Subject: Re: Realism vs. Pessimism. Was: Are there jobs for Biologists?
From: mab35@po.CWRU.Edu (Margaret A. Bernardic)
Date: 6 Jan 1997 05:52:27 GMT
I don't know much about the job market, seeing as I have yet to
graduate, but I'm starting to look now and the job market is tough. I'm
hoping with an environmental science major, that I will be able to land
something.
Anyhow, in response to this thread, my thoughts are there are
two routes you can take, both are risks, but that's what life is about
(it'd be boring if it wasn't). You can go into a science major, or
study, that will give you a better chance in making some dough (but may
no interest you as much), or you can go into something that interests you,
and take the risk of not finding
a job. The reality of it is, is that its a Catch 22, b/c what interests
you, probably interests a million others, and therefore makes the
competition harder, and what is uninteresting to you probably is
uninteresting to a million other people, and makes the competition less.
So I guess the bottom line is, is to know your priorities. IF you
want to make money, go into something that you don't like all that much.
Personally I'm, gambling on going into a career that interests me, b/c I'd
rather be happy than rich. Unless your one of those rare people who can
make money doing what they like.
The higher you go, the more work it is....
Kris
In a previous article, arthures@access5.digex.net (Arthur E. Sowers) says:
>
>I agree with Don Martin's assessment of the situation. You can put all of
>your eggs in one basket which is labeled "faith" and not look around you
>to see that there are a lot of broken eggs in shipwrecked baskets. Or, you
>can look at the bigger picture and ask what fraction of the people who
>start out on this path are actually getting to some goals in life. There
>are areas of our economy that are expanding and areas that are
>contracting. Science is one of them. The editorial page (p. 1445) of the
>29 November issue of _Science_, the western equivalent of Nature, has the
>following sentence: "...substantial reductions in overall government
>spending for science and technology have been projected to be about 25
>percent by the year 2002. Entire sectors have been targeted for
>elimination."
>
>The author of that editorial was Paul G. Rogers, "...a U.S. congressman
>from Florida for 24 years and was known as 'Mr. Health' for sponsoring or
>playing a significant role in enacting major health legislation. He is
>currently chair of the board of Research!America [a pro science
>lobbying group]...."
>
>I am very pro-science myself, but I have watched over the last 3-5-7 years
>how money has become tighter, grants harder to get, and less committment
>to scientists & PhDs (and education and enlightenment in general) that my
>general recommendation would be to study the job market and adjust your
>goals to that (in addition to the health plan you will need AND a pension
>you better start getting vested in for your old age) as a top priority,
>and worry about your interests in science as a secondary priority. I think
>industry (complete with less exciting jobs) will expand some in the future
>and that is where you will most probably end up if you want to pay your
>rent and eat. There will be many successful and happy people seeing their
>dreams come true. But its already a fact that that "many" is just a
>minority.
>
>You can read over on the Young Scientist Network of the agony, the
>waiting, the disappointments as PhDs work on low paid postdocs for decades
>and still not have a decent job. We do not have a newsgroup full of "good
>times" reports on getting jobs. I've been here for two years and I'd say
>that the success stories account for about 1/5 of the experiences, and the
>other 4/5 are sad tales and worse.
>
>Art Sowers
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Written in the public interest, the essays on
>"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
>http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
>
>
>On 22 Dec 1996, Donald Martin wrote:
>
>> Phil (Pscord@pacbell.net) wrote:
>> : Don Martin wrote:
>> : > Just because one guy gets to pursue what he likes and gets paid for it, doesn't mean everyone who likes to "study" things will be granted the privilege.
>> : >
>>
>> : This is basically true, but Don seems to want to teach, "Don't reach for
>> : your dreams, because you probably can't fulfill them." Since his post
>> : comes from the U. of Guelph, I guess he's in Academia, and if he is,
>> : what kind of education is he getting/giving? Would he have all who
>> : aspire (to reach any goal) not try because there's a chance (even a good
>> : one) that they'll be disappointed? I think that's just a little too
>> : pessimistic (and even defeatist).
>>
>> No, I'm being realistic. I wouldn't have stayed in the academic stream
>> as long as I have (9 years post-graduate) if I didn't want to give it a
>> true shot. I could easily stick it out another decade, but I wan't a
>> source of income I can rely a little better on (post-doctoral salary is
>> OK, but you either have funding or you don't). I have all the
>> dedication, persistence and drive in the world. The one thing I don't
>> have is more time to wait for the economy to magically change in favour
>> of increased research funding or univsities to start treating research
>> staff with basic human dignity. I'd like a permanent job BEFORE I hit
>> middle age. As another poster stated a few months back "It's sad, but
>> sometimes nobody wants to hire you to do what you're good at."
>>
>>
>> : Dave Jensen, if you read this post, all you have to do is bust your
>> : hump, learn the material, and seek out your place in biology. Just know
>> : going in that few make the big bucks, but most of us are comfortable and
>> : (most of all) happy.
>>
>> You should've state "...most of us WITH JOBS..."`
>>
>> ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 04:57:41 GMT
Well, one thing about Ebeling, he is not as predicable as most
nature-hating vested interest nukem-boys.
Those who've followed this thread may be perplexed by him as I
was. Well, check out:
Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
Yep, bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote on Fri, 03 Jan 1997
> Yep, (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:20:28 GMT about:
> Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
>>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>>>I would have bet $100 after reading Greig Ebeling's original post of
>>>26 Nov 1996 that he was just another dogmatic anti-environmentalist.
Well, I was right.
>>>To see him admit one by one that nearly everything he claimed on that
>>>day was in error, frankly, shocked me.
Ebeling:
>>I admitted that:
>[list of wrong foundational assumptions deleted....]
>>I admitted to no such thing, and I have absolutely no vested interests
>>in the nuclear industry. Your suggestion is pure fabrication.
>Oh really? Random House dictionary:
> Vested interest, 1. A special interest in an existing
> system, arrangement, or institution for particular
> personal reasons.
>Greig Ebeling wrote on Mon, 16 Dec 1996:
>>-As an aside, I think it is only fair that I come clean on my deeper
>>-motivations for engaging in this debate. For many years, I had been
>>-involved in the nuclear industry. For years I saw (particularly in
>>-Australia) political motivations - swayed by the ignorance of the
>>-majority of the population - nearly destroy a valuable industry.
>"For many years..."?? I think my term; "vested interest" is closer to
>Truth than your "pure fabrication", wouldn't you agree?
>>>However, to have nearly all of his "facts" proven wrong, yet having
>>>no effect on his position was fully expected, even if laced liberally
>>>with unexpected reason and honesty.
>"Dogma"?
>>On discovering that SOME of my original understanding was inaccurate,
>>(as above), I duly relaxed my position regarding those matters. It
>>was not at all necessary for me to completely recant.
>So toying with the concept; "dogma", I think it may be too harsh,
>but a softer concept escapes me. I think "rational dogma" is
>an oxymoron. How about; "intelligent dogma"?
Anyway
==========================
Yep, stiltman@teleport.com (Stilt Man) wrote on 31 Dec 1996
18:00:36 GMT about:
Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
>In article <5a6ptu$cp9$1@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
>Greig Ebeling wrote:
>>Once again net-loonie bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:...
>>and in this action, demonstrates a case of abject hypocrisy.
>>>Ya, the sky is falling, the sky is falling! It's all the evil
>>>LIBRILL!S and the long haired maggot-infested environmental whackos!
>>>They are all funded by the commies, and want to GET us!
>>And this comes from a man who thinks CFCs are destroying the ozone
>>layer.
And Greig Ebeling, aren't you the one trying to convince somebody:
"I'm not CRAZY!!! Everybody ELSE IS!!!!"?????? Well Greig?
Stilt Man:
>There's not a great deal of scientific debate on that point. This is a known.
[...]
We don't think you are CRAZY Ebeling.
Ebeling:
>>I have absolutely no vested interests
>>in the nuclear industry. Your suggestion is pure fabrication.
Ebeling:
> Nuclear waste management has many adequate
>solutions, the substances are nowhere near "the most toxic known to
>man", and unlike many other poisons, radioactive substances eventually
>decay away.
>Though you may be looking, you are IMHO not really seeing.
>...Greig
And this guy calls us net loonies and hypocrites??
- We desire to increase per capita wealth and freedom,
- but we don't care a damn about "stimulating the economy",
- nor so-called "economic growth".
- Growthmania consumes what it promises. Ecology can deliver it.
-- Douglas bashford@psnw.com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html
Subject: Re: emf health risks? ( long)
From: Anders Jelmert
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 10:06:52 -0800
Joe Giacalone wrote:
>
> I am looking for information on the health risks of living near high
> voltage power lines. I would appreciate any information on risks to
> children, adults, chronic exposure and risk/proximity.
>
> Please respond to this news group or mail direct to:
> giacalon@regis.edu
>
> Thanks in advance for your help
> Joe
Well, perhaps not exactly what you had in mind, but here is the
NRC press release on their recent EMF study.
Date: Oct. 31, 1996
Contacts: Dan Quinn, Media Relations Associate
Shannon Flannery, Media Relations Assistant
(202) 334-2138; Internet
EMBARGOED: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 11 A.M. EST THURSDAY, OCT. 31
No Adverse Health Effects Seen From Residential
Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
WASHINGTON -- No clear, convincing evidence exists to show that residential exposures to electric
and magnetic fields (EMFs) are a threat to human health, a
committee of the National Research Council has concluded in a new report.* After examining more
than 500 studies spanning 17 years of research, the committee
said there is no conclusive evidence that electromagnetic fields play a role in the development of
cancer, reproductive and developmental abnormalities, or learning
and behavioral problems.
"The findings to date do not support claims that electromagnetic fields are harmful to a person's
health," said committee chair Charles F. Stevens, investigator,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and professor, Salk Institute, La Jolla, Calif. "Research has not
shown in any convincing way that electromagnetic fields common
in homes can cause health problems, and extensive laboratory tests have not shown that EMFs can
damage the cell in a way that is harmful to human health."
Concern about the health effects from EMFs arose in 1979 when researchers showed that children
living close to high concentrations of certain types of electrical
wires were 1.5 times more likely to develop leukemia. Because it is difficult, time-consuming, and
expensive to measure electric fields in a home over a long period
of time, researchers relied on a substitute to estimate the levels of electromagnetic fields to
which residents may have been exposed. Using factors such as the size of
wires going past the home and distance between the home and power lines, researchers estimated the
fields inside.
The Research Council committee's report says that studies in the aggregate show a weak but
statistically significant correlation between the incidence of childhood
leukemia, which is rare, and wire configurations. It never has been demonstrated that this apparent
association was caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields,
however. Outside wiring correlates poorly with measurements of actual fields inside the home, in
that it accounts for only a fraction of the fields inside. Scientists
have tried unsuccessfully to link leukemia to EMFs by measuring fields inside of homes of children
who had the disease. The results "have been inconsistent and
contradictory and do not constitute reliable evidence of an association," the report says.
The weak link shown between proximity to power lines and childhood leukemia may be the result of
factors other than magnetic fields that are common to houses
with the types of external wiring identified with the disease. These possible factors include a
home's proximity to high traffic density, local air quality, and
construction features of older homes that fall into this category, the committee said.
Cells, Tissues Unaffected
To try to explain and expand on the knowledge gained from early epidemiologic studies, researchers
have studied the potential effects of EMFs on individual human
cells or tissues, and on animals. To date, they have found no evidence to show that EMFs can alter
the functions of cells at levels of exposure common in residential
settings. Only at levels between 1,000 and 100,000 times stronger than residential fields have
cells shown any reaction at all to EMF exposure, and even these
changes -- mainly in the chemical signals that cells send to each other -- are not a clear
indication of the potential for adverse health effects. In fact, exposure may
actually help the body in some subtle ways, for example by speeding up the healing process after a
bone is broken.
Most important, there has been no case in which even tremendously high exposure to EMFs has been
shown to affect the DNA of the cell, damage to which is
believed to be essential for the initiation of cancer. Similarly, no animal experiments have shown
that EMFs, even at high doses, can act as a direct carcinogen or
can affect reproduction, development, or behavior in animals.
Future Research
Electromagnetic fields are generated by wires or electrically powered devices, and dissipate
quickly, like light. When assessing potential impact of EMFs on health,
scientists focus mainly on magnetic fields produced by power lines and electric appliances, which
can pass through the body and generate small electric currents.
Unlike magnetic fields, electric fields themselves lose most of their strength when they pass
through metal, wood, or even skin. In fact, the strongest of either fields
that the body encounters are the electric currents produced naturally when the heart beats, or as
nerves and muscles function, the report says.
The committee focused on the health studies of low-frequency electric and magnetic fields common in
homes. Sources of exposure include transmission and
distribution lines and electric appliances, including shavers, hair dryers, video display
terminals, and electric blankets. The committee did not study in detail
occupational exposures, such as those experienced by electrical workers close to higher-frequency
power lines.
New research is needed to answer some of the questions that linger after nearly two decades of
intensive research, the committee said. Most compelling is the need
to pinpoint the unexplained factor or factors causing a small increase in childhood leukemia in
houses close to power lines. The precise factors that are related to an
increased number of childhood leukemia cases need to be identified.
The committee also called for more research into the relationship between high exposures to EMFs
and breast cancer in animals already exposed to other
carcinogens, and on reasons why electromagnetic fields seem to affect the levels of the hormone
melatonin in animals, an effect not reproduced in humans.
This congressionally requested study by the National Research Council was sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Energy. The National Research Council is the
principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering. It is a private, non-profit institution that provides science
and technology advice under a congressional charter.
Pre-publication copies of Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic
Fields are available from the National Academy Press
at the mailing address in the letterhead; tel. (202) 334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242. The cost of the
report is $45.00 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.00 for the
first copy, and $.50 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain pre-publication copies from the
Office of News and Public Information at the letterhead
address (contacts listed above).
[This news release is available on the World Wide Web at .]
# # #
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Commission on Life Sciences
Board on Radiation Effects Research
Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems
Charles F. Stevens, M.D., Ph.D. (1) (chair)
Professor and Investigator
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Salk Institute
La Jolla, Calif.
David A. Savitz, Ph.D. (vice chair)
Professor, Department of Epidemiology
School of Public Health
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill
Larry E. Anderson, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Wash.
Daniel A. Driscoll, Ph.D.
Program Research Specialist
Office of Energy Efficiency and Environment
New York Department of Public Service
Albany
Fred H. Gage, Ph.D.
Professor, Laboratory of Genetics
Salk Institute
La Jolla, Calif.
Richard L. Garwin, Ph.D. (1,2,3)
IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM Research Division
Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Yorktown Heights, N.Y.
Lynn W. Jelinski, Ph.D.
Director, Biotechnology, and Professor of Engineering
Center for Advanced Technology - Biotechnology
Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y.
Bruce J. Kelman, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
National Director of Health and Environmental Sciences
Golder Associates Inc.
Redmond, Wash.
Richard A. Luben, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biomedical Sciences and Biochemistry
Division of Biomedical Sciences
University of California
Riverside
Russel J. Reiter, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Cellular and Structural Biology
University of Texas Health Sciences Center
San Antonio
Paul Slovic, Ph.D.
President
Decision Research
Eugene, Ore.
Jan A.J. Stolwijk, Ph.D.
Professor of Epidemiology and Acting Chair
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, Conn.
Maria A. Stuchly, Ph.D.
Professor, and NSERC/BC Hydro/TransAlta
Industrial Research Chair
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Victoria
British Columbia, Canada
Daniel Wartenberg, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Environmental and
Community Medicine
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Piscataway
John S. Waugh, Ph.D. (1)
Institute Professor
Department of Chemistry
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge
Jerry R. Williams, Sc.D.
Professor of Oncology
Johns Hopkins Oncology Center
Baltimore
RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF
Larry H. Toburen, Ph.D.
Study Director
John D. Zimbrick, Ph.D.
Board Director
Lee R. Paulson
Senior Staff Officer
(1) Member, National Academy of Sciences
(2) Member, National Academy of Engineering
(3) Member, Institute of Medicine
I hope this can contribute to innumerous good nights' sleep.
Cassanders
"An approximate answer to the right question is worth a good
deal more than an exact answer to an approximate problem"
John Tukey
Subject: Nuclear Power in Australia? Why not?
From: bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 07:24:11 GMT
On 1996/03/14, eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling)
of DIALix Services, Sydney, Australia, said
Re: Chornoble, Scientific American, Greenpeace, and Exaggeration.
>Meredith Poor (mnpoor@txdirect.net) wrote:
>>An article in the April 1996 issue of Scientific American quotes a number
>>of figures that are questionable. It specifically attributes over 37,000
>>deaths to the disaster at Chornoble
>
Greig Ebeling:
>The 37000 figure is incorrect. The official death count is 34.
Do you believe that number is true?
>
>>we (the global body of humanity) do not have enough
>>technically competent technicians and engineers to properly
>>run a network of nuclear power plants. So far, the design and
>>operation of powerplants has been universally incompetent.
>
Ebeling:
>I would say that one accident causing deaths in 50 years of operation
>is a testament to the competence of the engineers and technicians
>involved in the industry. No other industry boasts such a safety
>record.
>
>>There are so many safer
>>and cheaper alternatives that there is just no point in
>>continually exposing people to the risks and side effects
>>of nuclear power.
>
>Name one cheaper and safer alternative,
That's what Homer Simpson and Rush Limbaugh say.
Cheaper? All of them. Name one power company in the USA
that wants to build one. Safer? Name one nuke power plant
that is cheaper to insure than any other kind of power plant
in existance. I expect you will have to go Third World or
government insured, cause you won't find it in the USA. Perhaps
you would care to make a case that the executives of our power
and insurance companies are more of your so-called Chicken Little
environmentalists?
> and please describe the "risks
>and side effects" of nuclear power".
I'll leave that to sombody who follows this issue. Personnally,
I wish there there wern't any risks, that they were cheap and safe,
and we would build a million of those. But they ain't.
eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Mon, 16 Dec 1996:
Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
>-As an aside, I think it is only fair that I come clean on my deeper
>-motivations for engaging in this debate. For many years, I had been
>-involved in the nuclear industry. For years I saw (particularly in
>-Australia) political motivations - swayed by the ignorance of the
>-majority of the population - nearly destroy a valuable industry.
No doubt you think 20,000 years for the rods to cool off
is not a problem? How much would it cost to maintain??
Are you going to do the same as all the rest of the Cost Benefit
Analysises and discount the future at current interest rate?
(exponential decay in the value of humanity and in responsibility)
...and Greig Ebeling continues with his thinly disguised,
and loudly denied special interests:
>> by condemning nuclear power,
>> env groups are condemning the only viable means of
>>producing centralised electric power without emitting greenhouse
>>gases.
Why, you're a real green guy, ain't you Greig?
eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Tue, 31 Dec
Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
> Nuclear waste management has many adequate
>solutions, the substances are nowhere near "the most toxic known to
>man", and unlike many other poisons, radioactive substances eventually
>decay away.
"Most toxic"? No. What about carcinogenic? How many people
could a pound of that nasty stuff kill, anyway? About a city?
Two? Three? Twenty? Everybody in Australia?
>>Open-and-shut, if you really look at it.
>Though you may be looking, you are IMHO not really seeing.
>...Greig
Well Greig Ebeling, since you seem to like nuclear power so
much, do you think Australia should get some more? It seems
like that would be a good place for it. They have no strong
environmentalists do they? And most low density areas tend to be more
anti-environmental and Man-against-Nature than others. At least
we see that here in America, for example, Alaska or Canada.
Now here in the USA, no power companies want to build any more nukes
because they lose money and are not safe. Why do you think anybody
in Australia would want to? Have your legislators figured out a way
to shield the nuke companies from responsibility if they melt down?
Is it true that a melt-down could melt bedrock, and look like a small
volcano from a distance?
And if you had a major melt-down, are you suggesting that it might
not be as expensive to "fix" in Australia? Or are you making the
assumption that nothing can happen? What?
Yep, bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote on Fri, 03 Jan 1997
> Yep, (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:20:28 GMT about:
> Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
>>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>>>I would have bet $100 after reading Greig Ebeling's original post of
>>>26 Nov 1996 that he was just another dogmatic anti-environmentalist.
>>>To see him admit one by one that nearly everything he claimed on that
>>>day was in error, frankly, shocked me.
Greig Ebeling was full of surprises!! I'm not used to that from
anti-environmentalists. You are just another pro-nuke general purpose
anti-environmentalist, aren't you, Mr. Ebeling? Anti ozone, and all?
What other environmental issues are you against?
(I called Mr. Ebeling's fear of the terrible CFC ban; Chicken Little)
>>You, sir, with your "worst case scenarios, are the one who is
>>predicting that the sky is falling, NOT I !!! This specious Chicken
>>Little argument of yours projects very poorly on your own arguments.
I said about ozone depletion that a
typical scenario was that if CFCs were not banned, that perhaps
10% of the crops would suffer until UV resistant strains were used.
That is hardly "predicting that the sky is falling" is it? I did say:
Worst case: "all hell could break loose". And science agrees since
the mechanisms are not fully understood. So? Calm down Mr. Ebeling.
Your "storm" resides only in your head, and in vested interest
anti-environmental propaganda.
>Well sir, you are the one who is freaking out over the ban, not us.
>You seem to be going bananas, and in fact act like the cost
>is more than an inconvenience. To me, it seems like you expect
>life to be a bed of roses. Again, I ask. What has you in such
>a tizzy? This is your main point is it not? How mean and horrible
>and unfair this ban is? "EEEK! $100 $Billion!" is your cry when
>asked. Why are you complaining?
[...]
>>>I'm not sure how the U.S.
>>> "Wise Use" anti-environmental propaganda mill translates to Australia,
>>>but I would be surprised if there was not an equivalent vested
>>>interest anti-environmental lobby.
>>I have never heard of "Wise Use", and I know of no vested interests in
>>Australia attempting to propagandise the public on this issue, other
>Well, they exist. Take that to the bank. Beware, Australia.
>Economic theory suggests that if something is cost-effective and
>legal, it probably exists. Naturally, they do not advertise: "We are
>anti-environmentalists!", and they often have "green"
>sounding names. See http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-pp-ful.html
>for one of their own documents, their agenda and a long list of
>affiliates. "Wise Use" originally described their annual convention
>in Las Vegas. They come dressed in folksy costume and spout things
>about private property rights, small and local government, the
>constitution, taxes, and patriotism. Make no mistake, for example:
>the pseudo-private-property-rights movement is not the same as the
>real one, but as their propaganda and urban myths spread, these two
>groups seem to be merging. Again just one example, the claim; "I am
>for property rights." has powerful knee-jerk effects in some circles.
>While "anti-environmentalists" is by far the best label for them,
>one of their main thrusts is to privatize benefits (profits) while
>making the costs (pollution or degradation) taxpayer or environment
>subsidized. Selling something with a negative price
>for zero describes dirty smokestakes, blah blah bleh. In short, they
>don't want "cleaning up your own mess", to be a cost of doing
>business. Even shorter, they don't want responsibility for cleaning
>up their own mess. They want public subsidies, but pick up support
>from any special interest they can, such as even dirt-bikers and
>ironically, pro-small-government and "individualists".
>Their trademark is slick propaganda, typically heavy in emotional
>anecdotal evidence and utterly lacking in statistical evidence or
>sound logic. Also typical is "astroturf"; fake grass-roots
>organizations with powerful fax machines, etc. Beware, Australia,
>it's happening here.
"All that was required of them was a .---. .------------
primitive patriotism which could be / \ __ / ------
appealed to whenever it was necessary / / \( )/ -----
to make them accept longer working ////// ' \/ ` ---
hours or less wealth. And even //// / // : : ---
when they became discontented, // / / /` '--
as they sometimes did, their // //..\\
discontent led nowhere, =====/===========UU====UU=============
because, being with only Company ideas, '//||\\`
they could only focus it on Company ''``
scapegoats. The rebellious ones only fought Company enemies.
The source of these evils invariably escaped their notice."
[Apologies to George Orwell]
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: jhavok@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.)
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 23:05:50 GMT
JMH wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->. . .
->> Promotion dominates: n spent on promotion will produce greater return
->> than n reduction in prices. Good enough? The function for
->Fine, but then why is General Mills interested in buying it's
->low priced competitor who cannot support a large promotion campaign?
->Why not simply engage in an add blitz and put the low priced
->copy cat producers out of business?
At some point, price does begin to dominate. Apparently conditions
changed, and the point where price dominates moved lower. (Or else
there was a time lag due to buying habits, and people slowly reacted
to excessive [in their eyes] prices by reducing their consumption. So
sales remakined strong with progressive increases in cereal prices for
a time, but eventually fell.)
->That should work regardless of what is happening with the
->demand curve if demand is more promotion elastic than price
->elastic.
->
->> It has to do with sufficiently similar alternatives. I can't decide
->> that oats are too expensive, and therefore buy a magazine for
->> breakfast, can I? To serve the same purpose, I need to buy something
->> which is at least similar.
->Of course not! But you can substitute among the numerous types
->of cereals, even within the various sub-groups--sweet, "healthy"
->simple, fiberous...
The whole market had seen regular increases. So people apparently
were moving to non-cereal breakfasts.
->> ->Moreover, there are quite a few almost identical alternatives
->> ->on the shelves in the grocery I shop in--shredded wheat (2 choices),
->> ->rasin bran types (3 or 4 choiced), granola types (a multitude)...
->>
->> Notice which ones are more reasonably priced? Notice which ones are
->> aimed at a more adult (presumably less subject to promotion) market?
->> Notice which ones are a relatively recent addition to the variety?
->Care to elaborate here. From my casual observations quite a few
->adult oriented cereals cost at least as much as those oriented towards
->children.
Let me do a little field observation. For the most part I am
operating from memory here.
->I'ld also not that adults, not children, are the final decision-maker
->as to which cereal is bought since they are the shopper. (Which isn't
->to say kids don't excert as much influence (tantrums?) on their parents
->as possible.)
The desires of the children do come into play, though. Consider the
success of McDonalds. I can't say the place has much appeal for most
adults, but there are always hordes of children towing parents in
them. (Of course, they have launched a sally into the adult market
recently.)
->> Despite the drop, did we see a price war? No, everyone dropped their
->> prices by about the same amount, and stuck there.
->Let's see. One big manufacturer announces a price reduction and
->others soon follow suit. Why isn't that a price war. There isn't
->a requirement that all the producers force the price to zero! Or
->any other asurdly low figure.
Because there wasn't a cascade of price reductions, they all simply
followed the lead of Post (?).
->Conversly, why isn't that price level cereals are now stuck at
->the competitive level at which these producers are earning normal
->profits? What standard are you using.
->Form what I've seen you've already convinced yourself that these
->markets are non-competitive and enjoy abnormal profits and use
->any observation to support that view. Note, I'm not saying anything
->about whether you are right or wrong in saying that.
I don't believe they are precisely non-competitive, it's just that the
competition exists on a different level than that of price. I note
the per-pound price of cereals, and it seems to me to be extremely
high compared to the price of other processed foods, and while I don't
know the precise details of cereal production, it is difficult to
imagine that it is so complicated as to double the price of the
product. At the same time, there are only a few brands, who advertise
heavily, and distinguish their products by branding.
These are all conditions that suggest that price is not a major
constraint on the market, and that the market is not very open.
I'm not making a moral judgement here, I've just been pointing out a
good example of a non-Smithian market which is not produced by
government restriction.
->> ->BTW, are these leading cereal producers now making higher profits
->> ->with their oligopic prices?
->>
->> I don't know. I would think that that was the intention, though,
->> since I doubt that they intended to make less money. I can't vouch
->> for the success of their tactics, though.
->>
->> The buyout of Chex MIGHT have been another tactic, meant to shut down
->> a large portion of the knockoff competition. MAYBE. The Chex brands
->That sounds quite likely to me, *but* that also implies that
->the cereal markets *are* more price sensitive than they are
->promotion sensitive.
At a certain price level... As I pointed out, even monopolies have a
restraint on their pricing.
->. . .
->> Only until it is stymied by cartelization. (Original subject.)
->And cartelization implies price setting activities--in the
->monopoly sense--and an absense of price (as well as other
->forms of) competition among the catelized industry. That
->is not consistent with the observed behavior among cereal
->producers.
Why have they stuck at the new price? Why is there no jockeying for
low price among them? Why are there so few manufacturers? Why don't
we see new brands popping up? How could they cut their prices by 1/3,
unless that was all above cost?
Maybe they are at the marginal level now. In that case the knockoffs
would not be able to price themselves too much lower, although they
don't have the promotion costs to deal with.
Of course I'm also claiming that the knockoffs deliberately price only
slightly below the majors, so I guess that's not really evidence.
->> I'm just trying to keep from flying off onto a tangent. If we let the
->> argument fly out of control, eventually someone will have to invoke
->> the Hitler rule. And I think "distorting" is a better term for what I
->> am talking about than "restricting." I'm taking a Smithian open (less
->> loaded and ambiguous than "free") market to be the ideal here, with
->> variation from that ideal inevitable..
->I guess both terms have their uses and (I think) understand the
->distinction you make, fine.
->What exactly constitutes a Smithian open market? Is it defined
->by some concentration ratio? Must it be atomistic? Must it be
->one in which the products are nearly homogeneous (i.e., a graded
->commodity market or a finacial market)? Or does it only require
->that producers face and respond to market incentives which lead them
->to compete for the favor of customers?
I would consider a smithian open market to be one that allows easy
enough entry that price competition is a major factor.
->> ->All regulation restricts someone's
->> ->behavior; if it didn't no one would care one way or the other. The issue
->> ->is always about the benefit or harm done by regulation. The argument for
->> ->markets is that it forces producers into a prisoner's dilemma type setting
->> ->where the players end up "choosing" the low-profit pay off, not the high
->> ->profit pay off. Regulation can then can be evaluated along the margin of
->> ->whether or not it increases to increase profits at the consumers' expense.
->>
->> Well, that's one way it can be evaluted. I would favor a general
->> utilitarian analysis, myself, with a higher weighting given to
->> potential harm than to potential benefits. Something along the line
->> of not harvesting organs from the healthy to benefit the ill, for
->> instance.
->Fine, I didn't mean for the example to be exclusive.
->I would have thought, however, the utilitarian analysis already
->included the weights? But I'm not a utilitarian in any strict sense
->of the word.
Traditional Millsian analysis gives equal weight to harm and benefit,
so one unit of benefit balances one unit of harm. Of course, the
units of measure are a bit of a problem...
->But I don't think anyone has really said *no* oversight in the
->sense of meeting certain standards. The issue is how the oversight
->is provided. Also all the airline accidents and all the auto
->recalls for some time have occurred under the oversight of various
->federal and state government oversight.
Mistakes will always be made, accidents will always happen. The goal
is to reduce their number and effect as much as possible. That's why
there are recalls, that's why there are massive reconstructions of
every crashed plane.
->As a little aside, did you know that the FDA even uses Underwriters
->Laberatories? Consumer reports can be as effective as government oversight.
->The question I'd ask is what's the incentive structure for the government
->and its personnel to do their job? Is the incentive structre a strong one,
->a weak one, an OK one? What aspects make it better than some form of
->competitively provided private oversight? ...
Good questions. I think that in the '70s there was a strong effort to
increase accountability in government, but that it was rolled back
rather heavily in the last decade. The current administration doesn't
seem too committed to open processes, either.
Gore's Reinventing Government project has answering some of those
questions as a goal. I don't know how successful it has been.
JimmyO
->JMH
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: JMH
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 19:06:54 -0800
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> JMH wrote:
>
> ->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> ->. . .
> ->> Promotion dominates: n spent on promotion will produce greater return
> ->> than n reduction in prices. Good enough? The function for
>
> ->Fine, but then why is General Mills interested in buying it's
> ->low priced competitor who cannot support a large promotion campaign?
> ->Why not simply engage in an add blitz and put the low priced
> ->copy cat producers out of business?
>
> At some point, price does begin to dominate. Apparently conditions
> changed, and the point where price dominates moved lower. (Or else
> there was a time lag due to buying habits, and people slowly reacted
> to excessive [in their eyes] prices by reducing their consumption. So
> sales remakined strong with progressive increases in cereal prices for
> a time, but eventually fell.)
>
> ->That should work regardless of what is happening with the
> ->demand curve if demand is more promotion elastic than price
> ->elastic.
> ->
> ->> It has to do with sufficiently similar alternatives. I can't decide
> ->> that oats are too expensive, and therefore buy a magazine for
> ->> breakfast, can I? To serve the same purpose, I need to buy something
> ->> which is at least similar.
>
> ->Of course not! But you can substitute among the numerous types
> ->of cereals, even within the various sub-groups--sweet, "healthy"
> ->simple, fiberous...
>
> The whole market had seen regular increases. So people apparently
> were moving to non-cereal breakfasts.
I certainly acccept the possibility of non-cereal substitution,
but doesn't that just weaken your argument that cereal demand is
not really price sensitive?
> ->> ->Moreover, there are quite a few almost identical alternatives
> ->> ->on the shelves in the grocery I shop in--shredded wheat (2 choices),
> ->> ->rasin bran types (3 or 4 choiced), granola types (a multitude)...
> ->>
> ->> Notice which ones are more reasonably priced? Notice which ones are
> ->> aimed at a more adult (presumably less subject to promotion) market?
> ->> Notice which ones are a relatively recent addition to the variety?
>
> ->Care to elaborate here. From my casual observations quite a few
> ->adult oriented cereals cost at least as much as those oriented towards
> ->children.
>
> Let me do a little field observation. For the most part I am
> operating from memory here.
I didn't mean to imply I had do more than reflect on
past shopping where I wasn't specificly considering this
discussion. (I haven't bough cereal in a couple of months.)
> ->I'ld also not that adults, not children, are the final decision-maker
> ->as to which cereal is bought since they are the shopper. (Which isn't
> ->to say kids don't excert as much influence (tantrums?) on their parents
> ->as possible.)
>
> The desires of the children do come into play, though. Consider the
> success of McDonalds. I can't say the place has much appeal for most
> adults, but there are always hordes of children towing parents in
> them. (Of course, they have launched a sally into the adult market
> recently.)
Have you ever seen the Micky D lunch crowd? It's not a large percentage
16 and under. I already conceded the influence children will exert on
their parents, but clearly this is limited by the household budget.
(Or maybe my childhood experiences were very idosyncratic.) Presumably
the parents are more mature and not irrationally influenced by
(non-price based) promotion.
> ->> Despite the drop, did we see a price war? No, everyone dropped their
> ->> prices by about the same amount, and stuck there.
>
> ->Let's see. One big manufacturer announces a price reduction and
> ->others soon follow suit. Why isn't that a price war. There isn't
> ->a requirement that all the producers force the price to zero! Or
> ->any other asurdly low figure.
>
> Because there wasn't a cascade of price reductions, they all simply
> followed the lead of Post (?).
But why does a price war *have* to proceed incrementally? Why can't
the first-move player assume the largest gain results from a blitzkrig
type approach taking prices near their lowest level. ALternatively,
why does the process have to continue rapidly, why isn't this something
of a first round situation?
> ->Conversly, why isn't that price level cereals are now stuck at
> ->the competitive level at which these producers are earning normal
> ->profits? What standard are you using.
>
> ->Form what I've seen you've already convinced yourself that these
> ->markets are non-competitive and enjoy abnormal profits and use
> ->any observation to support that view. Note, I'm not saying anything
> ->about whether you are right or wrong in saying that.
>
> I don't believe they are precisely non-competitive, it's just that the
> competition exists on a different level than that of price. I note
> the per-pound price of cereals, and it seems to me to be extremely
> high compared to the price of other processed foods, and while I don't
> know the precise details of cereal production, it is difficult to
> imagine that it is so complicated as to double the price of the
> product. At the same time, there are only a few brands, who advertise
> heavily, and distinguish their products by branding.
>
> These are all conditions that suggest that price is not a major
> constraint on the market, and that the market is not very open.
>
> I'm not making a moral judgement here, I've just been pointing out a
> good example of a non-Smithian market which is not produced by
> government restriction.
I didn't mean to imply you were making a moral judgement, only that
you had already decided--and perhaps with good reason--that cereal
markets were somehow insensitive to an invisible hand process.
It's far from clear to me through our discussions that the cereal
markets are not fully consistent with Smith's invisible hand metaphor.
After all Smith didn't make any overly clear statements regarding
what the "invisible hand level" of prices might be. Smithian markets,
i.e. a beneficial invisible hand at work, simply requires that porducers
compete against one another to the advantage of consumers.
What you seem to be arguing is that they are not good examples of
neoclassical perfectly competitive markets. That's undobtedly true,
but then that's an easy target to hit; most market fail that test.
(But even here the waters are a bit muddy; more below, see: costs.)
> ->> ->BTW, are these leading cereal producers now making higher profits
> ->> ->with their oligopic prices?
> ->>
> ->> I don't know. I would think that that was the intention, though,
> ->> since I doubt that they intended to make less money. I can't vouch
> ->> for the success of their tactics, though.
> ->>
> ->> The buyout of Chex MIGHT have been another tactic, meant to shut down
> ->> a large portion of the knockoff competition. MAYBE. The Chex brands
>
> ->That sounds quite likely to me, *but* that also implies that
> ->the cereal markets *are* more price sensitive than they are
> ->promotion sensitive.
>
> At a certain price level... As I pointed out, even monopolies have a
> restraint on their pricing.
Of course. It's called the demand curve (and it's character, e.g. elasticity).
> ->. . .
> ->> Only until it is stymied by cartelization. (Original subject.)
>
> ->And cartelization implies price setting activities--in the
> ->monopoly sense--and an absense of price (as well as other
> ->forms of) competition among the catelized industry. That
> ->is not consistent with the observed behavior among cereal
> ->producers.
>
> Why have they stuck at the new price? Why is there no jockeying for
> low price among them? Why are there so few manufacturers? Why don't
> we see new brands popping up? How could they cut their prices by 1/3,
> unless that was all above cost?
How are you measruing costs? What role do profits, but those earned
and potential profits in other activities, play in determining the
relevant costs?
> Maybe they are at the marginal level now. In that case the knockoffs
> would not be able to price themselves too much lower, although they
> don't have the promotion costs to deal with.
>
> Of course I'm also claiming that the knockoffs deliberately price only
> slightly below the majors, so I guess that's not really evidence.
>
> ->> I'm just trying to keep from flying off onto a tangent. If we let the
> ->> argument fly out of control, eventually someone will have to invoke
> ->> the Hitler rule. And I think "distorting" is a better term for what I
> ->> am talking about than "restricting." I'm taking a Smithian open (less
> ->> loaded and ambiguous than "free") market to be the ideal here, with
> ->> variation from that ideal inevitable..
>
> ->I guess both terms have their uses and (I think) understand the
> ->distinction you make, fine.
>
> ->What exactly constitutes a Smithian open market? Is it defined
> ->by some concentration ratio? Must it be atomistic? Must it be
> ->one in which the products are nearly homogeneous (i.e., a graded
> ->commodity market or a finacial market)? Or does it only require
> ->that producers face and respond to market incentives which lead them
> ->to compete for the favor of customers?
>
> I would consider a smithian open market to be one that allows easy
> enough entry that price competition is a major factor.
So why isn't the presence of these numerous generic cereals
sufficient?
> ->> ->All regulation restricts someone's
> ->> ->behavior; if it didn't no one would care one way or the other. The issue
> ->> ->is always about the benefit or harm done by regulation. The argument for
> ->> ->markets is that it forces producers into a prisoner's dilemma type setting
> ->> ->where the players end up "choosing" the low-profit pay off, not the high
> ->> ->profit pay off. Regulation can then can be evaluated along the margin of
> ->> ->whether or not it increases to increase profits at the consumers' expense.
> ->>
> ->> Well, that's one way it can be evaluted. I would favor a general
> ->> utilitarian analysis, myself, with a higher weighting given to
> ->> potential harm than to potential benefits. Something along the line
> ->> of not harvesting organs from the healthy to benefit the ill, for
> ->> instance.
>
> ->Fine, I didn't mean for the example to be exclusive.
>
> ->I would have thought, however, the utilitarian analysis already
> ->included the weights? But I'm not a utilitarian in any strict sense
> ->of the word.
>
> Traditional Millsian analysis gives equal weight to harm and benefit,
> so one unit of benefit balances one unit of harm. Of course, the
> units of measure are a bit of a problem...
I suppose the units is what I was thinking of.
> ->But I don't think anyone has really said *no* oversight in the
> ->sense of meeting certain standards. The issue is how the oversight
> ->is provided. Also all the airline accidents and all the auto
> ->recalls for some time have occurred under the oversight of various
> ->federal and state government oversight.
>
> Mistakes will always be made, accidents will always happen. The goal
> is to reduce their number and effect as much as possible. That's why
> there are recalls, that's why there are massive reconstructions of
> every crashed plane.
I don't really disagree here, but I wanted to reiterate my
point. The number of accidents or mistakes occurring will be
a function of the underlying incentive structure. It's not clear
that government oversight embodies the best incentive structure.
I'm also willing to entertain the thought that switching costs
are present--I suspect that it will take some time for the new
incentives to become fully effective while the absense of the
old incentive system will allow some undesirable behavior. The benefit
of switching systems, however, is a different issue than the comparitive
systems discussion.
> ->As a little aside, did you know that the FDA even uses Underwriters
> ->Laberatories? Consumer reports can be as effective as government oversight.
> ->The question I'd ask is what's the incentive structure for the government
> ->and its personnel to do their job? Is the incentive structre a strong one,
> ->a weak one, an OK one? What aspects make it better than some form of
> ->competitively provided private oversight? ...
>
> Good questions. I think that in the '70s there was a strong effort to
> increase accountability in government, but that it was rolled back
> rather heavily in the last decade. The current administration doesn't
> seem too committed to open processes, either.
>
> Gore's Reinventing Government project has answering some of those
> questions as a goal. I don't know how successful it has been.
If Reinventing HUD is any indication, it's not that successful.
JMH
Subject: FAQ: HURRICANES, TYPHOONS AND TROPICAL CYCLONES (Part 2 of 2)
From: landsea@seth.aoml.erl.gov (Chris Landsea)
Date: 6 Jan 1997 23:15:48 GMT
Archive-name: meteorology/storms-faq/part2
Posting-Frequency: monthly
FAQ: HURRICANES, TYPHOONS, AND TROPICAL CYCLONES
--- PART II: REAL-TIME INFORMATION, DATA, AND REFERENCES
By Christopher W. Landsea
NOAA AOML/Hurricane Research Division
4301 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, Florida 33149
landsea@aoml.noaa.gov
6 January, 1997
This is currently a two-part FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions report) that
is in its eleventh incarnation (version 1.11). However, there may be some
errors or discrepancies that have not yet been found. If you do see an item
that needs correction, please contact me directly. Part I contains various
definitions, answers for some specific questions, and information about the
various tropical cyclone basins. This section (Part II) provides sites that
you can access both real-time information about tropical cyclones, what is
available on-line for historical storms, as well as good books to read and
various references for tropical cyclones. Keep in mind that this FAQ is not
considered a reviewed paper to reference. Its main purpose is to provide
quick answers for (naturally) frequently asked questions as well as to be a
pointer to various sources of information.
Much of the on-line information is pulled from Ilana Stern's wonderful
"Sources of Meteorological Data FAQ" and I acknowledge the time and effort
she has put in in originally compiling this information. Also Gary Gray
has put together a very comprehensive listing of tropical cyclone Web
sites that I've included here with his permission.
OUTLINE
-------
REAL-TIME INFORMATION
1) Where can I get real-time advisories for tropical cyclones?
2) Where can I get real-time tropical weather analyses and forecast fields?
3) Where can I get real-time ship and buoy data?
4) Where can I get real-time sea surface temperature data?
5) Where can I get real-time satellite pictures?
6) Where can I get real-time radar data?
7) Where can I get real-time hurricane aircraft reconnaissance data?
8) Where can I get real-time tropical cyclone motion and intensity model
forecasts?
9) Where can I get tropical cyclone preparedness information?
10) What computer software is available for tracking tropical cyclones?
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
11) Where can I get historical data of tropical cyclones?
12) What journals have regular articles on tropical cyclones?
13) What books have been written about tropical cyclones?
14) What refereed articles were written during 1994 about tropical cyclones?
**************************************************************************
Subject: 1) Where can I get real-time advisories for tropical cyclones?
There are three good ways to get these. Either telnet to a site and
peruse the advisories you would like to see via a menu, have the advisories
sent directly to you via email, or visit sites via the World Wide Web.
Option 1: Telnet to a site
---------------------------
The site that has a very comprehensive listing is the Weather
Underground at University of Michigan. Simply telnet to:
downwind.sprl.umich.edu 3000
Make sure to include the '3000' at the end of the command. From
there you have a simple menu driven system to get to the USA National
Hurricane Center, the USA Central Pacific Hurricane Center, and the
USA Joint Typhoon Warning Center products.
Option 2: Advisories automatically sent to you
-----------------------------------------------
WX-TROPL was created for people who want receive, as an email,
tropical bulletins originating from the US National Hurricane Center, the
Central Pacific Hurricane Center, and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. To
get information as to how to sign up onto WX-TROPL, ftp to po.uiuc.edu and
use anonymous FTP to retrieve the file WX-TALK.DOC from the directory
"wx-talk". If you don't have ftp access, contact either Chris Novy
or Charley Kline .
Option 3: Get the advisories via surfing the Web
-------------------------------------------------
The World Wide Web is a great source for real-time tropical cyclone
advisories. For brevity here are some reliable http sites (provided by
Gary Gray):
gopher://geograf1.sbs.ohio-state.edu:70/1/Tropical (good source)
http://banzai.neosoft.com/citylink/blake/tropical.html (everything)
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/tropical.html (most info available)
http://iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/us/hurricane.html (full advisory list)
http://lumahai.soest.hawaii.edu/Tropical_Weather/tropical.shtml (map)
http://nhc-hp6.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics.html (new stuff... looks great)
http://nhc-hp6.nhc.noaa.gov/products.html (all products)
http://www.atms.unca.edu/%7Efarr/hurricane96.html (simple & excellent)
http://www.ih2000.net/ira/bmt-wth.htm (strike probs & track maps)
http://www.weather.brockport.edu/cgi-bin/hurricane (simple search)
http://www.npmocw.navy.mil/npmocw/prods/jtwc.html (JTWC forecasts)
http://www.gobeach.com/hurr.htm (forecasts & conditions of Caribbean)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 2) Where can I get real-time tropical weather analyses and
forecast fields?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
gopher://geograf1.sbs.ohio-state.edu:70/1/Tropical (lots of info)
http://banzai.neosoft.com/citylink/blake/tropical.html (most products)
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/tropical.html (most info available)
http://grads.iges.org/pix/trop.00hr.html (nice tropical graphics)
http://lumahai.soest.hawaii.edu/Tropical_Weather/tropical.shtml
http://nhc-hp6.nhc.noaa.gov/products.html (most products)
http://nhc-hp6.nhc.noaa.gov/products1.html (more great products)
http://www.atms.unca.edu/%7Efarr/hurricane96.html (many products)
http://www.flinet.com/%7reiter/ (links to tropical weather summary)
http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/tropical.html (several products)
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/Marine.htm (some unique maps)
http://www.sims.net/links/hurricane.html (good set of info)
http://www.utmb.edu/hurricane.html (basic info)
http://ws321.uncc.edu/data/wxp/aviation/trop (excellent!)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 3) Where can I get real-time ship and buoy data?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
http://banzai.neosoft.com/citylink/blake/tropical.html (great source)
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/tropical.html (good set of data)
http://thunder.met.fsu.edu/~nws/buoy (great graphic buoy/cman source)
http://www.bbsr.edu/weather (nice ship, bouy, and wave data)
http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/tropical.html (Gulf & W Atlantic)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 4) Where can I get real-time sea surface temperature data?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
gopher://gopher.ssec.wisc.edu:70/19/mcidas.d/other.d/.molly.gif
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/tropical.html (several products)
http://ssec.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/latest_sst.gif (global SST image)
http://www.bbsr.edu/weather (decent AVHRR SST maps)
http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/tropical.html (analysis & anomaly)
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/Marine.htm (a few different "styles")
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/images.html (several good SST maps)
http://www.seaspace.com/images/goes8.gif (global SST image)
http://www.sims.net/links/hurricane.html (global SST image)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 5) Where can I get real-time satellite pictures?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
gopher://geograf1.sbs.ohio-state.edu:70/1/wxascii/gophergrafx/satpix
http://oldthunder.ssec.wisc.edu/ (Chris Velden's site)
http://banzai.neosoft.com/citylink/blake/tropical.html (many good pix)
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat_products.shtml (GOES 8 & 9, specials)
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/tropical.html (a few good pix)
http://clunix.cl.msu.edu:80/weather/ (lots of sat pix)
http://grads.iges.org/listing/wx.html (nice GOES-8/9 full disk images)
http://lumahai.soest.hawaii.edu/Tropical_Weather/tropical.shtml
http://tuna@www.alw.nih.gov/weather.html (many pix have bad links)
http://www.atms.unca.edu/%7Efarr/hurricane96.html (the basics)
http://www.bbsr.edu/weather (Bermudocentric & other sat pix)
http://www.dibbs.net/%7Ejadkins/storm.html (Atlantic)
http://www.flinet.com/%7reiter (GOES-8 US & Atlantic & FL)
http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/tropical.html (tropics)
http://www.sims.net/links/hurricane.html (several decent sat pix)
http://www.t-e.k12.pa.us/~dbaron/satellite/ (tons of sat pix)
http://www.cira.colostate.edu (GOES-8 & 9, and historical)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 6) Where can I get real-time radar data?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
http://banzai.neosoft.com/citylink/blake/tropical.html (nice source)
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/tropical.html (full set of rad pix)
http://tuna@www.alw.nih.gov/weather.html (Mid-Atlantic sites)
http://www.atms.unca.edu/%7Efarr/hurricane96.html (decent selection)
http://www.flinet.com/%7reiter (Miami radar)
http://www.gulf.net/%7Egbamonte/min_wet.htm (Mobile, AL radar)
http://www.ih2000.net/ira/bmt-wth.htm (coastal TX radar only)
http://www.satchmo.com/nolavl/storm.html (New Orleans radar)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 7) Where can I get real-time hurricane aircraft reconnaissance
data?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
gopher://geograf1.sbs.ohio-state.edu:70/1/Tropical (good recon lists)
http://banzai.neosoft.com/citylink/blake/tropical.html (decent source)
http://nhc-hp6.nhc.noaa.gov/products1.html (excellent site)
http://ws321.uncc.edu/data/tropical (simple recon report grabber)
http://www.funet.fi/pub/dx/text/utility/Hurricane (decoding info)
http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/tropical.html (TCPOD & recon reports)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 8) Where can I get real-time tropical cyclone motion and
intensity model forecasts?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
http://www.fnoc.navy.mil/noraps.html ("normal" model, but good for TS)
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/Marine.htm (not models, but some forecasts)
http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec2/sec2cyclone/sec2cyclone.html(old storms)
http://maine.maine.edu/~rlight51/weather.html (Gary. Gray's model)
http://taylor.ems.psu.edu/~owens/weather.html (Gary. Gray's model)
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/z/u/zudark/www/earth.html
**************************************************************************
Subject: 9) Where can I get tropical cyclone preparedness information?
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
http://www.casualty.com/hcane.html (all the basic preparedness info)
http://www.co.alachua.fl.us/%7Eacem/oemtest.html (Alachua Co., FL)
http://www.fema.gov/fema/trop.html (FEMA)
http://www.flinet.com/%7reiter (several links)
http://www.gulf.net/%7Egbamonte/min_wet.htm (general preparedness)
http://www.insiders.com/boca/flweathe.htm (basic preparedness info)
http://www.oo.com/%7Efrank/disaster.html (disaster preparedness)
http://www.pbpost.com/storm96/ (lots of preparedness info)
http://www.sims.net/links/hurricane.html (great preparedness info)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 10) What computer software is available for tracking tropical
cyclones?
(Descriptions kindly provided by Tom Berg and via the authors. Note that
this does not constitute an endorsement of any product.)
1. HURRTRAK (Windows-based) --- shareware, semi-functional available on
Compuserve in Aviation and Weather Channel forums. Also on AOL. It is
also available through the WeatherNet:
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/software.html
The company is PC Weather Products
P.O. Box 72723
Marietta, GA 30007-2723
404-953-3506
800-605-2230
They offer a hobbyist edition and a regular edition.
The hobbyist is $68.50 and the professional $206.50. They have Atlantic and
Pacific versions. The professional edition allows for county lines, roadways,
more detailed charts, and NHC forecasted positions.
2. STORM (DOS-based) ------ shareware, semi-functional available on AOL.
The company is Utopia Software
P.O. Box 420324
Houston, TX 77242
They offer a regular and enhanced version.
The regular version is $25 and the enhanced is $50. What the enhanced offers
special is the ability to enter and plot the forecasted positions from the
NHC and to include offshore platforms or ships positions on the charts.
3. FORCE12 (Windows) ---- shareware, semi-functional available on Compuserve
in Aviation and Weather Channel forums and AOL.
The company is Epperson Computing
P.O. Box 1094
Baytown, TX 77522-1094
There is only one version. The price is $25.
4. MERLIN (DOS) ----- shareware, semi-functional available on Compuserve in
Aviation and Weather Channel forums. The company is T.M. Parker
P.O. Box 1431
La Porte, TX 77572
There is only one version. Price is $29.
5. GCANES (DOS) ----- shareware, semi-functional available on Compuserve in
Aviation forum. The company is Robert Terwilliger
2398 SW 22nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33145
There is only one version. Price is $15.
6. HURRICANE FORECASTER (DOS) - shareware, semi-functional available on AOL.
The company is Craig Rorrer
3809 Iola Ct.
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
There is only one version. Price is $19.95.
7. HURRICANE TRACKER (Windows) -- shareware, semi-functional available on
Compuserve forum Aviation. The company is Nicheware
P.O. Box 1312
Summerville,SC 29484-1312
There is only one version. Price is $25.
8. HURRICANE WATCH! (Windows) --- shareware, semi-functional available on
Compuserve forum Aviation and AOL. The company is SeaBorne Systems
414 Long Leaf Acres Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
There is only one version. I think the price is $49.
9. TRACKEYE (Windows) ----- shareware, semi-functional available on
Compuserve forums Aviation and Weather Channel.
The company is GenCode Technologies
7907 N. Rome Ave.
Tampa, FL 33604
There is only one version. Price is $19.95.
10. TRAKHUR (DOS) --- I only found it advertised in Weatherwise magazine.
The company is Bryan Lambeth, PE
Hurricane Research Srvc
P.O. Box 181032
Austin, TX 78718
The version I have is TRAKHUR PRO. The regular price
is $39.95, but the pro version was $59.95.
11. TRACKER (DOS) -- again, I found it through Weatherwise.
The company is OceanSoft Inc.
P.O. Box 1224
Largo, FL 34649
As to the price, I don't remember exactly.
I think $69.95. But it also includes something unique called Mapper, this
allows you to build your own maps of any ocean and will show the map in
Mercator, Azimuthal, and spread types.
12. WINSTORM --- shareware, semi-functional available on Compuserve forum
Aviation and AOL. The company is Ingramation
2437 Bay Area Blvd.
Suite 349
Houston, TX 77058
13. MCHURRICANE -- a hurricane tracking program for the Macintosh,
posted on AOL, along with several shareware CDs.
The company is William I. Chenault
149 Country Club Rd
Shalimar, FL 32579
(904)-651-2276
The shareware fee is $25.
**************************************************************************
Subject: 11) Where can I get historical data of tropical cyclones?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BEVEN REPORTS ;-)
For unofficial near-real time summaries of global tropical cyclone
activity, Jack Beven of the USA National Hurricane Center/Tropical
Prediction Center produces these on a weekly basis and has done so for
over three years. Text copies of past weekly summaries can be retrieved
via ftp from squall.met.fsu.edu. They can be found in the directory
pub/jack. If you'd like to obtain these near-real time summaries
directly, simply email Jack at: jbeven@delphi.com and ask him to start
sending you the summaries. Note however that these are already posted
on sci.geo.meteorology and WX-TALK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE DATA
ftp downdry.atmos.colostate.edu [129.82.107.154]
Atlantic basin tropical storm and hurricane best track data, 1886-1995.
Every 6 hour intensity and position information (files ending .atl).
Also, Northeast/North-central Pacific tropical storm and hurricane data
(1949-1995) (files ending .epc).
Provided by landsea@aoml.noaa.gov (Chris Landsea).
http://wxp.atms.purdue.edu/hur_atlantic/
This best track information for the Atlantic has provided in seperate
images for each years by some people at Purdue University. The tracks for
the individual years have been provided in a color coded (for intensity)
format.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT-FREE DATA
World Weather Disc ($295):
Monthly temp, precip, pressure, sunshine data for about 2000 world
stations for period of record. Daily weather data at hundreds of US
stations. Data for some stations on temp, precip, freeze, drought, soil
moisture, wind, storms. Frequency and movement of tropical cyclones.
Contact: Cliff Mass, Dept. of Atmos. Sci. (AK40), University of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. 206/685-0910.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Tropical and Extratropical Cyclone Climatic Atlas (GTECCA) ($100):
This CD-ROM contains all global historic tropical storm track data
available for five tropical storm basins. Periods of record varies for
each basin, with the beginning as early as the 1870s and with 1992 at the
latest year. Northern hemispheric extratropical storm track data will be
included from 1965 to 1992. Tropical track data includes time, position,
storm stage (maximum wind, central pressure when available). The user can
display tracks, track data for any basin or user-selected geographic area,
or tracks passing within a user-defined radius of any point. Narratives
for all tropical storms for the 1980-1992 period will be included as well
as basin-wide tropical storm climatological statistics.
Contact: National Climatic Data Center, Federal Building, Asheville,
NC 28801, USA. 704/271-4800, email orders@ncdc.noaa.gov.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Site Historical Data:
(Provided by Gary Gray.)
http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/tropical.html (1995 storm map)
http://grads.iges.org/pix/allhurr.html (1995 track info)
http://lumahai.soest.hawaii.edu/Tropical_Weather/tropical.shtml
http://meridian.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/dmsp.html (Allison & Erin sat pix)
http://nhc-hp6.nhc.noaa.gov/pasthur.html (archive data)
http://wxp.atms.purdue.edu/hur_atlantic/ (past tracks)
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/home.html (some nice past sat pix/loops)
http://www.aer.com/hurricane/hurricanes_95.html (great 1995 sat pix)
http://www.bbsr.edu/weather (nice 1995 sat pix)
http://www.fema.gov/fema/trop.html (some 1995 storm archives)
http://www.flinet.com/%7reiter (links to much past data)
http://www.gulf.net/%7Egbamonte/min_wet.htm (Erin & Opal stories)
http://www.insiders.com/boca/flweathe.htm (brief Andrew/Gordon info)
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/ols-app-hurr.html (a few old sat pix)
http://www.pbpost.com/storm96/ (excellent 1995 overview)
http://www.satchmo.com/nolavl/storm.html (LA storm archives)
http://www.sims.net/links/hurricane.html (1995 storm archive)
http://www.terrapin.com/hurricane/Plotter (1995 plots... needs Java)
http://www.vas-das.com/ (TONS of GOES-8 images... not just tropical)
**************************************************************************
Subject: 12) What journals have regular articles on tropical cyclones?
The American Meteorological Society publishes the _Monthly Weather
Review_ which has annual summaries of Atlantic basin tropical cyclones,
Atlantic basin tropical disturbances, and Northeast Pacific (east of 140W)
basin tropical cyclones. These summaries have a substantial amount of
data and analysis of the storms.
_Weatherwise_ prints annual summaries of both the Atlantic and
Northeast Pacific basins which are less technical that the _Monthly
Weather Review_ articles, but come out months earlier.
For just the tropical cyclones of the Southeast Indian/Australia and
the Australia/Southwest Pacific basins, the _Australia Meteorological
Magazine_ has a very thorough annual summary.
The Indian journal _Mausam_ carries an annual summary of tropical
cyclone activity over the North Indian Ocean.
_Mariner's Weather Log_ has articles from all of the global basins
in annual summaries. These are descriptive and non-technical.
**************************************************************************
Subject: 13) What books have been written about tropical cyclones?
*************************
BEST NON-TECHNICAL BOOKS: _The Hurricane_ and
************************* _Meteorology Today for Scientists and Engineers_
_The Hurricane_
For a excellent introductory text into hurricanes (and tropical
cyclones in general), this book by R.A. Pielke provides the basics on
the physical mechanisms of hurricanes without getting into any
mathematical rigor. This first version is just 100 pages of text with
another 120 pages devoted toward all of the tracks of Atlantic hurricanes
from 1871-1989. Roger A. Pielke is a professor of Atmospheric Science
at Colorado State University (USA). The book's 1990 edition is available
through Routledge Publishing, New York. (An updated version of this
book should be forthcoming in 1997.)
_Meteorology Today for Scientists and Engineers_
For a concise mathematical description of hurricanes that has NO
calculus and NO differential equations, then I would suggest obtaining
a copy of this book by Rolland B. Stull (West Publ. Co., Minneapolis/St.
Paul, 385 pp - Chapter 16 Hurricanes p289-304). This paperback book is
designed to accompany C. Donald Ahrens' introductory book _Meteorology
Today_.
********************
BEST TECHNICAL BOOK: _Global Perspectives on Tropical Cyclones_
********************
This is the revised version of _A Global View of Tropical Cyclones_ and
is the most current, detailed book available on the subject. This book
provides the state of the science as of 1994. Improvements over the
previous version include a chapter on the ocean response to tropical
cyclones. This paperback book is written in 1995 by G.R. Foley, H.E.
Willoughby, J.L. McBride, R.L. Elsberry, I. Ginis, and L. Chen with Elsberry
serving as Editor and is available from the World Meterological Organization
as Report No. TCP-38. Their address is:
World Meteorological Organization
Publications Sales Unit
Case Postale 2300
CH-1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
************************
BEST FORECASTING MANUAL: _Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone Forecasting_
************************
For the tropical cyclone forecaster and also of general interest for
anyone in the field and those with a non-technical interest in the field,
the loose-leaf book - _Global Guide to Tropical Cyclone Forecasting_ (1993)
by G.J. Holland (ed.), World Meteorological Organization, WMO/TD-No. 560,
Report No. TCP-31 is a must get. (See above for address of the WMO.)
**********************
OTHER BOOKS AVAILABLE:
**********************
______Atlantic Hurricanes_______
A classic book describing tropical cyclones primarily of the Atlantic
basin, but also covering the physical understanding of tropical cyclone
genesis, motion, and intensity change at the time is _Atlantic Hurricanes_
by Gordon E. Dunn and Banner I. Miller. Written in 1960, published by the
Louisiana State Press, this book gives provides good insight into the
knowledge of tropical cyclones as of the late 1950s. It is interesting
to observe that much of what we know was well understood at this pre-
satellite era. Gordon E. Dunn was the Director of the U.S. National
Hurricane Center and Banner I. Miller was a research meteorologist also
at the National Hurricane Center.
________Hurricanes, Their Nature and History______
Before Dunn and Miller's book, Ivan Ray Tannehill came out with
an authoritative reference on the history, structure, climatology,
historical tracks, and forecasting techniques of Atlantic hurricanes
as was known by the mid-1930s. This is one of the first compilations
of yearly tracks of Atlantic storms - he provides tracks of memorable
tropical cyclones all the way back to the 1700s and shows all the
storm tracks yearly from 1901 onward. The first edition came out in 1938
and the book went through at least nine editions (my book was published
in 1956). Mr. Tannehill was engaged as a hurricane forecasts for over
20 years and also lead the Division of Synoptic Reports and Forecasts of
the U.S. Weather Bureau. Princeton University Press, 308 pp (in 1956
version).
________A Global View of Tropical Cyclones_______
A very thorough book dealing with the technical issues of tropical
cyclones for the state of the science in the mid-1980s: _A Global View of
Tropical Cyclones_ (1987) by Elsberry, Holland, Frank, Jarrell, and
Southern; University of Chicago Press, 195 pp. A revised version of this
book has recently become available, see _Global Perspectives on Tropical
Cyclones_ below.
________Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1992_______
Researchers and those who follow Atlantic hurricanes should all have
a copy of the atlas: _Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean,
1871-1992_, by C.J. Neumann, B.R. Jarvinen, C.J. McAdie, J.D. Elms;
Asheville, NC, (1993), Prepared by the National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC, in cooperation with the National Hurricane Center, Coral
Gables, FL, 193 pp.
________Florida Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, 1871-1993,
An Historical Survey_________
A recent book providing a historical perspective of Florida Hurricanes
is _Florida Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, 1871-1993, An Historical Survey_,
F. Doehring, I.W. Duedall, and J.M. Williams, (1994), Tp-71, Florida Sea
Grant College Program, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 118 pp.
________Cyclone Tracy, Picking up the Pieces_______
Twenty years after Cyclone Tracy, this book recreates, by interviews
with survivors, the events during and after the cyclone that nearly
destroyed Darwin, Australia: _Cyclone Tracy, Picking up the pieces_, B.
Bunbury, (1994), Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South Fremantle, Australia,
148 pp.
________Hurricanes___________
An introductory text book for young readers on hurricanes by
Sally Lee, Franklin Watts Publishing, New York, 63 pp.
**************************************************************************
Subject: 14) What refereed articles were written during 1994 about
tropical cyclones?
At the ftp site:
ftp downdry.atmos.colostate.edu [129.82.107.154]
The file, TCpubs.1994, contains all known refereed publications concerning
tropical cyclones that were in journals around the world with a print date
of 1994.
Maintained by landsea@aoml.noaa.gov (Chris Landsea).
*****************************************************************************
Chris Landsea
NOAA AOML/Hurricane Research Division Voice: (305) 361-4357
4301 Rickenbacker Causeway Fax: (305) 361-4402
Miami, Florida 33149 Internet: landsea@aoml.noaa.gov
*****************************************************************************
"He gives an order, his word flashes to earth:
to spread snow like a blanket, to strew hoarfrost like ashes,
to drop ice like breadcrumbs, and when the cold is unbearable,
he sends his word to bring the thaw and warm wind to melt the snow."
Psalm 147:15-18
