Newsgroup sci.environment 113402

Directory

i have noticed that people describe "sticking it out" as a 
prerequisite for a decent career in biology. in my opinion, 
"sticking it out" is partially a matter of luck, as well as 
stubbornness. for example, if one is tempted to go to graduate 
school in one of the biological sciences, there are many 
problems that they must face as a result of this decision. i 
have watched many of my colleagues struggle through graduate 
school in pursuit of the PhD. these people have faced and, in 
many cases, overcome, enormous odds, such as the financial 
realities associated with being a grad student; bad health 
insurance that can penalize grad students and their dependents 
(if they have any) who have temporary lapses in the quality of 
their health, dealing with the hazards of living in crime-ridden 
neighborhoods because that is all they can afford, and taking 
out large loans in order to pay living expenses. 
there are other problems that a grad student may also be faced 
with, such as the incredibly long work hours and the resulting 
social isolation, uncaring and insensitive advisors, lack of 
direction in their own research, extensive teaching demands that 
interfere with the student's own research, time demands made by 
their dependents/families/friends (if they have any), and many 
other factors that i have neglected to mention here. some of 
these problems can be circumvented, while others cannot.
i am also in this pursuit of the PhD and i am determined to 
succeed. however, i can easily understand why a person cannot 
"stick it out" through no fault of her own, merely due to "bad 
luck." i think that i have overcome a lot of difficulties in my
life in order to get to here, so i know that i can deal with and
endure a great deal of "bad luck." however, i don't know if i could
continue my studies if i developed leukemia, or if i was terribly 
injured by a car as i ride my bike to campus. so "sticking it out" is
at least partially the result of good luck. in short, i think that 
there are two reasons why people receive their PhDs in science; 
persistence and luck.
-- 
   Deborah Wisti-Peterson          email:nyneve@u.washington.edu
Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash, USA
    Visit me on the web: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~nyneve/
=-=-=-Graduate School: it's not just a job, it's an indenture!=-=-=

In article , bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
_]Dave,
_]
_]Nothing you said here contradicts the point that I made in any way. Why 
_]post so you can say nothing?
_]
_]Yuri.
_]
_]David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
_]: On 18 Dec 1996 05:24:26 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
_]
_]: >
_]
_]: Nope.  More Yuri sitting there spewing.  
_]:  
 Yeah Dave, stop wasting our time and stick to Yuri's point ! Not to 
reference your remarks properly to YuKu (The mighty pole around which 
our galactic cluster spins through space) is, after all, to say
nothing.

"D. Braun"  wrote:
>Off-topic newsgroups snipped
>
>On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Harold Brashears wrote:
[edited]
>> 
>> I think I can tell you where the numbers come from, and on the surface
>> they even appear plausible (well, almost).  I think the figures
>> originated in Myer's "The Sinking Ark" (1979).  Here he attributes to
>> human action one extinction per year from 1900 to 1975, and 75
>> extinctions from 1600 to 1900.  From that he extrapolates 1 million by
>> the year 2000.  The reason he gave for the large extrapolation was the
>> tropical rain forest acreage being lost.  He assumed that, for every
>> 1% of tropical rain forest destroyed there would be destroyed some set
>> percentage of the total number of species living in the rain forest.
>> 
>> That is the key assumption, that deforestation = species extinction
>> for some percentage.  For example, Myers noted in a later article that
>> he assumed when a habitat has lost 90% of its extent, it will have
>> lost 50% of its species.  There is no evidence for this.  
>
>Its what is called a working hypothesis.  And there is evidence that
>extinction is related to habitat destruction. Terry Ermin has done work on
>what occurs when various sized patches of rainforest are left, with the
>surrounding spaces cleared.  Guess what? Species dissappeared-- although
>they will not neccessarily extinct. 
Since the discussion concerned species extinction, not "species
disappeared", I find your unreferenced comment of some interest, but
of puzzling vagueness.
>The issue of biodicversity revolves
>not just around dissapperaence of species from the planet, but from their
>functional relationship in ecosystems. On can extrapolate from such an
>experiment to the scale of entire forest types. 
One can readily extrapolate from the letters in your name to the
conclusion of the universe, the question remains whether or not this
is a valid exercise.  That was what I was questioning.
>> In fact, A.
>> Lugo noted (see "Diversity of Tropical Species" appearing in Biology
>> International, Special Issue-19, 1989) that the massive forest
>> conversion in Puerto Rico did *not* lead to massive species
>> extinction.
>
>And? How was species diversity measuered? Were forest canopies sampled for
>invertebrates before and after primary forests were removed? Doubtful. 
You have not read it, but you are doubted how it was written?  Of
course, I tend to forget your extensive experience in the field,
right?  I find your comment presumptuous.  When you have read it, you
can let us know your opinion.
>How
>thorough was the census several hundred years ago before the first
>Europeans (or caribs, for that matter) started logging, farming, and
>introducing alien species like rats? I dare say, it does not exist. Did
>Lugo compare remaining forest fragments with agricultural lands? Were thee
>fragments primary or secondary? 
Since you are ignorant of the article you are questioning, I suggest
you could look it up.  You have claimed to be working in an allied
field, so I assume you have rudimentary acquaintance with library
procedures.  I told you my conclusions, you are free to make your own,
which I will believe have some validity after you become conversant
with the literature under discussion.
>> When you add in the fact that their deforestation assumptions are
>> grossly overblown as well, there have to be serious questions asked as
>> to their veracity.
>
>Nope.  The dismissal of the extinction rate, and its significance as
>overblown is what tests one's confidence in the speaker's veracity.  "Not
>knowing" is not the same as "it didn't happen, and is not happening". The
>world-wide species extinction rate is certainly high, due to anthropogenic
>disturbance (a working, testable, hypothesis). 
Then go ahead and test it, or find data to test it.  As I noted, the
hypothesis was put forward in by 1979, and all of the tests so far
disprove your hypothesis, as I noted.  If you have more than your
assumptions to advance, feel free to do so, but data is required prior
to acceptance of your assumptions.
>Citing a few studies,
>without relating methodology or even the theoretical argument does not
>falsify it. Other studies, as well as common sense, have confirmed it. In
>many areas that have been greatly disturbed, the extinction of species 
>will never be known. 
So, if we don't know it, we must believe your assumptions, based on
your "common sense"?  I regret that I must insist on some proof beyond
your assumptions.
>A common-sense approach to preserving biodiversity would be to stop
>disturbing relatively undisturbed fragments
>of ecosystems that are left, and disturb those we use less intensively,
>according to traditional use patterns. Of course, this is only common
>sense to those that believe extinctions are occurring, and that the loss
>of biological diversity is a serious issue.  
That is correct.  Amazing.  You really do understand that the
assumption has been made, but unproven.  Now try to prove it.
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

We are a result of evolution on this planet.  Calling that management
dilutes the word so much as to make it useless.  If humanity is to
avoid unpleasant events, it will have to manage the environment in a
genuine sense.
Braun tells us
     Nature "managing" is simply the process of biological
     evolution, in interaction with the physical world; this is
     the Gaia Hypothesis in a nut shell.
If this were the Gaia hypothesis, it would be trivial.  While I have
only read reviews, as I understand it the Gaia hypothesis starts with
the remark that our planet has maintained itself so suited to life
that mere evolution of genes is implausible.  It hypothesizes that
there is some additional feedback mechanism that keeps the planet
hospitable to life.  In response to criticism, there has been
considerable dilution of the Gaia hypothesis.
Braun quotes Whitt as saying,
     As for the desertification, that will be another problem for
     the midwest in about 40-50 years when the Ogala aquifer runs
     dry and farmers must rely on rain alone.
Most of the Midwest uses rain fed agriculture.  When the Oglallala
aquifer dries up, either we will get our cattle feed by improved
productivity on other land, or we will import water for the Oglallala,
e.g. reviving the 1964 proposed North American Water Alliance.  These
possibilities are discussed (with some numbers) in my
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/water.html.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

"D. Braun"  wrote:
>Off-topic newsgroups snipped
>
>On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Harold Brashears wrote:
>
>> davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> >John McCarthy  wrote:
>> >>In article <5977ck$bla@newz.oit.unc.edu> davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) writes:
>> >> > That is one of the points we environmentalists like to make.  We are not,
>> >> > and can not manage our planet in a better way than nature.  What we can do
>> >> > is try to reduce and limit the negative effects we have on the ecosystem.  
>> >>
>> >>1. The facts are wrong.  The number of extinctions caused by human
>> >>activity is trivial in relation to the major natural extinctions.
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks to environmentalists this is relatively true.  Thanks to people
>> >like you 1 million species have disappeared from the world's tropical
>> >rainforests alone.  I would hardly call this trivial especially when
>> >taking into account it was done by 1 species alone.
>> 
>> Do you have any data that would support your assertion?  I do realize
>> that facts are not required to say such things, but if you expect to
>> be taken at all seriously, you have to provide some substantiation.
>> 
>> In the book, "Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction", Edited
>> by Whitmore and Sayer (1992), we are told that to estimate extinction
>> is impossible.  The editors tried hard to prove there were
>> extinctions, but could come up with a list that amounted to about one
>> per year.
>> 
>> [deleted]
>
>Go back to school, Harold. First of all, quoting one source as an argument
>that extinction is either not happening on a massive scale or can't be
>measured is a bit one sided, wouldn't you say? 
Ordinarily, I might agree that one source is not proof, on the other
hand, you have no sources at all, beyond your unsupported assumptions.
When you have some actual numbers, not assumptions, let me know.
>Second, it is not
>scientific to dismiss the issue of the massive anthropogenic extinction
>rate as unimportant, because it is "unproven".  It is far from unproven,
>by the way.
Really?  Why don't you try to prove it then?
>
>Please rebut the work of several conservation biologists,
>taxonomists, and ecologists who have documented biological diversity, and
>its loss.
Ok, who and where?
> Certainly, untill every scrap of habitat for a species is gone,
>one could predict that it may still survive.  However, this question
>beomes moot as many world ecosystems are reduced to mere scraps or
>extinguished entirely. Also, various species dissappear from habitat at
>different points in fragmentation and reduction of area. 
>
>Terry Erwin (an ecologist) predicted 30 million species
>world-wide, most of them invertebrates, based on sampling tropical forest
>canopies. Rebut his work. 
Where did it appear?  You continue to say "sos and so say it".  Where
did they say it, and is the number based on actual counts of missing
species, or assumptions based on other factors?
>Where are the species which once lived in the
>Atlantic rainforest in Brazil? That forest is now down to the single
>digits (% of former forest cover), and most of the loss was to
>agriculture. Please describe where the original biodiversity is residing.
>Please describe how you can do this, based on island biogeographic theory
>or some other theory, and support your conclusions given the fact that
>taxonomic records for this area in its undisturbed state are fragmentary. 
>
>You don't have to leave your chair. However, groundless opinions are
>exactly that.
No kidding.  
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

Here's a fragment from a news story.
     E coli is a bacteria normally found in the guts of cattle,
     sheep and people. It is usually harmless but one strain,
     known as 0157, can cause brain damage and kidney failure in
     vulnerable people such as the elderly or children.
     It gets into food via improper slaughtering techniques or  
     through manure used as fertilizer. 
In this respect artificial fertilizer is safer.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Rick & Bea Tarara (rbtarara@sprynet.com) wrote:
: Answer the question--where/how can the
: world get about three to five times the current energy per capita at
: affordable prices and without undo environmental damage during the next two
: centuries?
Nuclear fission, of course.   At present it is about twice the cost of
the best competition, but with volume and standardization might drop.
--
Matthew B. Kennel/mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/ 

In article <59c40s$1go4@sol.caps.maine.edu>,   wrote:
>In article <59aneb$bnf@news.tamu.edu>, kjackson@cs.tamu.edu says...
>>Now, as the good Doctor Erb has interjected himself into debates in which
>>I am involved, in order to impugn my integrity, 
>touchy, touchy....
>I simply stated my opinion and explained why.
Your opinion was that I was telling "the worst kind of lies" but you did
not explain why you stated this opinion.  You did not even specify what
it was you found to be false in my post, as you deleted hundreds of
lines of me presenting evidence and arguments.
Now, apparently accusing another person of telling "the worst kind of lies"
is a *SIMPLE* matter, to the good doctor.  He thinks it is sufficient to
make such allegations, put his title of ASSISTANT PROFESSOR on the end,
and be done with it.
This is like walking up to a man and slapping him across the face and
being surprised if he hits back.
>You've put my name in subject 
>headings, called me "PRofessor Propaganda" from the beginning,
Yes, and I have done this to point out your deceitful tactics trying to
shame you into stopping your behavior.
Why do you think I keep emphasizing your title, Professor?  It's because
I am disgusted that you would misuse them to deceitfully attack others.
As a PhD student, I want the title of Professor to mean something.
>and have been 
>on a crusade to simply impunge the character of those with whom you disagree. 
I have not accused anyone of anything I am not willing to back up with
evidence, Doctor.  I disagree with many people, but I do not call them
racists unless I see evidence of such attitudes.
You, however, have interjected yourself into our little flamewar to decree
from on high that certain people are lying.  You are unwilling to back up
your accusations with any evidence, and as the matter of your claim about
Kennemur quoting Morton shows, you are making such scurrilous charges
based upon ignorant *GUESSES*.
>That style is consistent with what I"ve seen in your other attacks (my 
>reaction to which got you going here!), and what others say is typical for 
>you.
Ahh yes, what "others" say about me.  Tell me, Doctor, have you been
listening to little birdies whispering in your ear?  Did you ever stop
to consider that these little birdies were using you, and that you've
been played like a fiddle by them?
It's sad a pathetic how an ASSISTANT PROFESSOR can be duped so easily.
>I frankly have tried to be more friendly with you than others.  
Your first article in response to me accused me of telling "the worst kind
of lies" and of acting deceptively to "boost [my] self worth."  Your first
e-mail message to me called me an "a**hole".
You don't honestly expect anyone to consider that *FRIENDLY*, do you,
Doctor?
>However,you are clearly demonstrating your style, and I find it amusing that 
>you apparently don't realize how it looks to lurkers and readers who don't 
>already have a set opinion. :)
While I am sure there are millions of your holy lurkers swooning at your
every word, Doctor, I am the one presenting evidence, and not some
hollow title, to back my statements.
-- 
Keith

ECOLOGY & ARCHAEOLOGY RESEARCH COURSES for STUDENTS in the URALS, RUSSIA
sponsored and organised for 7 years by:
Ecologia Foundation, Scotland            
EcoInfo Ecology Centre,Ekaterinburg, Russia
Urals Institute of Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences
ECOLOGY FIELD RESEARCH CAMP
20 July-13 August 1997                  £875 / US$1600
3 weeks with research scientists from the Urals Institute of Ecology, 
Ekaterinburg
Students from British and American Universities take part in the field 
research projects of Russian Senior Research Scientists from the Urals 
Institute of Ecology of Plants & Animals. They live with the scientists 
and students from Urals University in a camp on a lake in a beautiful, 
remote area of the South Taiga Forest,  mid-Urals, equipped with a field 
laboratory. Students choose a theme for their own research projects, 
assisted by the scientists who give lectures and practical teaching for 
special interest subjects.  
1) Animal Ecology: 
Population Ecology of Mammals (rodents, moles, moose, elk) Dr Fedor 
Kryazhimsky. 
Fish and Water Pollution:  Dr Alexander Lugaskov. 
Amphibians- Rural & Urban ecology: Dr Vladimir Vershinin. 
2) Ecology of Plants: Geobotany and Lichenology - Dr Margarita 
Magomedova
HISTORICAL ECOLOGY CAMP: Archaeology & Paleontology          
20 July-13 August 1997                 £875 / US$1600    
3 weeks with Paleontologists from the Urals Institute of Ecology, 
Ekaterinburg          
Students join scientists on a cave excavation in the South Urals region, 
led by Dr Alexander Borodin, Senior Research Scientist. A great 
opportunity to work with professionals plus lectures and extensive 
practical teaching. Students are encouraged to create on their own 
research projects.
Optional extra 3 days in St Petersburg for both groups     
13-16 August 1997                       £145 / US$250
Departures are from London with the British students unless otherwise 
arranged. If you fly direct to Moscow from the US, Canada or Europe the 
price will be adjusted accordingly. The cost quoted  includes: Return 
Airfare London to Moscow, all internal travel in Russia, Ecology 
programme, Accommodation and Food, visits to Moscow & Ekaterinburg. 
Travel Insurance, Visas &  Museum entrance extra. 
Travel Insurance is a mandatory extra. UK residents may buy their Travel 
Insurance through Ecologia. Residents of all other countries must buy it 
at home. Travel Insurance with adequate medical cover is also a 
requirement of the Russian Embassy before they will issue a Visa. 
Ecologia will arrange Visas for UK Residents. For residents of other 
countries Ecologia provide you with Visa Support and detailed 
instructions on how to apply for a Visa from your nearest Russian 
Embassy. 
US University Credit: you may be able to receive credit as a directed or 
independent study course through your own university or college. Check 
first and then tell us what further information you need on the Russian 
scientists, their academic credentials and details of the course they 
offer. You may also be in touch with them directly via e-mail: 

<<<<< Apply for information SOON as many funding deadlines close in 
March >>>>> 
To Apply contact: 
Ecologia Foundation 
The Park, Forres
Moray IV36OTZ Scotland
tel/Fax: +44-(0)1309-690995
Reply To: ecoliza@rmplc.co.uk
                        *********************
Ecologia Foundation is a registered Scottish Charity engaged in 
supporting Russian non-government organisations involved with Youth and 
Ecology since 1988. 
                        *********************

In article <59c37d$55j@news.tamu.edu>, kjackson@cs.tamu.edu says...
>If the good doctor thinks his name means anything, he should feel free
>to demonstrate where I have accused anyone of being in the KKK.
Was it not you who used "KKK" to start someone's name?  That seems to at 
least be insinuating something.  However, if that was William and not you, I 
apologize for claiming you accused anyone of being in the KKK.
However, your character attacks on people who are not racist are dispicable 
and disgusting, and from what I've seen on the group and in personal e-mails 
from others, your reputation is pretty much already gone due to such attacks. 
>Doctor, need I remind you that for the past week you have been interjecting
>yourself into debates I was having, making claims which showed you didn't
>know what you were talking about?
I recall only criticizing your character attacks.  I don't think you were in 
any substantive debates.  And it's pretty clear I was right about your 
disgusting personal attacks.  You haven't even tried to defend yourself when 
I pointed out why your alleged "evidence" for your attacks was flawed.  You 
just attack me!  It was fun, but alas, now I have other things to do...
>Doctor, I have been offering you every opportunity to demonstrate your
>allegedly good character. 
Ah, Keith, I don't feel the need.  I can understand why you do ;)  
Happy New Years,
Scott

Would it be possible for you to delete sci.agriculture from future postings
on this subject, please?
In message <58vuh2$7qp@nntp1.best.com> James A. Donald wrote:
> In article <58mm39$ba8@news.udel.edu>, tjreedy@udel.edu says...
> >>The World Bank/IMF are inter-nation-al socialist/statist 
> >>government-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.
> 
> scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> > Anyone who claims that the World bank and IMF are socialist is, to put it 
> > bluntly, an ignorant idiot.
> 
> The World Bank and the IMF are thoroughly socialist in the sense that
> some people call Sweden socialist.  They support heavy taxes,
> intrusive, destructive, and lawless methods of tax collection, a large
> state sector, heavy welfare expenditures, and extensive government
> regulation and "infrastructure" investment.
> 
> Very recently they used to support Indian style socialism, and the
> World Bank favorites are still countries that are far from capitalist,
> even though they are no longer out and out socialist, for example
> Mexico and Communist China.
> 
> Observe that when Fujimori introduced radical free market policies and
> abrupt privatization, the World Bank gave him a hard time.
> 
> > Look at the policies of these institutions, look at the free market reforms 
> > they force states to make before they give loans,
> 
> Flagrantly false.
> 
> Since when is Burma free market.
> 
> And going back a little earlier, to when the World Bank was not merely
> Swedish style socialist as it is today, not merely Indian style
> socialist as it was very recently, but was often out and out
> round-up-the-selfish-capitalists-and-dump-em-in-concentration-camps
> socialist, what were the free market reforms of the Mengistu regime in
> Ethiopia?
> 
> > look at the view points of 
> > the economists who make up these institutions.  They are all hard core 
> > capitalists.
> 
> Bunkum.
> 
> > Anybody who has a brain and has taken time to understand these 
> > issues realizes that. 
> 
> You have frequently made statements that you certainly know are
> untrue.
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
> 
> http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       jamesd@echeque.com
> 
-- 
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@southfrm.demon.co.uk
South Farm:
   A logical entity with a physical counterpart but no address bar this.

ANNOUNCING:
1997 International Ash Utilization Symposium
Oct. 20-22, 1997
Lexington, Kentucky (USA)
Sponsors:
University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research
and
Elsevier Science, Ltd. / the journal FUEL
Scope:
all aspects of coal combustion by-product utilization
For more information, go to our Worldwide Web Page:
http://www.caer.uky.edu/ASH/ashhome.htm
Questions?  Please contact:
Gretchen Tremoulet
University of Kentucky
Center for Applied Energy Research
3572 Iron Works Pike
Lexington, KY 40511-8433
USA
e-mail gtremoulet@alpha.caer.uky.edu
phone (606) 257-0355, fax (606) 257-0360

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:01:12 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold
Brashears) wrote:
>There is also a loss of efficiency in a larger megacorporation which
>causes slower response to market changes.  Some larger investors (like
>pension and mutual funds) have figured this out and are demanding
>these changes.
Yes. I work for a corporation that has almost 20,000 employees in many
different countries and which is involved in many aspects of the
particular industry. And they're busy dismantling their empire as
quickly as they can. Sell off this product line, eliminate others,
merge divisions and focus in much more narrowly.
Most people have no idea just how cumbersome and unwieldy large
corporations are. Due to the nature of my position I have the inside
track on what everyone from CEOs to the people who actually are doing
the work have to go through to get something done, and it's actually
rather amusing.
Over the very long term, big corporations are doomed as information
technology evens out some of the competitive advantage in controlling
such large stocks of capital (and as capital moves more freely through
the system).
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On Mon, 16 Dec 96 16:24:42 EST, scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>An example is the so-called "indian socialism" you condemn.  Many believe 
>that the stability of Indian democracy rested on the redistribution plans 
>which prevented a major uprising and kept many poor in support of the 
>government.  What good is privatization if you have a revolt that wants to 
>institute some sort of socialist dictatorship?  I certainly don't want the 
>latter, though quite a few do.
This is an area where free market arguments have their problems. The
free market analysis would be, of course, that the varying
ethnic/religious/class groups in India would act rationally in their
own self interests and thereby bring about order and stability.
On the other hand, I wouldn't call Indian democracy very stable at
all. India seems to have trade the possibility of immediate revolt and
blood bath in exchange for a constant, never ending political turmoil
and uneasiness.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

Off-topic cross-posts snipped
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, it was written:
> 
> ==========Janet Crofts, 12/14/96==========
> 
> Romeo wrote:
> > 
> > You little animal lovers are so funny.  I hate to say it, but
> we have not
> > gotten beyond nature.  Everything humankind does conforms to
> God's will.
> > Extinction is a natural part of life and the universe, and
> should be kill
> > off a species of creature, it is God's will that we do so.  Trust me,
> > there should be only one species protected under US law, the
> Bald Eagle.
> > The nation bird.  Other than that, whatever happens happens.
> > 
> > God Bless America.
> 
> :Where do you get off saying things like that.  If it wasn't for
> :humanbeings the animals wouldn't be going extinct.
> 
> So I guess human beings are totally responsible for the Ice Age
> that destroyed all the dinosaurs?????
> 
> 
> :  Animals are part of
> :the cycle of life.  Without animals humans can't live, but without
> :humans, animals can live in peace.
> 
> I guess the dinosaurs ARE living in peace. They're all dead now.
> 
Hmm. Actually, scientific concensus among paleontologists supports a large
meteorite or comet nucleus crashing into the earth as the cause. Also, The
Flintstones to the contrary, dinosaurs were around far earlier than
homonids, the group containing humans and our near-ancestors(as in
several million years).
Dave Braun
> :  Humans have destroyed what is left
> :of the earth and they are doing it more and more every day. 
>                             ^^^^
> They?  As in the rest of us, but not including you yourself?
> Come now, get off of your high horse and get back down to reality.
> : It is sad.
> 
> You are sad.
> 
> 
> :Wake up and smell the coffee.  Animals can live without humans.  Humans
> :are nothing but trouble.
> 
> Many are....   many are not.  If you feel that badly about the
> human race, why don't you do something about it??
> 
> Keith
> 
> Keith M. Boyd                                   Nothing Could be Finer than
> NCR Corp.                                        Huntin' and Fishin' in
> Carolina
> 3325 Platt Springs Rd.
> West Columbia, SC 29170               Go Gamecocks, Go Braves 
> 
> 
> 

Three sample issues of a newsletter entitled
"ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE VALUATION AND COST BENEFIT NEWS"
are available free of charge. Please send
Name________________________________________________
Organization________________________________________
Street Address______________________________________
City, State, County, Zip____________________________
e-mail address______________________________________
to kenacks@delphi.com call (516) 897-9728, or fax (516) 897-9185
You will receive two versions--an ascii and binary (Wordperfect)
version. The ascii version is more easily read but less visually
appealing.  Many  recipients have difficulties translating the
binary files.
This is not a list. You will receive 6 to 9 mailings, and none
thereafter, unless you subscribe.
You can also obtain additional information from our web site
currently located at 
                http://people.delphi.com/kenacks/
The site currently features a text version of the April, 1996
newsletter, a large number of valuable links, and a statement of
purpose.

Mark Shippey (kprinter@dfw.dfw.net) wrote:
:   I don't know the exact quote, but isn't he the guy who also
: pushes the theory of how "cow farts and burps" are helping to
: cause global warming? I know I read that somewhere. Maybe this
: guy is just not playing with a full deck. Or then again, from
Methane *is* a "global warming" gas, and cattle do indeed contribute
as a man-made source.  Maybe you should read a bit before throwing 
around statements like the one above.  Try the site listed in my .sig
and, better yet, the IPCC reports referred to therein.
: what I know of him he seems to be one of that armageddon school
: of environmental psuedo science who keep coming up with doomsday
: predictions that never happen. Along these lines, a friend gave
: me a book published in the 1970s with articles by respected
: scieintists predicting a new Ice Age. Some of these same guys
: have now decided that Global Warming is the way we are headed.
Also see the excellent article about this Ice Age claim which is linked
to from my page.  And here's something to think about: both claims (for
an ice age and for "global warming") could be right simultaneously, but 
on different timescales.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Harold Brashears wrote:
> "D. Braun"  wrote:
> 
> >Off-topic newsgroups snipped
> >
> >On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> [edited]
> >> 
> >> I think I can tell you where the numbers come from, and on the surface
> >> they even appear plausible (well, almost).  I think the figures
> >> originated in Myer's "The Sinking Ark" (1979).  Here he attributes to
> >> human action one extinction per year from 1900 to 1975, and 75
> >> extinctions from 1600 to 1900.  From that he extrapolates 1 million by
> >> the year 2000.  The reason he gave for the large extrapolation was the
> >> tropical rain forest acreage being lost.  He assumed that, for every
> >> 1% of tropical rain forest destroyed there would be destroyed some set
> >> percentage of the total number of species living in the rain forest.
> >> 
> >> That is the key assumption, that deforestation = species extinction
> >> for some percentage.  For example, Myers noted in a later article that
> >> he assumed when a habitat has lost 90% of its extent, it will have
> >> lost 50% of its species.  There is no evidence for this.  
> >
> >Its what is called a working hypothesis.  And there is evidence that
> >extinction is related to habitat destruction. Terry Ermin has done work on
> >what occurs when various sized patches of rainforest are left, with the
> >surrounding spaces cleared.  Guess what? Species dissappeared-- although
> >they will not neccessarily extinct. 
> 
> Since the discussion concerned species extinction, not "species
> disappeared", I find your unreferenced comment of some interest, but
> of puzzling vagueness.
> 
> >The issue of biodicversity revolves
> >not just around dissapperaence of species from the planet, but from their
> >functional relationship in ecosystems. On can extrapolate from such an
> >experiment to the scale of entire forest types. 
> 
> One can readily extrapolate from the letters in your name to the
> conclusion of the universe, the question remains whether or not this
> is a valid exercise.  That was what I was questioning.
You are being purposely obtuse. If this process of habitat fragmentation
and dimunition continues--and this trend has been going on for some time
in tropical forests, for example--extinctions occur. What is hard to
understand?
> 
> >> In fact, A.
> >> Lugo noted (see "Diversity of Tropical Species" appearing in Biology
> >> International, Special Issue-19, 1989) that the massive forest
> >> conversion in Puerto Rico did *not* lead to massive species
> >> extinction.
> >
> >And? How was species diversity measuered? Were forest canopies sampled for
> >invertebrates before and after primary forests were removed? Doubtful. 
> 
> You have not read it, but you are doubted how it was written?  Of
> course, I tend to forget your extensive experience in the field,
> right?  I find your comment presumptuous.  When you have read it, you
> can let us know your opinion.
I am. Measuring the biological diversity of tropical forest canopies is a
recent phenomenon. Why not describe the methodology used? If you knew
anything about taxonomy, and field sampling of biological diversity, you
would know that the method is absolutely critical. Obviously, you have no
experience and little knowledge on this subject. I have some of each, but
I will not claim to be an expert.
> >How
> >thorough was the census several hundred years ago before the first
> >Europeans (or caribs, for that matter) started logging, farming, and
> >introducing alien species like rats? I dare say, it does not exist. Did
> >Lugo compare remaining forest fragments with agricultural lands? Were thee
> >fragments primary or secondary? 
> 
> Since you are ignorant of the article you are questioning, I suggest
> you could look it up.  You have claimed to be working in an allied
> field, so I assume you have rudimentary acquaintance with library
> procedures.  I told you my conclusions, you are free to make your own,
> which I will believe have some validity after you become conversant
> with the literature under discussion.
Harold, you are obfuscating. Describe the study, or shut up and stop
attacking me for simply asking perfectly reasonable questions. Questions
that one scientists would ask another routinely, and without insult.  Why
so defensive?
> >> When you add in the fact that their deforestation assumptions are
> >> grossly overblown as well, there have to be serious questions asked as
> >> to their veracity.
> >
> >Nope.  The dismissal of the extinction rate, and its significance as
> >overblown is what tests one's confidence in the speaker's veracity.  "Not
> >knowing" is not the same as "it didn't happen, and is not happening". The
> >world-wide species extinction rate is certainly high, due to anthropogenic
> >disturbance (a working, testable, hypothesis). 
> 
> Then go ahead and test it, or find data to test it.  As I noted, the
> hypothesis was put forward in by 1979, and all of the tests so far
> disprove your hypothesis, as I noted.  If you have more than your
> assumptions to advance, feel free to do so, but data is required prior
> to acceptance of your assumptions.
No, no, and no. I guess the scientists at the Biodiversity conference at
the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. in 1986 were all liers, dissemblers,
and charlatans.  The symposium report was pure crap. Right.
None of the participants would agree with your contrarian opinions on
extinction, as process and fact. Not Dan Janzen, not Terry Erwin, etc. You
are free to express your opinions, don't expect many informed
people, scientists or otherwise, to believe them.  Why don't I do some
research on the subject beyond recalling my admittedly fuzzy
recollections on papers read, and conferences attended over the last 16
years? Because that effort is better spent on preparing journal articles.
I am working on a career. I have also alluded to individual scientists
which you could look up if you wish. Read the symposium report from the
'86 conference; its really quite good; I was being sarcastic above.
> >Citing a few studies,
> >without relating methodology or even the theoretical argument does not
> >falsify it. Other studies, as well as common sense, have confirmed it. In
> >many areas that have been greatly disturbed, the extinction of species 
> >will never be known. 
> 
> So, if we don't know it, we must believe your assumptions, based on
> your "common sense"?  I regret that I must insist on some proof beyond
> your assumptions.
Now you foolishly lie about what is 2 inches up on the screen.  Notice I
said: "Other studies, as well as common sense..." Get a grip, Harold.
> >A common-sense approach to preserving biodiversity would be to stop
> >disturbing relatively undisturbed fragments
> >of ecosystems that are left, and disturb those we use less intensively,
> >according to traditional use patterns. Of course, this is only common
> >sense to those that believe extinctions are occurring, and that the loss
> >of biological diversity is a serious issue.  
> 
> That is correct.  Amazing.  You really do understand that the
> assumption has been made, but unproven.  Now try to prove it.
It has been proven, observed, documented, theorized upon, etc. 
Your continued denial and evasions of my questions does not change that.  
		Dave Braun

Kevin:
	I work for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission regulating 
releases from underground storage tanks.  Most environmental scientists 
and engineers have come to realize there are not the resources or 
political will to cleanup every release of a harmful chemical, to 
pristine conditions.  This has started a strong movement towards Risk 
Based Corrective Action (RBCA).  This is a management tool to direct what 
resources, that are available, towards the contamination that poses the 
most risk to human health and safety.
	As a regulator I must evaluate investigative reports submitted by 
environmental professionals.  A good report describes the level of 
impact, the media of transport, and the receptors or potential receptors 
involved.  My education is in geology and biology and I have spent most 
of my career studying the movement of fluids underground.  To evaluate 
this research you need to understand the chemistry of the contaminant 
(how does it adhere, dissolve or vaporize).  How does various media 
(water or air) transport the chemical to the receptor?  Many organic 
chemicals are biodegradable and this involves an understanding of 
microbiology.  Take courses in toxicology and statistics if possible.  
And if cleanup is nesc. some civil engineering will go a long ways 
towards knowing if a designed system has a reasonabl chance of succeeding 
or is a waste of everyones' resources.  
	I must develop an understanding in each of these areas for every 
site I regulate.  I regulate about 200 sites in a mostly urban 
environment.  This field is rapidly changing and keeping up with it is 
exciting, challenging and sometimes overwhelming.  I can't overemphasize 
having a good scientific background.
	We have recently implemented RBCA into our rules and its a 
growing experience for everyone.  To facilitate communication we send out 
e-mail on almost a weekly basis.  If you or any other environmental 
student or professional wants to watch a state enviro. regulatory agency 
go thru growing pains, e-mail me with your desire to get on that list.  
Good luck with your future endeavors.  This field needs lots of dedicated 
people.
Neil Garrett

On 19 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> We are a result of evolution on this planet.  Calling that management
> dilutes the word so much as to make it useless.  If humanity is to
> avoid unpleasant events, it will have to manage the environment in a
> genuine sense.
I called evolution management in a literal sense? I don't recall; that is
a non-sequitor. Our management, whether intentional or otherwise, occurs.
I do not deny that.
> Braun tells us
> 
>      Nature "managing" is simply the process of biological
>      evolution, in interaction with the physical world; this is
>      the Gaia Hypothesis in a nut shell.
Notice the quotations. Without humans, the only things causing change
("management") would be the biotic and abiotic realms. As it is today,
with humans. That is all I am saying.
> If this were the Gaia hypothesis, it would be trivial.  While I have
Well, one can't fit much in a nutshell.
> only read reviews, as I understand it the Gaia hypothesis starts with
> the remark that our planet has maintained itself so suited to life
> that mere evolution of genes is implausible.  It hypothesizes that
> there is some additional feedback mechanism that keeps the planet
> hospitable to life.  In response to criticism, there has been
> considerable dilution of the Gaia hypothesis.
This is fairly accurate, except I am not aware of the criticism you
mention.
> Braun quotes Whitt as saying,
> 
>      As for the desertification, that will be another problem for
>      the midwest in about 40-50 years when the Ogala aquifer runs
>      dry and farmers must rely on rain alone.
> 
> Most of the Midwest uses rain fed agriculture.  When the Oglallala
> aquifer dries up, either we will get our cattle feed by improved
> productivity on other land, or we will import water for the Oglallala,
> e.g. reviving the 1964 proposed North American Water Alliance.  These
> possibilities are discussed (with some numbers) in my
> 
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/water.html.
> -- 
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 
> 
> 

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Harold Brashears wrote:
> "D. Braun"  wrote:
> 
> >Off-topic newsgroups snipped
> >
> >On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Harold Brashears wrote:
> >
> >> davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article ,
> >> >John McCarthy  wrote:
> >> >>In article <5977ck$bla@newz.oit.unc.edu> davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) writes:
> >> >> > That is one of the points we environmentalists like to make.  We are not,
> >> >> > and can not manage our planet in a better way than nature.  What we can do
> >> >> > is try to reduce and limit the negative effects we have on the ecosystem.  
> >> >>
> >> >>1. The facts are wrong.  The number of extinctions caused by human
> >> >>activity is trivial in relation to the major natural extinctions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Thanks to environmentalists this is relatively true.  Thanks to people
> >> >like you 1 million species have disappeared from the world's tropical
> >> >rainforests alone.  I would hardly call this trivial especially when
> >> >taking into account it was done by 1 species alone.
> >> 
> >> Do you have any data that would support your assertion?  I do realize
> >> that facts are not required to say such things, but if you expect to
> >> be taken at all seriously, you have to provide some substantiation.
> >> 
> >> In the book, "Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction", Edited
> >> by Whitmore and Sayer (1992), we are told that to estimate extinction
> >> is impossible.  The editors tried hard to prove there were
> >> extinctions, but could come up with a list that amounted to about one
> >> per year.
> >> 
> >> [deleted]
> >
> >Go back to school, Harold. First of all, quoting one source as an argument
> >that extinction is either not happening on a massive scale or can't be
> >measured is a bit one sided, wouldn't you say? 
> 
> Ordinarily, I might agree that one source is not proof, on the other
> hand, you have no sources at all, beyond your unsupported assumptions.
> When you have some actual numbers, not assumptions, let me know.
In another post, I have named names: Terry Erwin, Dan Janzen.  There are
many others--an assertion, yes.  Read the symposium report on the 1986
Conference on Biological Diversity at the Smithsonian, which I attended.
More names. Read their papers. I would say you could find dozens of papers
which offer evidence for accelerated anthropogenic extinction, or cite
papers that do. Are all these scientists mistaken, or lying? Really. 
> >Second, it is not
> >scientific to dismiss the issue of the massive anthropogenic extinction
> >rate as unimportant, because it is "unproven".  It is far from unproven,
> >by the way.
> 
> Really?  Why don't you try to prove it then?
Space and time do not allow. Why don't you read Terry Erwin's papers and
rebut his arguments?
> >Please rebut the work of several conservation biologists,
> >taxonomists, and ecologists who have documented biological diversity, and
> >its loss.
> 
> Ok, who and where?
I've just named some. Look up their works and read them.
> > Certainly, untill every scrap of habitat for a species is gone,
> >one could predict that it may still survive.  However, this question
> >beomes moot as many world ecosystems are reduced to mere scraps or
> >extinguished entirely. Also, various species dissappear from habitat at
> >different points in fragmentation and reduction of area. 
> >
> >Terry Erwin (an ecologist) predicted 30 million species
> >world-wide, most of them invertebrates, based on sampling tropical forest
> >canopies. Rebut his work. 
> 
> Where did it appear?  You continue to say "sos and so say it".  Where
> did they say it, and is the number based on actual counts of missing
> species, or assumptions based on other factors?
I'll stop here. You are really being quite insulting. You will never be
accepted in scientific circles with an attitude like this.  I made him up.
Right. You have no prefessional courtesy, and no honor.
snip. 
		Dave Braun

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> Jim Steitz includes:
> 
>      The idea of establishing a permanent habitation on the moon
>      for $1 billion is quite silly. It costs $1 billion just to
>      do a single shuttle mission. I ask where you got that
>      figure. You say it would be possible, "but not by NASA's
>      methods." What methods are you referring to? Is there any
>      other way than manually hauling parts and supplies to the
>      moon, and assembling it there?
> 
> It is common for people who lack imagination to regard anything they
> don't know how to do is silly.
> 
> I was counting on the Shuttle mission being a half a billion.  Some
> details were worked out in collaboration with Rod Hyde at Livermore in
> the early 80s.  At that time NASA was planning to qualify the RL-10
> rocket engine that burns liquid hydrogen in oxygen for launch from the
> Shuttle.  (They cancelled this after the Challenger accident).
> 
> One Shuttle launch with a suitable RL-10 powered rocket could put 7500
> kg on the moon, 6000 kg being payload.  The mission we had in mind was
> one way - resupply but no return was budgeted.  The idea was that the
> money would be raised by a world-wide public fund raising campaign.
> The landing would be near the one of the lunar vehicles left by
> Apollo.  The crew would refurbish the vehicle and head for one of the
> lunar poles.  The mission would definitely be dangerous - more
> dangerous than NASA and the press tolerate.
> 
Do I understand correctly? You want a manned mission to the moon
(shuttles are only for earth orbit and landing) land 6000 kg of
equipment, which would require a new landing unit, construct a
habitation unit, and survive there permanently on supplies brought with,
and then on those brought by refurbishment missions? You're not being
practical. Such a mission would require more than NASA's entire annual
budget. I've never heard of Rod Hyde, but the fact that the idea either
didn't get far enough to get attention, or didn't get started at all,
should be testament to the utter impossibility of the idea. NASA
scientists have made a profession out of cutting costs down to the bare
bones, and the fact that you simply dismiss their work and state that
there is a better way is highly arrogant.
>      You say an asteroid might work better and "cut loose from
>      earth support" What do you mean? Surely you aren't
>      suggesting that it could survive without constant supply of
>      food? Oxygen would also have to be brought, unless there was
>      a chemical means of breaking CO2 into pure oxygen. That
>      would create another need for either chemical servicing or
>      energy. This is a gross simplification of a major
>      problem. The latest effort to construct a self-sustaining
>      system, called Biosphere 2, ended in failure.
> 
> Biosphere 2 was based on an idea that was popular among ecologists but
> which turned out to be mistaken.  Namely, they thought that having
> lots of environments and lots of species would be stable.  Much more
> limited experiments carried out by NASA and by the Soviets had much
> greater success.  You use one or a few plants for converting CO2 back
> to oxygen and food.  You have controls on the process, expanding or
> shrinking the number of plants as required.  We thought of relying
> extensively on chlorella, but this turns out to have toxicity
> problems.  Maybe these can be avoided by suitable cooking.  The lunar
> mission doesn't have to be absolutely self-sufficient.  It merely has
> to keep the resupply problem at a level that corresponds to the funds
> that can be raised.
> 
You don't understand the point. Once you're enclosed in the ecosystem,
you can't "expand or shrink the plants as required", because that simply
creates more waste product or creates a need for more nutrient. The
whole point is for it to be an enclosed system without outside
interference. You can hardly "adjust as needed" from the inside. Also
the idea of "diversity=stability" has gained support, not been
disproven. All complex organisms have multiple nutritional and waste
breakdown requirements, which requires multiple other species, who in
turn require more species, and so on. The only way to have a stable
ecosystem is to have a great enough diversity of species to provide for
all of eachother's needs. The dramatic changes in the earth's chemistry
billions of years ago testify to instability of ecosystems dominated by
only a few species.
>      Also, you speak of "two people and their decendants." 2
>      people is not anywhere near a sufficient gene pool. Think
>      about it.
> 
> A supply frozen sperm can be taken along to enlarge the gene pool and
> ova can be included in the resupply.
> 
That would seem to be an answer to the genetic problem, but creates
another big issue to tackle-bringing a biology lab into space with us.
You see, once you start looking at the issues in detail, they become far
more complex and difficult.
> The idea was to work out the minimum mission that had a good chance of
> success, i.e. accepting risks equivalent to those accepted by 18th and
> 19th century explorers and many pioneers.  It is not at all in the
> NASA spirit of trying to avoid all risk and minimizing to the
> journalists the risks that cannot be avoided.
> 
> Most people regard the public as averse to risks.  I don't believe it.
> It is the journalists pretending to speak to the public that have
> talked themselves into the idea that the public won't accept risk.
> 
> If the mission is financed by people who want to see it done rather
> than by the Government or businesses having to convince investors that
> the project will make money, risks can be taken.
> 
> The asteroid mission would be tougher but would be more
> self-sufficient in the long run if an asteroid of suitable composition
> could be found in advance, e.g. by an unmanned NASA mission.
Asteroid of "suitable composition?" All asteroids are composed of
substances representative of the solid components of the solar system as
a whole-carbon, iron, nickel, etc. For an overview of the issues
confronting space habitation, check out the last chapter of the book
"Cosmic Dawn", written by Eric Chaisson, a highly respected astronomer.

Randy,
Many of the people crossposting are not very concerned about
appropriateness.  They just want a large audience for their rants!
The way to get these threads out of your news group(s) is to send a
pretty interesting (controversial?) reply to the last item in a thread
and leave your newsgroup out of the list of newsgroups.  If your
thread is interesting enough to capture all the followups, then 
none will come back to your newsgroup (unless someone notices your
clever ruse and sticks your newsgroup back into the crosspost list).
If you or anyone on sci.environment should try this, please leave
sci.agriculture and alt.sustainable.agriculture out of the list
also.
In article <59c3v6$si5@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
Randy Campbell  wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>Would you please give some thought to the appropriateness before
>crossposting your articles all over creation?
>
>In a quick perusal of sci.environment, I found articles crossposted 
>to/from the following groups:
>
>    sci.environment
[snip]
>    sci.agriculture
>
>I realize that some crossposting is appropriate, but of late this seems
>to have become so epidemic that it's hard to find any of the discussion
>for which I visit sci.environment, namely discussion of environmental
>issues from a scientific perspective.
I would say no interest in science in much of it.
>
>Instead, I find many, many politically-oriented discussions, and many
>of them accompanied by profuse flamage.  The political discussions have
>their place, and *sometimes* that may even be sci.environment, but usually
>it isn't.
there are several alt. newsgroups which are wholely devoted to
starting flame wars and disrupting serious newsgroups.
>
>Please confine your discussions to appropriate forums.  I fear this
>crossposting tendency is making Usenet quite a bit less useful for
>everyone.  I know it is for me.
>
>Thanks,
>Randy
-- 
Tom Hodges thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
Professional Agronomist, member Baha'i Faith, Go player

>> "burning" in this context means "converting the isotopes into less
>> dangerous elements". It is not "oxidation". I wonder how many Average
>> Citizens have the same mis-understanding?
>So you mean irradiation of the isotopes with alpha particle or neutrons
>until the material is in a stable isotope form. Not a technique that
>I've ever seen mentioned on any site remediation.  
Sorry, I thought we were discussing destruction of weapons-grade
plutonium. My mistake.

rick@airtime.co.uk (Rick) posted:
>	I agree, there are a lot of poor people who have access to the
>newsgroups. As a student, I personally live on under fifty UK pounds a
>week. If that dosent qualify as poor then what does?
Grad school at Berkeley....    ;-)

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:21:58 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold
> Brashears) wrote:
> 
> >davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
> 
> >>Thanks to environmentalists this is relatively true.  Thanks to people
> >>like you 1 million species have disappeared from the world's tropical
> >>rainforests alone.  I would hardly call this trivial especially when
> >>taking into account it was done by 1 species alone.
> >
> >Do you have any data that would support your assertion?  I do realize
> >that facts are not required to say such things, but if you expect to
> >be taken at all seriously, you have to provide some substantiation.
> >
> >In the book, "Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction", Edited
> >by Whitmore and Sayer (1992), we are told that to estimate extinction
> >is impossible.  The editors tried hard to prove there were
> >extinctions, but could come up with a list that amounted to about one
> >per year.
> 
> I'd like to know where these extinction numbers come from.  There used
> to be a regular ad in the back pages of the New York Review of Books
> warning of a million extinctions by the year 2,000 -- but it's not
> running any more.
> 
They come from the scientific community, mainly the advances in
rainforest biology in the past decade.
>

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> 
> Jim  wrote:
> 
> >Also, their ability to improve existing yields is not questioned, but
> >their high cost makes it prohibitive to attempt intensive agriculture on
> >nonideal soils, especially for small-scale third-world farmers.
> 
> Ah, so you are abandoning your claim that yields cannot be increased.
> Thank you.
> 
> The third world is, on the whole, getting wealthier.  So be careful
> what you say they cannot afford.
> 
I stated that fertilizers cannot *change* what can and can't be grown.
But if a certain crop *can* grow in certain soil, fertilizers can
*increase* the yield. We do not have the capability to change soil
chemistry or the requirements of plants, except by breeding new strains.
(Discovery/breeding of drought/salt/heat/poor soil tolerant plants is
currently a major reseach effort of agriculture.)
Also, the fact is undisputable that the majority of third world farmers
cannot afford fertilizers. There is a very clear distinction between
traditonal subsistence farming and modern commercial farming, and the
methods are very different, such as fertilizer use, or lack of.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>I'd like to know where Larry C. got
>     Are you suggesting that famines don't exist?  It's not clear
>     what your point is, since a quarter of a billion people
>     currently live in famine conditions, and 90 million people
>     starved to death last year.  That's a third of the birth
>     rate for the whole world!
>Is there a published source of such statistics - on the Web or in
>print - Greenpeace, ZPG or Paul Ehrlich?
>90 million is more people than died of all causes last year.
>This isn't a rhetorical question.  I'd really like to know who
>publishes statements like that.
>I deleted the agriculture groups, because people from those groups
>have requested it.
Maybe this schold be called "alt.junk.science"
Harry Elston, Ph.D.
An armadillo on the information superhighway

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 

> 
> >Economists can afford to take the long view.  In the real world, when
> >an area enters famine conditions the first thing to suffer is agricultural
> >production.  Farmers can't protect their crops long enough to get a full
> >harvest.  The agriculture of famine areas will eventually recover after
> >enough people starve to death or migrate to other areas.
> 
> Famine has two causes: war or economic depression.  All recent
> famines, including the current one in Sudan, are caused by war.  The
> Bengal famine of 1947 was caused by loss of monetary income to bring
> in the normal food supplies which were available all around.
> 
Droughts have been the main cause of sub-saharan famine. Skyrocketing
population, soil degradation and crop failure, and civil war have also
been major factors. The Food and Agriculture Organization internet site
is a good place to confirm this information. 
> >The areas of the world most at risk for famine are also those with the
> >highest birth rate.  It's not beyond reason to anticipate a famine large
> >enough to meet or exceed the global birth rate sometime within the next
> >20 years.  This will not stop the expansion of the earth's population,
> >but it might slow it significantly.
> 
> This is false.  The areas with the largest birth rates are also places
> undergoing double digit economic growth: Nigeria and East Africa.  The
> famines are in places that are at a standstill because of war.
> 
> It is far beyond reason to anticipate a famine even remotely
> approaching the global birth rate -- about 120 million babies a year.
> This is just innumerate whacko fearmongering.
> 
If you can see severe poverty in african countries and see economic
growth, then we must have differing definitions. Concentration of wealth
is a recurring trend in third-world countries. GNP may be rising, but if
it doesn't actually reach anyone, it cannot be called economic growth.
> >Right now we're adding a billion people every 11 years.  We're right
> >at 6 billion now.  I don't think we'll make it to 8 billion without
> >breaking something.  Twenty years.
> 
> We are not adding a billion even every 12.5 years now, and the total
> number of births per year is dropping every year.  The only reason we
> have a population explosion is we have a skyrocketing number of old
> folks.
> 
> In every age group from ten down, the size of the world cohort
> declines.  This means that in about three years the number of
> potential mothers in the world will start to drop.
> 
> The number of children per mother has already dropped radically --
> from over six to just above three, for instance, in Uganda -- and
> continues to drop.
We *are* adding a billion every 12 years. What's 90 million X 12.5? Our
population increase is due to an increase in old people? When a person
goes from young to old, that doesn't add to the population. Only new
births do. Your analysys of age distribution is incorrect. The
population distribution by age is highly skewed toward the young. A
great number of people are in, or will soon be entering their
child-bearing years in the next 2 decades, far more than are leaving
them. This is called population momentum, and is a very formidable
force.

 Randy Campbell wrote in "Please Limit Crossposting!":
> Please confine your discussions to appropriate forums.  I fear this
> crossposting tendency is making Usenet quite a bit less useful for
> everyone.  I know it is for me.
I must admit I agree. 
Sebastian       
- MacZPoint 1.92 -

Terry C. Shannon wrote :
> Well, one NICE thing about Europe is that you can stroll down most
> any street in a major city and find recycle bins for everything from
> glass to de-energized Energizer batteries. Doesn't make up for the
> high taxes or the incessant union b.s., but it's a Good Thing
> nonetheless.
As long as you stroll down a western european street you occasionaly 
find those recycle bins. But did you ever happen to think about where 
a high percentage of that stuff is disappearing? At least for the 
german recycling-system I can say that it is bad working. And to 
recycle bottles is still not as ecological as returnable bottles. Will 
say that the cycling-system we had in the GDR (East Germany) was much 
better than that recycling-system in WestGermany. But this just by the 
way. 
I wonder where you have found recycle bins for de-enrgized batteries? 
Must have been in some rich parts of Germany or Switzerland, perhaps 
Scandinavia. I have to walk for about 5 minutes to get to glass-
recycle-bin which is the only one for a few thousand people. Thats why 
it is always filled up and the glass is all over the place. Not to 
speak about the paper-recycle-bins which are even more rare. For 
batterie bins I must say that there is probably none on any street in 
East Berlin. 
I dont think that there are such bins in eastern Europe. From southern 
Europe I know that there are non, you dont even find normal garbage 
bins in many trains, everything is just flying out the window.
Sebastian 
- MacZPoint 1.92 -

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:53:13 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>John McCarthy wrote:
>> However, large amounts of land were given to many different railroads.
>> I suppose Leland Stanford's Union Pacific got quite a lot.
>> 
>> The giveaway attracted the foreign investors, and we got the
>> railroads.
>> --
>
>I note:
>
>Thanks for your input.  Is this escessive state involvement?
Absolutely! Governments gave railroads a free ride.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:04:42 -0600, David Gossman
 wrote:
>
>Sounds an awful lot like somebody is out to abandon the constitution and
>the principals of free speech. If not please tell us how this is to be
>done without denying our constitutional right to free speech.  And just
>so we all understand, whom will be in charge fo spending "public" money
>you will want to spend on these elections/referenda instead - you?!
Huh? Getting rid of subsidies sounds like a great idea (though not
necessarily for the silly reasons they offer).
Now if we could get the Greens to go along with simply getting rid of
spending public money instead of merely changing the priorities of the
spenders!
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On 14 Dec 1996 17:28:00 GMT, davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
>And it is due to our efficient management of the ecosystem that we have
>caused one of the largest extinctions in all world history.  
It is not natural for a species to threaten its own environment? Wow!
That's a new one -- so you're denying all the biological research on
the growth of animal populations visa vis the carrying capacity of
their ecosystems?
Mind you, I  don't think those are all that reliable, but I didn't
think I'd find many environmentalists agreeing with me.
>While humans beings are a product of nature,
>their actions are not.  
Are our actions supernatural then?
>Natural actions are generally governed by instict,
>not ignorance, greed, or apathy.
Rationality then, in your view, is not a product of natural
evolutionary forces? Interesting idea.
>  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?
What exactly does it mean to say the Earth has done "well" for the
past several hundred million years. Seems to me almost everything that
has ever lived on the Earth has died. Not the sort of track record I'd
want to take into a job interview if I was the planet!
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

On 15 Dec 1996 19:45:06 GMT, davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
>
>In article <32b32854.31895712@news.airmail.net>,
>Sam Hall  wrote:
>>
>>Ignorance, greed, and apathy are not instincts? Look at any human two
>>year old. Concern about anything other than immediate self
>>satisfaction is a learned behavior.
>
>
>A two-year old human can talk some too.  Is that instictive?  No, it is
>learned. 
No, it is instinctual. Go read Chomsky and come back in a few years.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
> 
> >> "burning" in this context means "converting the isotopes into less
> >> dangerous elements". It is not "oxidation". I wonder how many Average
> >> Citizens have the same mis-understanding?
> 
> >So you mean irradiation of the isotopes with alpha particle or neutrons
> >until the material is in a stable isotope form. Not a technique that
> >I've ever seen mentioned on any site remediation.
> 
> Sorry, I thought we were discussing destruction of weapons-grade
> plutonium. My mistake.
Oh! That makes sense then, you were talking about the the destruction of
plutonium.
Actually, the original thread was about were there any real risk factors
or concerns
about the use of Nuke power, after some sacriney nice-nice post, I
countered in with
the problamatic cost of decommsioning, spent fuel stock-piling (ie
disposal), contamination from the enrichment process and the disposal
problems at low and
medium level licensed sites. 
I also vented my general observation that ARC/DOD had been so closely
entwined,
that in my mind that I could not separate the  the really bad stuff that
has occurred at DOD sites from the Nuke Power Industry.  The current
bunch in the NPI industry,
many who worked in the NPI foggy days of prehistory, ie the Cold War
that ended
in 1988, wish to distance themselve from all weapon production
activities.
Why would you want to destroy weapon grade plutonium?

scotterb@maine.maine.edu writes:
>Look at Peru.  Hardly a glittering success story!
It depends, compared to what ?
Compared to something like Taiwan or South Korea, with their steady 
improvement in most welfare indicators it is not.
Compared to the Peru the time of Alan Garcia's departure, it is.  And do take 
into consideration that Alan Garcia's socialist experimentation managed to 
demolish much of the economy, so that damage first has to be undone before 
real improvments are observable.
George Antony

di624@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (K. Kristian Whiteleather) posted:
>Looking for studies on AMD effects on fish and amphibian
>development/distribution/population densities.
GACK! The literature on this subject is HUGE!   Why
don't you try a telnet to melvyl.ucop.edu, and do a CAT database
search for: find tw acid mine drainage ?  I suspect (being in the
acid mine drainage biz myself, but from the geochem end) that you'll
get over a hundred hits.  If that's the case, you can save the search
using the save command, and then mail it to your email address using
the mail command.  Melvyl, if you haven't run into it at all, is the
catalog of the University of California library system, and the
CAT and TEN databases can be used by the internet public for free.
The UC system libraries form one of the largest collections in
the world - if a book is relevent, UC probably has it cataloged.
It's a good way to find out what books exist on a subject.
ttfn, Kate

donb@rational.com (Don Baccus) posted:
 Kurt Foster  wrote:
>>  One detail about the freighter that coasted in to a shopping mall in New
>> Orleans the other day sorta startled me.  That was, the freighter was
>> bound for China with 70,000 tons of grain.  That tells me that, though
>> China may feed itself some day in the future, she is not doing so today.
>   The United States imports basmati rice from India.  What does that
>    say about the two countries ability to feed themselves?
Yes, but we export rice from California.  Do you know if we import more
than we export?  I was under the impression that we grew more than
we use.  Is this correct or no?
Kate

josenet1@ix.netcom.com(Jose I Marquez) posted:
>I need some information about EIT test?
>Environmental Eng. have their own test? or is the same test for all
>branches/?   >Good reference books welcome.   >Thanks..
It depends on what state or province you live in (assuming that you
reside in the USA or Canada).  Contact your state gov't for details
as they're the folks who make the rules on professional registrations.
For example, in California, you would end up taking the civil engr EIT
for doing enviro (assuming they haven't changed the rules in the last
few years).  Most local libraries have info on professional licenses
applicable for where you live.  Try calling your public library's
reference librarian.  Or you might want to try a web search for your
state or province's gov't
Kate