC teaching.
This article begins by explaining that many families deliberately
choose to have many children because "it's children who are expected to
care for their parents in old age." These people live in conditions
such that "they feel they have no choice but to have large families in
the hopes that at least some will survive."
The article then mentions World Vision's policy of "never forcing
family planning programs on anyone." It then explains that when people
ask them they teach family planning. This includes giving information
on the importance of birth spacing of at least two years, as this
dramaticallly reduces infant mortality rates.
The remainder of the article expands on the statement:
"Although family planning is important, it cannot stand alone.  One of
the best ways to control over-population is to fight poverty.  Studies
show that as living standards increase, birth rates decrease"
It explains that when parents can afford health care and immunization
they increase their children's life expectancy and therefore have
fewer children. It also explains the impact of education on lowering
birth rates: "Educated mothers ... wait longer before there first
pregnancy, have fewer but better-nourished children and are more
likelly to use health and family planning services."
The article concludes that by saying that their family planning
programs are always "linked to other efforts such as health care,
education and food production."
> I don't think anyone disagreed with you. I'm a feminist myself, and fully
> support women's rights.
I'm not sure you have ever said so directly, but you have implied that
you support government programs of forced sterilization and
contraception.  Is this your view?  If so, you need to realilze that
stopping a woman who wants a child from having one is a violation of
her rights.
> But how you're going to give women rights in
> Afghanistan where they are ALL under virtual house arrest. The rise of
> Islam makes me skeptical. Does it mean these countries will NEVER have
> birth control?
You seem to have picked a new bogeyman on which to blame
overpopulation, again with little basis in fact. Islam teaches that
natural methods of family planning are morally acceptable.
Yuri, stop trying to blame overpopulation on Somebody Else Out There.
This finger-pointing is wasting your time and energy and encouraging
others to do so. There are many things that we could be doing that
could actually help people.
It costs $27 a month to sponsor a child in the Third World through
World Vision. Whenever a person does this, it directly attacks the
poverty, lack of health care and education that lead to over-
population. Yes, this is only one person, but change happens one
person at a time. What if everyone in N.A. who pays for cable TV
sponsored a child instead?
There are lots of little things we can do that seem insignifant on
their own, but they add up. For example, we can buy our coffee from
Bridgehead or other agencies that make sure the profits go to the
farmers rather than to middlemen.  Any one of these small actions is
more use than ranting and finger-pointing.  
Jayne

In article <58p9r2$dat@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones  wrote:
>On 12 Dec 1996 15:48:44 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:29:09 +0100, Neil-Cordwell@Netinfo.fr (Neil
>>Cordwell) wrote:
>>>It might be interesting to think what will happen when the present day
>>>nuclear power stations need decommisioning. What are we going to do with
>>>all the nice hot waste?
>> 
>>Neil,
>> 
>>Assuming you are not a lobbyist for the construction industry -- all
>>the very political Bechtels and Brown & Roots of this world -- what's
>>the matter with simply filling them up with cement and leaving them
>>there?
>
>Come to think of it, we still use Roman roads and aqueducts,
>Alexandrian baths and, again, roads.  Where does this idea that the
>plants have to be decomissioned come from?  
>
>We should be designing plants so you just truck a part of the core out
>every few months on a rotating basis.  Then you'd recycle the
>zirconium and stainless, the same way you recycle the uranium and
>plutonium.  
>
>Sustainable engineering: it looks like metal agriculture.
> 
  Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy.  Components do age
  and do become obsolete.  The pressure vessel, for instance, is
  subjected to neutron irradiation which tends to embrittle it.
  There are ways of dealing with the problems - in situ annealing
  for pressure vessels, replacement for steam generators (which
  are not lasting as long as we would like them to), &c.;
  I'm not sure what you mean by recycling the zirconium - the
  stuff is rather hot when discharged.  It is certainly much
  easier and economical to dispose of it instead.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

In article ,
Toby Reiter   wrote:
>
>
>On 12 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>> On 12 Dec 1996 19:00:33 GMT, sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
>> >>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.
>> 
>> There is your proof.
>
>This is no proof that there is no problem with nuclear weapons. Remember 
>those laws of thermodynamics, buddy? Matter can be neither created nor 
>destroyed?  There are just as many nuclear weapons today as there were 
>before. Some of them may just be buried somewhere in a desert next to an 
>Indian reservation or simply not pointing at anyone in particular. As 
>long as anyone continues to belittle the universal problems of nuclear 
>power, whether as weapons or fuel, then this world will not be safe.
  Well, we could burn plutonium in nuclear power plants, thereby
  destroying it.  Ah, but such a policy just makes too much sense.
  BTW, does anyone have any details regarding the Eqyptian nuclear
  weapons programme cited above?  I do not recalling ever hearing
  of it.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

In article <58p196$j0k@service3.uky.edu>,
TL ADAMS   wrote:
>tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy) wrote:
>
>> : 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.
>> : 
>> 
>
>
>> 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. 
>
>Why, does the truth hurt.  The commercial power/weapons production are
>so closely entwined that how can you remove your self from eco nightmares
>like Hanford.  Its not even in the realm of current engineering ability
>to clean Hanford, although we sure as hell are going to try to mitigate.
>I am more than a little familar with remediatation and the cost of remediation,
>your bloody industry is subject to the same risk standards and clean-up
>standards as Sohio or Hooker Chemical.  When we start talking about a 
>multibillion cleanup for a small site like Fernald, when we have to contend with 
>with million litre plumes of TCE laced with Pu, U, et al.
>
>Actually Decommission a couple of plants, and then we will talk about
>cost.
>
   I guess that I am still confused - exactly what is the connection
   between Hanford and Fernald on one hand and nuclear power generation
   on the other?
   Of course, we have decommissioned several plants - Shippingport
   comes to mind.  Ft. St. Vrain and Trojan are also being decommissioned,
   and I am not sure what is being done with Rancho Seco.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:19:13 EDT, Toby Reiter 
wrote:
>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. 
And yet,... you then go on to in fact sense just such a suicide. Do
you always falsify your arguments in this way to save others time?
>> 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.
On what basis should it never have occurred?
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:48:41 GMT, briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell)
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 02:40:49 +0800, "John B. O'Donnell"
> wrote:
>
>
>>The problem with income taxes is that they cause an increase in variable costs of 
>>production, negative income taxes reduce (less efficiently than some other forms of 
>>subsidy) variable costs. The problem remains, negative income taxes only reduce some of 
>>the damage caused by income taxes in the first place.  
>>
>>The real solution is to replace all transaction taxes with government financing by 
>>charging for government granted privileges (particularly limited liability) in a 
>>manner that is empirically determined to cause the greatest rate of capital growth. 
>
>I'm sorry, can you elaborate on this idea?
>
>Brian Carnell
>-----------------------------
>brian@carnell.com
>http://www.carnell.com/   
I think what he means is:
If you own a business, either a sole owner, or as a partner, then you
are legally responible for the conduct of that business. On the other
hand, if you are a shareholder in a corporation, you have no
responibly for that corporation's actions. The government grants that
limited liability by granting an incorporation. He wants to charge for
that.
I am no fan of big government, but I do beleive that the person, or
company, receiving something from government should pay for it, rather
than the taypayer. I had never thought of limited liability.
Interesting idea.

==============================================================
                 ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS EMPLOYMENT BULLETIN
TECHNICAL and SALES & MARKETING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES 
           for the ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, & SAFETY INDUSTRY 
==============================================================
PROJECT MANAGER - Chicago, Illinois 
K-Plus Environmental, Inc. is seeking a mid-level experienced (3 to 5
years) environmental engineer, hydrogeologist, or geologist for a
project management position providing industrial compliance,
subsurface soil & groundwater investigations, hazardous waste
management consulting, LUST, and other RCRA remedial program Services.
The successful candidate will begin as a project manager and must have
the ability to progress and develop into a senior technical advisor or
senior project management professional. Candidate MUST have USEPA,
IEPA, or other Midwestern regulatory agency experience and MUST have
recent work experience within the Chicagoland marketplace.  An
appropriate BS degree in engineering, geology, or hydrogeology is
required.
Reply via e-mail to:  mail@k-plus.com  Fax:  312-226-9753, or snail
mail your resume to: K-Plus Environmental, Inc., 921 W. Van Buren,
Suite 100,  Chicago, IL 60607.
___________________________________________________________
ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS is an information service.  Please send your
responses to the Reply Service, the snail mail or e-mail address, or
FAX number contained in the specific ad.  For information on posting
available industry employment opportunities please e-mail us at
envr_jobs@mailzone.com  
-------  Environmental Jobs Information System  ------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE send e-mail to: envr_jobs@mailzone.com with a 
SUBJECT and a MESSAGE of:  UNSUBSCRIBE.  To SUBSCRIBE send e-mail to:
envr_jobs@mailzone.com with a SUBJECT and a MESSAGE of: SUBSCRIBE.
=====================================================

In article <32b5d4c3.40782080@nntp.net-link.net>,
Brian Carnell  wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:38:35 EDT, Toby Reiter 
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Human beings are a product of nature.
>Ergo, the way human beings manage the ecosystem *is* the way nature
>manages the ecosystem.
>
>Your attempt to personify "nature" as some high minded manager is a
>bit silly.
And it is due to our efficient management of the ecosystem that we have
caused one of the largest extinctions in all world history.  That is why
carbon dioxide levels have doubled and there's a hole in the ozone layer
over the poles and the rest is thinning (causing the number of causes of
skin cancer to multiply).  While humans beings are a product of nature,
their actions are not.  Natural actions are generally governed by instict,
not ignorance, greed, or apathy.  The facts are, nature has done very well
for the past several hundred million years without man.  Since the
industrial age man has adversly affected the environment through
artificial means (unless you want to imply that platics and DDT can occur
in nature without any means of artificial production).  Why is this such a
hard concept for you to understand?
      ****                   David Whitt     davwhitt@med.unc.edu
     ** ***
         **                  No one can make you feel inferior
         ***                 without your consent.
         ****                                 -Eleanor Roosevelt
        ***  *
       ***   **   *          People often find it easier to be a result
      ***    ******          of the past than a cause of the future.
     ***       ***

"Toashi"  wrote:
>Can somebody tell me what environmental engineering entails? I am considering an
>environmental engineering major an so far I've only been given a general overview of
>what it entails.
Well here in the great Midwest an "environmental engineering" degree
entails much time in the front of the unemployment lines...unless you
are a tree hugging liberal without need for $$ you may wish to
consider some other profession...
Good luck...

In <58rcm0$got@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
writes: 
>
>On 13 Dec 1996 08:43:10 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>>The "Little Red Book period" was the Cultural Revolution
>>period (which began in 1966);
>>the countryside did *not* die then (though it continued
>>to be malnourished); at that time, the blow was directed
>>at the cities; and many of the exiled city dwellers
>>survived in the countryside.
>
>"The blow"?  The countryside did not die??
> 
>Of course it dind't!!  _Only_ 36 million died.  
They did not. Not at that time. The famine you are referring to
occurred before - see next paragraph.
>>The time when the countryside died was *before* that - in 1960,
>>and for quite different reasons: enforced collectivization.
>
>There was a first 
...and only - usually called The Great ...
>Leap Forward, with the first generation of rural
>steel furnaces (during which many of the peasants melted down their
>imlements to meet their quotas).
All that - and the collectivization, too.
>  The death toll was large, as you
>say, but this way not the big killer.
Yes, it was. The famine came right after the Great Leap forward.
>  That came later.
No, it did not.
Look it up, you are plain wrong. 
Or would you like me to do it for you? 
I could leaf through any of a half-dozen
books; but it would take several minutes, so I'll 
save time and just grep to see what I happen to have 
on line. 
Here. This is from a book review in some recent
issue of _The Economist_. The reference abracadabra is:
http://www.economist.com/review/rev10/rv7/review.html.
The reviewed book is _Hungry Ghosts_, by Jasper Becker.
Excerpt:
||"FROM 1958-62 China had a famine that killed 30m people; 35 years 
||later China's leaders still do not talk about it. This was a 
||man-made famine, and the men who made it were the political parents 
||of those now in power in China. Astoundingly, Jasper Becker, another
||China-based British journalist, is the first to write a full account
||of one of this century's great horrors. Passionately but precisely,
||Mr Becker records the tragic results of one of the 
||boldest examples of Utopian engineering ever attempted [etc...]"
See? This is the famine you obviously had in mind,
the only one of such magnitude in world history.
>  In any event, country died, city lived.
Because the city destroyed and looted the country -
in (see above) "one of the boldest example of Utopian 
engineering ever attempted". It had nothing to do with
who lacked resources - at least the *productive* resources. 
The city had the guns.
And so the famine "came out of the barrel of a gun",
to paraphrase Chairman Mao. 

Check out our BC Environment website for some interesting information.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/envhome.html
or our Skeena Region's website at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/~djohnson/
Mike Gow
BC Environment
Surrey, BC
Canada

In <58r7fi$f0r@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
writes: 
>
>On 13 Dec 1996 07:27:08 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>>In that case, however, the human *clade*, if not
>>human *species*, will have survived.
>>New and improved editions of mankind will
>>then exist. I see this as an optimistic scenario.
[...]
>Look, fella, the biologists have not yet got this figgered out, not
>even the smart ones.
Figured *what* out? We are speaking of a future
that no one knows - why pick biologists in particular?
>If you start lecturing us on the cladistics vs. species stuff in the
>near future, you go straight into the "I know how to spell
>thermodynamics" nutso file.
There is no reference to 
any issue like "cladistics vs. species" in what I wrote. 
And spelling "thermodynamics" right is certainly
desirable for all, not merely for nutsos 
(or for nutsoes - as VP Quayle might have corrected me.:-)
As far as I can fathom, you are objecting to my use of
the word *clade* as not being in general usage. 
It ought to be, as "species" and "genus" are -
because there's a niche for it. 
Its meaning was clear from the context
of my posting.
To paraphrase: if human species evolves
into many other species, its genetic line
will continue. In most cases of species extinction,
that is not true. This is a different, more
benign, kind of "extinction". Nothing lasts
forever - to live is to change; but some
change is death and some change is progress.

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:25:18 EDT, Toby Reiter 
wrote:
>
>
>On 12 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>> On 12 Dec 1996 19:00:33 GMT, sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
>> >>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.
>> 
>> There is your proof.
>
>This is no proof that there is no problem with nuclear weapons. Remember 
>those laws of thermodynamics, buddy? Matter can be neither created nor 
>destroyed?  There are just as many nuclear weapons today as there were 
>before. Some of them may just be buried somewhere in a desert next to an 
>Indian reservation or simply not pointing at anyone in particular. As 
>long as anyone continues to belittle the universal problems of nuclear 
>power, whether as weapons or fuel, then this world will not be safe.
Using this piece of nonsense, then, there were *always* just as many
nuclear weapons as there are today. The Babylonians just never
bothered to assemble all the component pieces.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 02:40:49 +0800, "John B. O'Donnell"
 wrote:
>The problem with income taxes is that they cause an increase in variable costs of 
>production, negative income taxes reduce (less efficiently than some other forms of 
>subsidy) variable costs. The problem remains, negative income taxes only reduce some of 
>the damage caused by income taxes in the first place.  
>
>The real solution is to replace all transaction taxes with government financing by 
>charging for government granted privileges (particularly limited liability) in a 
>manner that is empirically determined to cause the greatest rate of capital growth. 
I'm sorry, can you elaborate on this idea?
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

In article <58sr0j$47j@thrush.sover.net>, Ron Jeremy  wrote:
>H.W. Stockman (hwstock@swcp.com) wrote:
[ someone else wrote: ]
>: I think the first poster was referring to the
>: "Sub-Seabed" project, wherein canisters of
>: waste would be driven deep into the soft muds
>: in the interplate regions.  The idea was to
>: make the canister very corrosion-resistant,
>: put a pointy end on it, and either let gravity
>: or a mechanical device complete the emplacement.
>: A lot of attention was paid to the heat loading,
>: so convection would not "Burp" the canister
>: back to the seabed.
>
>I just came across something on that.  They actaully tested empty 
>"penetrators" and got something like 30 m of penetration.  As I remember, 
>it was a multinational test.  I'll try to re-find it.
The concept I remember was to drop bomb-shaped canisters into
manganiferous ocean-bottom clays.  It would supposedly have been
OK for the containers to corrode, because the chemical
properties of the clays would have immobilized the
radionuclides.
Aside from the fairly obvious safety problems (what happens if a
canister hits a big rock instead of deep mud?) this approach was
doomed when recoverability was added to the design criteria for
radioactive waste disposal.
-- 
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

>to.  If Shell and Exxon go bankrupt, the third world will take over!
> >
> >   The environmental issues are very real.  There will always be people like
> >Rush Limbaugh who say it's all shit, giving "facts" normally inadmissable in
> >any scientific inquiry. (Check out http://www.fair.org/fair/ for a number
> >of reports on him)
Maybe the third world should take over then there would be nobody trying
to be in charge of me and my family. BTW, is it not funny that his name
is rather akin to Rush(from the)Limbic(system), or Puss Lymphjaw. The
grand mastiff of Jesse Hitler or Jesus Helms or whatever the hell he
thinks he is. He is the son of a lawyer and a product of nepotism, and
could never stand up to an open line, uncensored. He is an acolyte of
the ancient and primeval consumer.
John Lennon loves you and you

http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/14/republican.radio/index.html