Newsgroup sci.environment 113633

Directory

Denise Nelson (innrcrcl@erols.com) wrote:
: Ron Jeremy wrote:
: > 
: > Your are correct in stating we have a large body of work concerning the
: > effects of *large* doses of radiation.  Large meaning > 100 rem (1 Sv).
: > Now the current accepted wisdom extrapolates that data down to millirem
: > range using a linear hypothesis.  There is currently a large body of work
: > this disputes this linear hypothesis.  For comparison, the average person
: > receives roughly 300 millirem per year.  So when people clamor about
: 
: Where does this persistent piece of disinformation come from?  The average
: background radiation here in Maryland is between 0.01 and 0.015 mR/hr.  If
: one multiplies this rate by 8760 hr/yr one obtains a yearly dose of between
: 87.6 and 131.4 mR/yr.  This is not 300 millirem/year even if it were all
: absorbed.  It is this type of disinformation that destroys the credibility
: of the nuclear proponents.
So the only dose you recieve is "background"?  You truly are an idiot.  
If we exclude radon and manmade sources for the time being, the low end 
average for a person at sea level on east coast is approx 150 millirem 
broken down as follows.
Cosmic rays 			- 50 millirem 
Radiation from the earth 	- 10
Radiation from air we breathe	-  7
Radiation from home/buildings	- 50
Radaition form food and water 	- 35 
This can easily be higher due to elevation, location, building materials, 
radon, man made sources, etc.  The "high" average might then be 500 
millrem so I chose 300 millirem.  There are places in India and Brazil 
where the natural ground radiation results in a yearly dose of 12,000 to 
15,000 millirem/year.   Back to your cave troll. 
: 
: > Three Mile Island where the maximum *conceivable* dose received was 75
: > millirem they are basing the outcome on a model that has not been proven
: 
: Where on earth does this number come from?  It is unbelievable to me how you
: can expect intelligent people to accept, on your authority, such 
: unsubstantiated numbers.  Averaging total doses over hundreds of 
: thousands of people and tens of thousands of square kilometers doesn't 
: make it for me.  I suppose you must really belive your own estimates 
: but don't expect others to. 
Since I only expect intelligent people to accept my figures, I'm not 
suprised that you are having such a hard time with them.  Maybe if I type 
slower or better yet, try not to move your lips while reading.  Since 
you're so well versed I'm sure you're familar with President's Commission 
on the Accident at TMI-2 (also known as the Kemeny Commission) page 34, 
paragraph 2, which states, "The maximum estimated dose received by any 
one individual in the off-site general population during the accident was 
70 millirem."  So I was conservative by 5 millrem, oops.  You're enough 
of an idiot to make miss Nudds ;-)
tooie

On 29 Dec 1996 22:39:05 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>In  hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>writes: 
>>
>> The whole vague
>>analysis presented assumes that only precious metals, especially
>>platinum, will be even close to economically feasible for asteroid
>>mining.
>
>With launch costs over $1,000/Kg, and working from Earth, yes.
Many of the plans for space exploration come up time and again with
the use of rubble as protection against cosmic rays.  
This gives us the oddity that a huge chunk of platinum might have
minimal overall cash value (great value for the finders, but great
economic damage to present platinum holders) -- and that's even before
we start paying Covington Burling to file the environmental impact
reports on dropping it into the Arizona desert or wherever!
On the other hand an equal mass of plain rock might be useful to a
colony for shielding -- and because it saved the cost of boosting
equivalent shielding from Earth at $1000 a kilo or whatever, it has a
clear marginal value of that much.
                                                   -dlj.

Greig Ebeling wrote:
> 
> You, sir, are making no such attempt, and instead assuming that
> because some data exists, it WILL support your assumptions.
> 
> ...Greig
I believe that we are talking about a highly radioactive slug
of cobalt.  We are talking about the level of exposure required to
destroy tissue with an acute episode, not a low-level chronic exposure.
The risks of tissue radiation are fairly well documented, after all
most patients that are treated are also tracked for the development
of latter conditions.  Animal modelling has also been extensively
performed for this type of treatment.  FDA has extensively research
risk benefit for this type of exposure.
The human data may be skewed, granted, if you experiencing tumour
growth, the patient may have a predisp to develop another type of
cancer, but thats for a serious discussion.  
As for unsupported claims, I am fascinated about your supposed
studies that cast doubt on the cardinal intercept principle of
exposure.  Certainly, studies that have looked at UV-B orgin conditions
seem to be linear across the exposure range.

Rich Puchalsky wrote:
>    This page and its satellites will contain references to articles, my
>    own and by others, explaining how humanity is likely to advance in the
>    near future. In particular, we argue that the whole world can reach
>    and maintain American standards of living with a population of even 15
>    billion.
McCarthy's page not about science at all --
 it's about the economics of killing.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is, in fact, scientific concensus that our
sociey is "unsustainable".
The two most prestigious scientific instutions
in the world, The National Academy of Sciences and
the Royal Society, issued a joint public statement
in 1992 that ended with:
"The future of our planet is in the balance.
 Sustainable development can be achieved, but
 only if irreversible degradation of the
 environment can be halted in time. The next 30
 years may be crucial."
Archived at:
 http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page7.htm
Furthermore, in 1992 a WARNING TO HUMANITY was issued
by the Union of Concerned Scientists that began:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a
 collision course. Human activities inflict
 harsh and often irreversible damage on the
 environment and on critical resources. If not
 checked, many of our current practices put at
 serious risk the future that we wish for human
 society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and
 may so alter the living world that it will be
 unable to sustain life in the manner that we
 know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are
 to avoid the collision our present course will
 bring about."
This warning was signed by over 1,500 members of
national, regional, and international science
academies have signed the Warning. Sixtynine
nations from all parts of Earth are represented,
including each of the twelve most populous
nations and the nineteen largest economic powers.
It was also signed by 99 Nobel Prize winners.
Archived at:
 http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page8.htm
And finally, in 1993 a joint statement by 58 of
the world's scientific academies said:
"In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal
 successfully with its social, economic, and
 environmental problems will require the
 achievement of zero population growth within
 the lifetime of our children."
Archived at:
 http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page75.htm
AND YET THE BULLSHIT gushes from personalities
like John McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh, S. Fred
Singer, Dixie Lee Ray, Lou Guzzo, Julian Simon,
Gregg Easterbrook, George Reisman, Ronald Baily,
and so on.
Why?  I ask you to consider the following:
"Cigarette smoking causes about 435,000 American
 deaths each year. During the last 40 years,
 roughly 17 million Americans have been killed
 by tobacco smoke while tobacco companies have
 pocketed something like a thousand billion 
 dollars." [RHWN #321]
Let's see . . . I think that comes out to
$58,000 per killing -- not bad.
How could that be?  Why are artificial people
(corporations) encouraged to kill natural-born
people (your kids)?
It is because killing innocent people is implied
in our present economic system.  Consider the
economics of killing Africans: 
"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load
 of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is
 impeccable...because foregone earnings from
 increased morbidity" are low. He adds that "the
 underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly
 underpolluted; their air quality is probably vastly
 inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles...."  
 World Bank's chief economist, Lawrence Summers
                    [The Economist, Feb. 8, 1992].
When McCarthy calls for "more of the same", it
is exactily like the Chairman of Phillip Morris
calling for "more of the same" -- they just don't
give a shit if it kills us.  If we are stupid enough
to believe their bullshit advertising, well, then
we get what we deserve!
Jay

I am looking for information on plastics recycling.
Anu pointers towards FAQ's, http sites, newsgroups, magazines, journals,
books, organizations, etc. will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Alan

For Immediate Release				For more information, contact:
December 10, 1996				Janet Fox Neltner
						317/283-6226 or 
CALL FOR SPEAKERS
Indianapolis, IN - The Indiana Recycling Coalition (IRC) is pleased to
announce a call for speakers for the Eighth Annual Recycling
Conference and Exhibition.  This event will be held April 30 and May
1, 1997, at the Radisson Hotel City Centre, in downtown Indianapolis,
Indiana.  Last year's conference and exhibition attracted 300
participants from Indiana and adjacent states.  The Eighth Annual
Conference, "Recycling for Results", is expected to draw a similar
group of recycling professionals and volunteers from for-profit and
not-for-profit businesses, citizen groups, educational organizations
and all levels of government.  We invite you to share your expertise
in reduction, reuse, composting and recycling.  Topics of interest to
the Conference Planning Committee and attendees include, but are not
limited to:
-Model Projects and Award-Winning Recycling and Composting Programs
-"Pay as You Throw" Variable Rates Options for Recycling and Waste
Collection
-Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
-Funding and Financing Options for Recycling Businesses
-Effective Strategies for Cooperation within Solid Waste Management
Districts
-"Anti-Recycling Myths"
-Development of a "Universal Waste Rule"
-Buying Recycled-Content Products (including non-paper products)
-Effective Promotion and Marketing of Recycling and Composting
Programs
-Finding Markets for Collected Materials and Market Trends
-How to Regroup When a Recycling Program Changes
-Creating Art from Recycled Materials
-Source Reduction for Commercial and Industrial Businesses
-Effective Utilization of Computer Technologies in Recycling Programs
-Professional Development for Program Managers
-Other Cutting Edge Recycling Topics
Please submit a one to two page abstract to be considered as a
speaker.  Your abstract should describe the topic and content of the
presentation and clearly state it's importance to solid waste
management professionals.  Presentations typically range from 15 to 30
minutes in length and may be considered for a variety of settings
including traditional conference panel-type discussions or
roundtables.  Speakers may be asked to facilitate group discussions or
moderate an informal session.
Abstracts submitted by January 10, 1997 will receive priority
consideration.  Submit abstracts to: Indiana Recycling Coalition,
Inc., P. O. Box 20444, Indianapolis, IN  46220-0444, Attention:
Conference Committee.  Abstracts may also be faxed to the Coalition at
317/283-6226 or emailed to .  The Conference Planning
Committee will make its selection of presentations in January and
February, 1997, at which time prospective speakers will be notified.
###

In article <32C705C6.1AD8@facstaff.wisc.edu> Don Libby  writes:
 > 
 > John McCarthy wrote:
 > > snip 
 > > The reader is not supposed to be convinced yet by the promise
 > > of statistics.  The promised statistics will support the view that
 > > population is stablizing.  Many have cited such statistics in
 > > sci.environment.  Incidentally, maybe I can avoid copying statistics
 > > if there is a suitable site I can link to.snip
 > 
 > Here is a site that is worth investigating:
 > 
 > http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Catalog/PUB_PROJECT_POP.html
 > It is a list of publications by the International Institute 
 > on Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) regarding many different 
 > aspects of global population and environment.  Many of the 
 > shorter articles are available to download in PDF or Post 
 > Script format. 
 > 
 > If you haven't yet read thier book _The Future Population of 
 > the World_ by W. Lutz, et al. 1996, you certainly should - 
 > best discussion I've ever seen of global carrying capacity 
 > and tables of long-range projections for world & regions.
 > 
 > -dl
Sight unseen I have put a link to the IIASA page on my
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/population.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.

In article <32c053bb.15915793@news.airmail.net>,
Sam Hall  wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:17:23 -0600, jonny  wrote:
>
>>Paul Jenkins wrote:
>>> 
>>...
>>> That is not to say that environmental regulations do not impose costs.  If
>>> compliance and enforcement use real resources (e.g. labour and/or capital)
>>> then these resources will not be available for other uses.  These costs
>>> must be weighed against the benefits (e.g. clean water, better air quality
>>> etc.) .  In this respect, decisions about environmental matters do not
>>> differ fundamentally from any cost/benefit decision...>
>>> 
>>This is the kind of economic thinking that has got us into this mess to
>>start with.  Everything is a cost/benefit decision.  The "best use" of
>>a forest is to cut it down and build high rise office buildings.
>
>Trees are not used to build high rise buildings, they are used to
>build homes for people. Every time you protect a forest, the price of
>homes go up and we have more homeless. Is this what you want?
	There is little, if any, correlation between the number of
homeless persons and the number of trees being harvested.  If you want to
help the homeless then do away with the tax advantage of "buying" a home.
This would place folks into single family 'owned' residences who actually
wanted to be there instead of folks who seek tax advantages.  It would
remove the distortions in the economic picture and reduce the amount of
tree cutting.  And it would reduce the current pricing of homes.
>>
>>Could there possibly be benefits of having an intact ecosystem that
>>short-sighted economists cannot see?  How many cures to cancer or other
>>diseases will be lost forever, for example,  due to habitat reduction
>>and species extinction?  
>>
>>We may never know, will we?
>
>If you can prove this please do. We know that a lot of human benefits
>have come from the activities you oppose. How many people are you
>willing to see die (now, not in the far future) to protect your
>"intact ecosystem.?"
>
>
>--
>Samuel L. Hall
>Systems Engineer
>(communications systems)
	This is the kind of argument that can never be resolved.  As for
myself I'd like to say, "If I have to drape spotted owls around the 300 to
800 year old trees in order to keep some moron from chopping them down
then so be it".  It ain't the owls I care about.  It's the trees.  It
takes many human generations to grow these trees, and about 10 min.  to
destroy them.  This is NOT a case of farming, or sustainable harvest.  If
you "harvest" these trees in such a slow way as to make the venture
sustainable then the venture would not be profitable, even with the
inflated retail price of timber caused by current tax distortions, and the
distorted low cost of timber caused by government give-aways.  Destroying
the beauty and splendor of old growth forests so that a small segment of
the society may profit therefrom makes NO SENSE.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Let me assure you that | Michael L. Coburn   | mcoburn@halcyon.com |
* my employer agrees with| Softfolks Inc.      | softfolk.wa.com     |
* what I say. He's me.   | UNIX,c,X/Motif,Oracle,DCE,CM,& SYS ADM    |

Jay Hanson, who considers it murderous to disagree with him, includes
The two most prestigious scientific instutions
in the world, The National Academy of Sciences and
the Royal Society, issued a joint public statement
in 1992 that ended with:
"The future of our planet is in the balance.
 Sustainable development can be achieved, but
 only if irreversible degradation of the
 environment can be halted in time. The next 30
 years may be crucial."
The members of the National Academy of Sciences, including myself, did
not get to vote on this statement.  In fact it was a statement by the
officers of the two organizations and never submitted, before or
after, to the membership of the NAS.  Maybe it would have passed.
It was billed as a statement by the officers and not as a statement of
the academies.
None of these people, however, endorsed Hanson's view that we are
doomed in 34 years.
-- 
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.

In article <59mjsn$a8k@news1.mnsinc.com>, richp@mnsinc.com says...
>Mark Shippey (kprinter@dfw.dfw.net) wrote:
>: Rich Puchalsky (richp@mnsinc.com) wrote:
>: (snip)
>: : 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.
>:   
>:   What I was saying Rich, is that many of the sceintists who were
>: predicting an ice age in the 1970s have now changed their minds.. Now
>: they go with the global warming thing. This phenomena of changing
>
>You are factually wrong.  If you want to talk about this issue on 
>sci.environment, you should at minimum read the Web reference I provided.
>Your response gives no indication that you have bothered to do so.
Comments: I looked at it ---> http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
Good stuff Rich.
[cut]
>But even ignoring your incorrect claim, it is quite possible for a 
>reputable scientist to predict both "global warming" and an Ice Age.
>The two happen on different timescales.
>
>An example of time-scale confusion (from W. M. Connolley's page):
>
>   Hays et al, Science, v194, #4270, p1121, 10/Dec/1976. This article was
>   shamelessly misquoted to support the assertion that an "immenent"
>   iceage was predicted. Actual reading of the article (an action not
>   performed by those who cited it) shows that: it hedges its predictions
>   by saying that these would be the tendencies in the absence of human
>   perturbation of the climate system, that it predicts glacial
>   conditions in 20,000 years time and that it predicts (again, assuming
>   no human influence) a cooler trend over the next several thousand
>   years (not glaciation within this timespan).
>
>"Global warming" predictions due to increasing anthropogenic CO2 in the
>atmosphere generally predict changes in the next few centuries.   If it
>was assumed that global climate change due to human activites was a 
>quickly passing phenomenon (500 years in duration, say) that didn't have
>long lasting effects on the climate after it was over, then it would
>be quite possible to predict it and also predict an Ice Age occuring 
>20,000 years from now.
As a "camp follower", I submit the following observations for comment.
I have posted similar observatons before, so I hope this isn't redundant.
------------------------
Recent simulations with coupled oceans and atmosphere indicate that 
Global Warming will be accompanied by greater precipitation in the
northern latitudes.  Currently, there is very little snowfall in  
northeastern Canada, with many areas experiencing less than 50 cm of 
seasonal snow fall.  It is simply too cold for the atmosphere to 
transport much moisture to these latitudes.  In parts of the Arctic, 
the yearly precipitation rates been compared to the Sahara.  
Most early GCM's produced an amplified warming at high latitudes, 
the result of the difference between the albedo used for sea-ice 
and for open ocean.  While it is true that the ocean albedo at low 
latitudes is small (0.05 to 0.07), this is not true at higher 
latitudes or during morning and evening hours of the day, because 
of the dependance of albedo on zenith angle, as I pointed out in a 
paper presented before the AAAS in 1992.  Further more, the albedo 
of sea-ice depends upon surface conditions, including the age of the 
snow on top.  Some GCM's produced too much seasonal melting of sea-ice
in the control climate experiment, indicating that the feedback was 
too large.  These simulations should have been expected to produce 
too much warming at high latitudes.  I understand that some models
have since been modified to correct this excessive feedback.
Recent research has indicated that increasing clouds have a negative 
feedback, especially over a low albedo surface, such as the ocean.  
Low clouds (or fog) are a prominant feature over the ocean and over 
snow and ice covered areas.  All these features are difficult to model 
and more work must be done to inspire confidence in the results of 
GCM experiments.  Remember, the main requirement for the start of an 
Ice Age is that more snow falls than melts or evaporates.  If the snow 
belts move further north from the U..S. into Canada, into a region with 
shorter, colder summers, this may occur.  Increased snowfall coupled 
with increased cloud cover may reverse the sign of the feedback.  
------------------------------------
The increased precipitation will also cause increased runoff into the 
Arctic Ocean and North Atlantic.  The ocean models in some of the 
coupled simulations respond with a slowing or even shutdown of the 
"Global Converor Belt" thermohaline circulation between the tropics 
and the polar regions. (The Science of Climate Change, IPCC 95, p213
and p304)
At the start of the Younger Dryas period, Ice Age conditions are said 
to have returned to a large area in a few years.  Recent paleoclimate 
research has linked a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation with 
the period of cooling, perhaps the result of the opening of the St. 
Lawrence river and the draining of glacial melt water into the North 
Atlantic.
------------------------------
One should note that the Milankovitch orbital parameters are currently 
producing a yearly distribution of solar energy which mirrors that at 
the end of the Eemian when the last period of extended glaciation 
began about 120,000 years ago.  Perhaps all that is needed to trigger 
an ice age is some combination of circumstances, such as a global 
warming caused weaking of the thermohaline circulation coupled with 
a very large volcanic eruption at high latitude lifting lots of sulfate 
aerosol into the stratosphere.  Large eruptions reappear in the 
paleoclimate record every thousand years or so MOL...
Of course, these scenerios are likely to be controversial.  But, we
are playing with fire and should be aware of the consequences..
R. Eric Swanson

Adam Ierymenko  wrote:
> 	chris_delikatny@mindlink.bc.ca (Chris ) writes:
> >If a 1/4 mile dia asteroid were to land in the ocean, maybe 1000 mi
> >from shore, how high of a wave could be created, and how big would it
> >be by the time it hits the shore. 
> 
> Probably something like the director's cut of "The Abyss."  Anyway, I
don't
> think that the wave would be the biggest problem.  The heat of impact
would
> vaporize such an enormous amount of water that it could disrupt our
climate
> quite a bit.
> 
The wave itself would be a tremendous problem.  The dynamics of an asteroid
strike have been extensively studied; the results are startling.  I have
just completed a move, so my reference materials are packed away, so I will
have to go from memory:
A 1 kilometer asteroid strike would create a wave 400 meters high, that
would circle the globe 3 times.  Nearly every coastal city would be
destroyed, as well as entire island nations such as Japan, the Philippines,
Cuba, etc.  On major continents, areas as far inland as 100-200 miles could
be affected.  In the US a subwave would travel up the Mississippi River as
far as Kansas City.  Estimated Death Toll: 1 billion plus.  The deaths from
climactic change could easily reach another 3-4 billion, so you are
correct: the wave isn't the worst problem, though certainly the most
frightening.  
An interesting theory on Pacific Islander cultures has surfaced, to explain
why nearly all such are so much younger than the rest of the world's
cultures.  The hypothesis goes that every ten thousand or so years, a major
asteroid strike depopulates the entire region, which must then be
"re-pollinated" from continental areas.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

In article <5922bj$784_003@pm8-149.hal-pc.org>, charliew@hal-pc.org
(charliew) wrote:
> In article ,
>    rolandthomas@earthlinnk.net (Roland R. Thomas) wrote:
> >
> >It is simply impossible to save all the species that are endangered or 
> >threatened right now.  Also, we are probably centuries away from 
> >reversing the mindset of societies for good from their self-destructive 
> >and externally destructive behaviours.
> >
> >What exactly does "Save the Earth" mean to you?  "Save the Earth for 
> >Ourselves" or "Save the Earth from Ourselves"?  Or can it mean both 
> >at the same time?  ("Save Ourselves from Ourselves" might be stretching 
> >it...)
> >
> >For all our nobility, we are still a fairly selfish species.
> >
> >Peace,
> >Roland
> >
> 
> Name one species that is not selfish.  Name another species that has any 
> nobility at all.  I basically agree with your last statement, but things 
> look a bit different if you try to find a species whose example we should 
> follow.
Well this view is probably based in the simplistic interpretation of
Darwinian evolution - specifically that everything competes.  This type of
thinking has lead to economic rationalism of the Milton Friedman type,
among other nasty outcomes.  There are a huge number of examples in nature
where cooperation has been shown to work and maximise the resiliance and
stability of an ecosystem. I try to live in a manner which reflects this
approach rather than assuming that the most expedient approach is to be
selfish - the outcome of this is that life is a lot more fun.
-- 
Chambers and Galloway
email chamgal@griffin.bis.net.au

JMH  wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->> 
->> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
->> 
->> ->In <59hdr5$9oo@mochi.lava.net> jhavok@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R.
->> ->Olson, jr.) writes:
->> ->>
->> ->>jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
->> ->>
->> ->>->In <595nh3$45r@mochi.lava.net> jhavok@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
->> ->R.
->> ->>->Olson, jr.) writes:
->> ->>->>
->> ->>->>jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
->> ->is more decentralization in industry
->> ->than centralization.
->> 
->> Depends on your industry.  General Mills just bought Chex.  They had
->> to satify the regulators that they weren't going to sut down the
->> private-label side of the company in order to do it.  If it wasn't for
->> the FTC, you wouldn't be able to buy cheap knock-offs of brand-name
->> cereals in six months.  Tell me about it.
->In my area one of the local grocers--a region chain--offers their own
->"knock-off" of a branded cereal. General Mills buying Chex has
->no effect here.
Chex is the major producer of knockoff cereals. The FTC restricted the
buyout to the Chex brands, leaving the knockoff side independant.  But
an attempted stipulation of the deal was an 18-month  restriction on
production of Chex-style knockoffs.  The FTC disallowed that
stipulation.
->Moreover, unless  you are leading up to the claim that
->General Mills and other large cereal manufacturers are currently
->engaged in a strategy to oust the small players, how is General Mills
->going to raise its price when there is a price war goin on?
There aren't many small players in the cereal business.  With the
buyout of Chex, I believe there are only four significant producers of
breakfast cereal.
->Cereal manufacturing doesn't seem to be a one dominated by abnormally
->high start-up costs.
It seems to be a business that is dominated by promotion rather than
production.
->> ->This is not because
->> ->government is getting smaller - it is not;
->> ->but because the market is growing too big
->> ->for even a big and growing government.
->> 
->> Low-capital indusries are decentralized.  Why? Because low
->> capital-intensity is necessary for an Adamsian free market.  But look
->> at any capital-intensive industry, and you'll see more and more
->> centralization.
Oops, that should read "Smithian free market."
->Centralization meaning cartelization of concentration of producers?
->I think you see both, but in the case of attempts to cartelize the
->industry success is minimal in a competitive market. 
The main argument between jw and myself is ove rthe characteristics of
a market necessary to let Smith's "invisible hand" operate.  He claims
that lasssez-faire is all that is necessary, while I believe that easy
entry into the market is the necessary characteristic.  He believes
that any governnment interference destroys the freedom of the market,
while I say that only government interference which unnecessarily
restricts entrance does so.  Thus in his formulation, even safety
regulations are not allowable, since they are government restrictions.
Anyway, the major argument here is over whether there can be any
restrictions on a market besides those created by government.  jw's
absolutism puts him in a rather indefensible position.
->An example
->is heavy industry like steel and iron. Even at the hight of lassier
->faire in the early 20th century this industry had  a very  difficult
->time maintaining any international cartel structure. Domesticly iron
->and steel producers enjoyed more succcess  in protecting their local
->markets from foreign competitors  but that was  largely accomplished
->through trade and tariff policy.
I have read a bit about the bollix created by US steel manufacturers
reliance on protection, so they didn't bother to upgrade their plants
as new tech became available.  From what I've read, steel may be a
little less capital intensive than it once was, smaller mills and
shorter runs being more practical than they once were.
	JimmyO

api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
->In article <5a1t7c$nmd@mochi.lava.net>,
->	jhavok@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) writes:
->>->>Boeing buys McDonnell Douglas and owns 2/3 of the global
->>->>commercial-aircraft market:  where are those agile little piranhas?
->>->>
->>
->>->Boeing and McDonnell Douglas are largely government contractors.  They are
->>->also in an industry which requires large amounts of start-up and operational
->>->capital.  They are also in a heavily regulated industry.
->>
->>Not Smithian at all, is it?  The little piranha are flopping around on
->>the dry bank.
->Re-read above.  First of all, those industries are *extremely* high-capital-
->investment industries and are not representative of the market as a whole.
I think you are confusing "market" and "economy" here.  A market has
to do with a particular product, the economy is the sum total of all
economc activity.  So those industries are the producers within their
"market as a whole," and are representative of their market.
->They are also heavily regulated and are given lots of special favors as
->favored government contractors for the Navy and Air Force.
Well, we're talking about the commercial-aircraft market.  The
military contracts provide an advantage because they provide more
capital, and capital as a force within a market is what I have been
talking about all along.
->>And do you really want an airline industry with no safety regulations?
->>My roommate works for Garuda, and he comes home with horror stories
->>all the time (He just welcomed in a plane that was ten hours late
->>because it flew from Guam on one of three engines.).  I can't imagine
->>what the situation would be like with no regulation.  I certainly
->>wouldn't want to live in a flight path.
->I suppose you would fly these planes?  I certainly wouldn't.  I would pay more
->for an airline that guarantees it's safety.  I'm not flying in anything with
->duct tape on the propellers.
You'd be surprised at what you do fly on.  You don't have the luxury
of inspecting your carrier, or being able to judge it accurately.
That's why we delegate that responsibility to inspectors.
And the passengers are not the only people endangered by bad safety
practices.  Those things fly over a lot of inhabited territory.
->BTW, How much of this do you think is due to lack of regulations, and how much
->is due to there being much less money and much older technology in Guam?  They
->are not exactly rich countries with access to cutting-edge aviation technology.
Same planes that you and I fly in.  Same requirements for maintainance
as any carrier that flies into the US.
->>->Look at the computer industry for an excellent example of unregulated
->>->capitalism.
->>
->>Yes, for example, Intel's domination of the microprocessor market, and
->>MicroSoft's domination of the OS market.
->Both Intel and MS dominate the market not because they get special favors
->from the govt, nor because they buy out all the competition.  They dominate
->the market because they consistently deliver what (most) people want.
->If Intel and MS started making bad products, they would be *gone* in a few
->years.  
Gee, remember the first set of Pentiums?  Why do they call it
"Windoze" and "Microsloth?"  I think there's something more than
quality going on here.
->Anyway, they *don't* own the market.  I run Linux here on an Intel
->machine, and there are many other (RISC for instance) architectures to choose
->from which offer different advantages for different applications.
->I was also speaking of the incredible rate of technological advancement and
->the incredible quality control in the computer industry.  If the computer
->industry was regulated as heavily as the healthcare or aviation industries I
->would be punching in machine code on an Altair, and the big computer users
->would be replacing overheated transistors in huge machines taking up many
->rooms.  (The aviation industry is not nearly as bad as the healthcare
->industry, where innovation is all but outlawed.)
??? CAT, MRI, new drugs every year, microsurgery, telesurgery...  What
do you want, flipper babies in your beer?
->>Thanks for pointing out a good example for my case.
->>
->>It took legal action to break Intel's hammerlock, althought here are
->>still only a small handful of chipmakers (capital restraints).  I'm
->>not sure what was accomplished by the court in MS' case...
->I see no need to 'break' Intel's hammerlock, or MS's "monopoly."  I can
->(and do) run a non-Microsoft OS (most of the time) and am perfectly happy
->with it.  I could also go out and buy a RISC architecture machine which would
->be at least as fast as anything by Intel.
AMD and Cyrix both undercut Intel, and have better instruction sets.
Perhaps I'm opverly generous in considering those to be benefits of
breaking the hammerlock.
There are alternatives to Wintel, but they aren't really practical for
the great mass of simple users.
You are apparently unaware of how MS' secondhand secondrate OS ended
up on so many machines.  Gates offered a licensing deal, where the
makers paid not for installation, but for every machine they sold,
whether it had DOS on it or not.  This meant that you paid for DOS
whether you wanted it or not, and that the makers had no incentive to
offer an alternative.
There are definitely benefits to having a common OS, but worship of
Gates isn't be one of them.
	JimmyO

David Bryant  wrote:
>     I can only assume Dan that you have never been to a working
> windfarm...  We have one here in Wales UK with 103? 500KW turbines
> set on a ridge on an area of land about one and a half miles by half a
> mile.  On any ordinary day with a fifteen mile an hour wind blowing [ its
> a windy little island] there is no drifts of dead birds to be seen. In
fact
> you only have to wait for a while to see rooks perched on top of the 
> rotor housings.
CA Edison's largest windfarm in California had at one time 4 different
lawsuits pending from environmental groups angered over endangered bird
species deaths.   They also bought out (if memory serves me) seventy-some
homeowners in that area alone, due to noise pollution complaints.  The
eventual demise of the windfarm, however, was not due to either of this,
but to maintenance costs, which were many times higher than estimated.  The
multi-million dollar installation was eventually sold as scrap, for
$58,000.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
``We all enter this world in the same way: naked; screaming; soaked in
blood. But if you live your life right, that kind of thing doesn't have to
stop there.'' 
-- Dana Gould

Nick Eyre  wrote:
> 
> Basically wrong.  At the margin wind capacity (peak availability) is
> just as valuable as any other capacity.  This argument has been around
> for years and has been dealt with effectively, but usually ignored by
> those whi do not want to hear.  If a power source had to be 100%
> reliable to count as new capacity, we would never get any new capacity
> would we?  Of course, wind has a lower availability than most other
> sources, but it comes in smaller bites as well.
Wrong.  If you're postulating windpower as a minor source, adding a few
percent into the grid, then yes, availability isn't much of a factor.  But
if you want windpower to supply 30, 40, or more percent, then availability
is crucial.  Unlike coal and nuclear plants, whose downtime periods are
randomly staggered (or, quite often, planned), windpower can simultaneously
peak and wane over areas as large as an entire continent.  As with solar,
you either have to postulate a global energy grid, or _vast_ energy storage
systems.
> By the way, In England, some of our wind farms have a higher load factor
> than one nuclear plant has typically achieved.
In other words, the top 1% of windfarms have bettered the load factor of
the bottom 1% of nuclear reactors?  Astonishing, I agree.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Annoy a Fascist: Just say NO! to gun control.  "
   - Synergy

In  hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
writes: 
>
>In article <5a6ru9$d2v@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>jw  wrote:
>>In  hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>>writes: 
>>>
>>>In article <5a3o2v$9i5@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, jw
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Below is an estimate by Jeff Greason,
>>>>an extremely knowledgeable sci.space.* contributor
>>>>(PGM are, as I read it, platinum group metals).
>>>>It discusses an Earth-to-LEO-to-asteroid connection,
>>>>not Earth-to-Mars-to-asteroid like Zubrin.
>>>>(LEO is low Earth orbit).
>>>
>>>The article contains suspicously round numbers with 
>>>rather wide ranges, e.g., $1000-$10000.
>>
>>Suspiciously?  What nonsense. That was
>>the only numerate thing to do. Phony precision
>>would be suspicious, indeed. Round numbers were the only
>>meaningful ones. E.g.,
>
>Unfortunately, it is some kind of precision we are in need of. Without
>it, the calculation is pointless. One may specify the degree of
>precision to be used.
>
>>the whole discussion hinges on the launch
>>costs falling by a *decimal order*. 
>>That is why his goal was "to bound the discussion",
>>not to produce an unconditional answer.
>
>Ah. He still, uneer his best case conditons, expressed his own
>dubiousness. This is a preciaous small nail for you to hang an
argument
>on.
>
>>> Nevertheless Mr Greason concludes just about the
>>>same thing I do, that the project is largely dubious under the best
>>>case assumptions. 
>>
>>You have not been reading attentively.
>>He concluded that the project would be feasible
>>under the *middle case* - not *best case* assumptions.
>Ah, yes. IF -- a very big IF -- costs can be reduced to meet his
>requirements.
Launch costs to $2,000/Kg ? No, this is a very little IF -
indeed, no IF at all.  This is not asteroid mining,
we are on firmer ground here. There is not the slightest doubt 
that costs can be reduced to that level and 
lower - with off-the-shelf technology. Step to sci.space.tech,
ask the question if you have doubts.
>>|Taking my best shot at estimating the factors involved, I think that
>>|a "middle case" is achievable, 
>>
>>See?
>
>Scarcely an actual and realistic estimate. This is all guess and by
>golly.
Well, make up your mind. First you say he agrees
with your own guess-and-by-golly conclusion
(if it can be called *that* - it was based on exactly
nothing). Then, when confronted
with his actual estimate, you cast doubt on its realism
- or rather you *try* to cast doubt, again with absolutely
no argument. Which is it now? Does he agree with you
or do you disagree with him? If the latter, on what
grounds? 
>>>where even factoring in R&D; amortization
>>|and the long payback times for capital, acceptable profits can be
made
>>|at ~$2000/Kg launch costs to LEO.  Less is obviously better.

cove@moscow.com wrote:...
> 
> Who would be most likely to establish colonies?  Two guesses- governments
> or large corporations.
Don't disregard the individual here.  The mechanics of single-family space
colonization have been worked out in detail.  You don't need much more than
a big tin can, a solar power cell, and an air processor to survive.  
> In a corporate colony, the governing body would probably be an arm of the
> corporation.  You might draw an analogy to the "company towns" so common 
> in mining regions in US history.    For the workers, the economy was 
> largely a closed system, totally dependent on the employer, so economic 
> might would easily overpower any attempt at a democratic political 
> system.
> 
> Not a perfect analogy, of course.  The disgruntled miners could always 
> pack up and leave a company town.  They might face physical and economic 
> hardship, but they could leave on foot.  In a space colony, vacuum 
> presents a bit of an impediment to that option.  So maybe the company 
> rule would be even stronger.
Not a perfect analogy, but pretty close I think.  I imagine the first wave
of corporate colonizations will lead to some pretty spectacular
human-rights abuses.  However, these should be short-lived phenomena,
lasting until CNN's first expose by roving reporter Wolf Blitzer Jr.
> I'm not sure what analogy to draw for a government colony.  I'll think on
> it.  Anyone wanna give it a try in the meantime?
For a fascist regime, these are a wet-dream.  For years, Vietnam routinely
sold citizens to the Soviet Union for Siberian work camps.  Space colonies
are an even better method of turning unwanted or undesirable elements into
cold hard cash.  
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves:
the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy."
- Ivan Illich

: > >If a 1/4 mile dia asteroid were to land in the ocean, maybe 1000 mi
: > >from shore, how high of a wave could be created, and how big would it
: > >be by the time it hits the shore. 
Why not just ask "if aliens visited the planet with a death ray
weapon, how many lives would be lost?"
Both answers require almost 100% speculation.  Most "theorists"
presume a direct hit, the absolute worst (and most improbable)
scenario.
One more thing ... the likelihood of a meteor strike that big
is about 50% sometime in the next 100 million years (give or
take 10 million years).
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
   finger zarlenga@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> Len Evens includes:
> 
>      I am sure this argument has been gone over in great detail
>      by others.  so I won't answer directly.  Needless to say
>      that sometimes the obvious answer is not so obvious if you
>      think a bit.  As those of you who read the daily newspapers
>      know, a large number of miltary leaders in the US and
>      elsewhere have called for the elimination of nuclear
>      weapons, and they have given their arguments.  I refer
>      everyone to those argumentes.  The generals involved have
>      together much more experience than I have, and I don't see
>      any point in trying to paraphrase them.
> 
> That isn't quite what the generals said.  They called for a quick
> reduction in the number of nuclear weapons and wished for their
> eventual elimination.
> 
> I'd buy the first but don't see how the second could be achieved
> without creating enormous instability.
> --
> 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.
taxfree@planeteer.com responds:
Referring John McCarthy to the closing sentence of his signature file, I
ask him to then reconsider the latter 
part of his closing commentary; and offer this  :)
The generals came to their conclusions for very much the same reasons
that led Mikhail Gorbachev to initiate the first nuclear test ban in
1986. That ban ended when the US resumed testing and the USSR followed
suit.
The data on which the Generals premised their recommendations came from
two streams of thought. One from the river of "high possibility of use"
equals "high probability of use".  The other, more convincing argument,
based on various studies of action, reaction scenarios revolving around
growing scarcitys of arable lands, potable waters and needed raw
materials.
The end result of those studies has never changed. The very availability
of weapons of mass murder predisposes those "controlling" those weapons,
and the citizenry that fund their development, to think that a threat
might work to gain them that which they insist they must have.
Such responses will lead us to total use of all nuclear and other
weapons of mass murder. And it is because of that sad and quite possibly
and most probably unavoidable fact that I set out to entrench everyone's
common law right to refuse to pay taxes to any society participating in
plans and preparations involving the will and capacity to use such
weapons against hundreds of millions of fellow defenceless human beings.
I suggest to readers of this post/response that they access or otherwise
obtain:
THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS:
The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946-1985
  by
David R. Morgan 
National President, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms
Vancouver, Canada
06 March 1996
(The) 
This e-mail version and its Word-Perfect 
equivalent, available in hard-copy,
were copy-edited by Eric Fawcett, 
Founding President of Science for Peace, 
and typed by Pat Woodcock, Scarborough College, 
University of Toronto.
e-mail version from: fawcett@physics.utoronto.ca
Book with sirloc binding @ $6 from: Science for Peace, University
College