Subject: Re: emf health risks?
From: ae277@yfn.ysu.edu (Stewart Rowe)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 18:28:23 GMT
In a previous article, scmcclintock@ipass.net ("Sam McClintock") says:
>
>
>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.
>
>If you have access to a university library (or know someone that does),
>I would recommend reading the introductory articles of the Jan 93 issue
>of Environmental Science & Technology. The other alternative is to try
>an order a back issue for the Amercian Chemical Society web site
>. This issue contains a set of three articles
>from varying viewpoints. These articles in turn have a large number of
>references attached to them. A very good starting point.
>
>Sam McClintock
>scmcclintock@ipass.net
>
>
In general, the physicists say it can't happen. The American Physical
Society ( I think) got out a report about a year ago. John Moulder,
a radiation physicist in Detroit, posts fairly frequently a multi-part
review on sci.med.physics. If not currently available, back issues
should be obtainable from various archive searching systems.
On the other hand, epidemiologists say "there's something there", even if we can't explain it. For an "activist position", telnet to National
Capital Freenet at freenet3.carleton.edu (Ottawa), look in the
main menu for Environment, follow it down through "non-gov't
organizations" until you find "Bidwell Residents Committee"
I think the name is not quite that. A research librarian has compiled
a huge file there. (They were/are fighting a proposed high-voltage
line through their community).
For the most frightening view, read books by Paul Brodeur (now an
editor of The New Yorker.) k
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: Mark Friesel
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 13:16:17 -0700
Paul Hager wrote:
>
....
>
> If the deficit was created as an excuse to eliminate social programs,
> then Demos were complicit in it. Actually, the rise in the deficit
> parallels the rise in the huge middle-class entitlement programs.
> These programs -- like SS -- are wasteful, a bad deal for everyone
> including recipients, and ultimately unsustainable without cutting
> benefits and raising taxes.
I reply:
I agree about the Democrats - they've rolled over and died like gutshot
deer for the most part. But the public was and is badly suckered - and
I suspect many Democrats simply decided to ride out the wave rather than
risk appearring to stand for anything.
The rise in the deficit parallels massive borrowing from Japan and
elsewhere. SS is wasteful only because it is poorly managed, not because
it is a bad idea. Recipients who get part of their SS taxes back are
far better off than those who get nothing back, no? Projected
unsustainability is nonsense. But the real benefits of downsizing is
the issue.
You continue:
.....
>
> But overall expenditures have still gone up, disappearing down the
> entitlement rathole.
I reply:
What your're saying is that downsizing hasn't worked - nothing is
returned to the public. In fact, since government research programs
such as NASA and DOE programs - which resulted in many spin-off
companies and products - have benefitted industry and the general public
to some degree, there is a clear case that downsizing has cost the
public.
You continue:
...
>
> I don't think we'll ever see it but that is a tragedy. The myth
> that government solutions "solve" most problems is the single most
> pernicious and destructive belief in America.
I note:
The myth that private solutions 'solve' most problems is equally
pervasive, and equally false. The answer lies elsewhere IMO.
You continue:
...
>
> There is an element of truth here. (about the utility of the debt. MAF)
....
>
> Hardly. The correct approach is to unravel government control from
> the top down and from large program to small. It should be done in
> a way to allow most of the parasitic federal bureaucracy to be
> absorbed into the productive labor force.
>
I reply:
The size of government is hardly the issue, but rather what it
accomplishes and how it does so. Downsizing has already cost the public
and is going to cost them more. Downsizing more will cost them more,
there's really no two ways about it.
Subject: Re: Tree damage due to 'new gasoline' in US?
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:00:56 LOCAL
In article <32D265EF.4E64@wildrockies.org>
tony tweedale writes:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> There are problems in that all the standard federal test procedures
>> for emissions etc, were required to be performed at 75F, and that was
>> the basis for the claimed reduction of CO, however the issue of concern
>> is that at lower temperatures, the CO reduction may not be so profound.
...
>i would assume that C0 & BETX rise and fall more or
>less proportinally. toxic & mutagenic aldehydes from
>oxyfuel by and large react into non-toxic hc's, i guess...
It's nowhere near as simple as that. From the Gasoline FAQ..
5.5 Why control tailpipe emissions?
Tailpipe emissions were responsible for the majority of pollutants in the
late 1960s after the crankcase emissions had been controlled. Ozone levels
in the Los Angeles basin reached 450-500ppb in the early 1970s, well above
the typical background of 30-50ppb [74].
Tuning a carburetted engine can only have a marginal effect on pollutant
levels, and there still had to be some frequent, but long-term, assessment
of the state of tuning. Exhaust catalysts offered a post-engine solution
that could ensure pollutants were converted to more benign compounds. As
engine management systems and fuel injection systems have developed, the
volatility properties of the gasoline have been tuned to minimise
evaporative emissions, and yet maintain low exhaust emissions.
The design of the engine can have very significant effects on the type and
quantity of pollutants, eg unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust originate
mainly from combustion chamber crevices, such as the gap between the piston
and cylinder wall, where the combustion flame can not completely use the HCs.
The type and amount of unburnt hydrocarbon emissions are related to the fuel
composition (volatility, olefins, aromatics, final boiling point), as well
as state of tune, engine condition, and condition of the engine
lubricating oil [75]. Particulate emissions, especially the size fraction
smaller than ten micrometres, are a serious health concern. The current
major source is from compression ignition ( diesel ) engines, and the
modern SI engine system has no problem meeting regulatory requirements.
The ability of reformulated gasolines to actually reduce smog has not yet
been confirmed. The composition changes will reduce some compounds, and
increase others, making predictions of environmental consequences extremely
difficult. Planned future changes, such as the CAA 1/1/1998 Complex model
specifications, that are based on several major ongoing government/industry
gasoline and emission research programmes, are more likely to provide
unambiguous environmental improvements. One of the major problems is the
nature of the ozone-forming reactions, which require several components
( VOC, NOx, UV ) to be present. Vehicles can produce the first two, but the
their ratio is important, and can be affected by production from other
natural ( VOC = terpenes from conifers ) or manmade ( NOx from power
stations ) sources [62,63]. The regulations for tailpipe emissions
will continue to become more stringent as countries try to minimise local
problems ( smog, toxins etc.) and global problems ( CO2 ). Reformulation
does not always lower all emissions, as evidenced by the following aldehydes
from an engine with an adaptive learning management system [55].
FTP-weighted emission rates (mg/mi)
Gasoline Reformulated
Formaldehyde 4.87 8.43
Acetaldehyde 3.07 4.71
The type of exhaust catalyst and management system can have significant
effects on the emissions [55].
FTP-weighted emission rates. (mg/mi)
Total Aromatics Total Carbonyls
Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Reformulated
Noncatalyst 1292.45 1141.82 174.50 198.73
Oxidation Catalyst 168.60 150.79 67.08 76.94
3-way Catalyst 132.70 93.37 23.93 23.07
Adaptive Learning 111.69 105.96 17.31 22.35
If we take some compounds listed as toxics under the Clean Air Act, then the
beneficial effects of catalysts are obvious. Note that hexane and iso-octane
are the only alkanes listed as toxics, but benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene,
o-xylene, m-xylene, and p-xylene are aromatics that are listed. The latter
four are combined as C8 Aromatics below [55].
Aromatics FTP-weighted emission rates. (mg/mi)
Benzene Toluene C8 Aromatics
Gas Reform Gas Reform Gas Reform
Noncatalyst 156.18 138.48 338.36 314.14 425.84 380.44
Oxidation Cat. 27.57 25.01 51.00 44.13 52.27 47.07
3-way Catalyst 19.39 15.69 36.62 26.14 42.38 29.03
Adaptive Learn. 19.77 20.39 29.98 29.67 35.01 32.40
Aldehydes FTP-weighted emission rates. (mg/mi)
Formaldehyde Acrolein Acetaldehyde
Gas Reform Gas Reform Gas Reform
Noncatalyst 73.25 85.24 11.62 13.20 19.74 21.72
Oxidation Cat. 28.50 35.83 3.74 3.75 11.15 11.76
3-way Catalyst 7.27 7.61 1.11 0.74 4.43 3.64
Adaptive Learn. 4.87 8.43 0.81 1.16 3.07 4.71
Others 1,3 Butadiene MTBE
Gas Reform Gas Reform
Noncatalyst 2.96 1.81 10.50 130.30
Oxidation Cat. 0.02 0.33 2.43 11.83
3-way Catalyst 0.07 0.05 1.42 4.59
Adaptive Learn. 0.00 0.14 0.84 3.16
The author reports analytical problems with the 1,3 Butadiene, and only
Noncatalyst values are considered reliable. Other studies from the
Auto/Oil research program indicate that lowering aromatics and olefins
reduce benzene but increase formaldehyde and acetaldehyde [20]
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power in Australia? Why not?
From: eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 09:29:36 GMT
bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>Greig Ebeling:
>>The 37000 figure is incorrect. The official death count is 34.
>Do you believe that number is true?
According to WHO, and various other groups involved in collecting the
data, it is correct (I have the refs). There have been 3-6 additional
deaths from thyroid cancer which may be attributed to Chernobyl.
There have also been some deaths caused by psychosomatic illnesses
which may be indirectly associated with Chernobyl, but IMO were caused
by the same ignorant propaganda which produced the 37,000 figure.
>>>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,
>Cheaper? All of them.
Other than (in many circumstances) coal and gas (no doubt unacceptable
due to greenhouse emissions, eh Doug?) there are none cheaper. For
large scale facilities, solar, wind etc are incapable of achieving
$/MW within an order of magnitude of nuclear.
>Name one power company in the USA that wants to build one.
Coal and particularly gas (cough, cough) are cheaper at present. But
not in all circumstances and not forever.
>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?
My sides are splitting. :-|
The fact that nuclear power has resulted in less deaths than any other
form of large scale energy production (including hydro) is a statistic
which insurance companies do not ignore. If there is any problem with
public perception to nuclear power, it is entirely due to the
dissemination of false and misleading information.
>> 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.
They are safe, and economically viable. Over 30% of worlds power is
generated by nuclear. If it wasn't viable, then why is it so?
>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?
If you mean 30-50 years for the volatile daughter products to decay so
the rods are safer (and cheaper) to transport for processing
(vitrification) and permanent underground storage, then no I don't
think it is a problem.
>How much would it cost to maintain??
A levy is paid by all users of nuclear fuels in the US, which has
already paid for all of the waste currently awaiting disposal.
>...and Greig Ebeling continues with his thinly disguised,
>and loudly denied special interests:
My only "special" interest is that I have relatives and acquaintances
involved in R&D; in the nuclear field, who have helped me to learn
about the subject. I strongly recommend, Doug, that you cease airing
your ignorance in these newsgroups, and stick to your forte' in
alt.flame, or alt.pointless.ridicule, or similar.
>>> 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?
It is a valid point, so why do you side-step it with pointless abuse.
>> 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?
It is sad to see the same old anti-nuclear propaganda trotted out
again and again.
> Well Greig Ebeling, since you seem to like nuclear power so
>much, do you think Australia should get some more?
Australia (population ~18 million) has no need for nuclear power
because we have plenty of cheap coal, and plenty of land to spread the
acid rain over.
[dubious sarcasm re politics snipped]
>Is it true that a melt-down could melt bedrock, and look like a small
>volcano from a distance?
Say what?
>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?
Huh? You started this bullshit about nuclear power in Australia.
>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?
What the hell is an anti-environmentalist? If it is someone who is
sick to death of idiots spewing ignorant nonsense (like you, Doug),
then I guess you've got me nailed. :-)
>(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".
(cluck, cluck)
>And science agrees
(it does not)
>since the mechanisms are not fully understood.
(huh?)
>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?
You are babbling, Doug. When you are ready to make a valid point, I
will respond.
...Greig
Subject: Re: REQUEST : Information about the industrial proces of refilling CFK-refrigerators with non-CFK
From: "Malcolm M. Airey"
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:26:22 +0000
In article <32CFA3EF.6512@ping.be>, pin114221
writes
>In Ostend (Belgium) the city council intends to start a new project of
>refilling CFK-refrigerators with non-CFK's. To set up the project we
>need information about this proces. I know this is already done in the
>Netherlands and Germany, and most likely, also in other countries. In
>Belgium it seems quite difficult to get the necessary information. I
>tried to get info from some firms who use this procede, but they are
>reluctant to give it. Ostend is a city with a lot of unemployement. The
>"business" we intend to start will be NON-PROFIT.
>
>Please, help us out of this !!!
>
>Rudi Dewilde, secretary of the enviromental councillor of Ostend
-Hi! Rudi DeWilde, I replied to your request for information by direct E-mail,
unfortunately my server didn't recognise your address, maybe you should check.
Anyway here's the long way.Recharging working refrigerators with non-CFC
refrigerant I consider is a pointless exercise.The refrigeration system is
hermetically sealed therefore no CFC's will escape to the atmosphere under
normal operation.Therefore they are not a problem, actually there is more
pollution potential if they were to be tampered with as you suggest.
However to further answer your question, there is a method of reclaiming CFC's
from redundant (old) refrigerators and this may be more advantage to you
environmentally, not non profit making,in fact it would actually cost you!
Mail me if you think I can explain more, I don't want to see you waste money
-
Malcolm M. Airey
Subject: Re: emf health risks?
From: Tony Plate
Date: 08 Jan 1997 10:46:55 +1300
A physical mechanisim by which EMFs could increase the risk
of cancer was recently published. The paper suggests that
electromagnetic fields can attract and concentrate radon
daughter nuclei. This provides a plausible causal
relationship between exposure to EMF and increased risk of
cancer cancer, something which had been missing up until
now.
'Enhanced Deposition of Radon Daughter Nuclei in the
Vicinity of Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields', Denis L
Henshaw, Andrew N Ross, A Peter Fews and Alan W Preece, The
International Journal of Radiation Biology, 14th February
1996.
See
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/track_analysis/emf_radon_prgb.html
for more details, including abstract, summary and references.
From that site:
> Electromagnetic fields concentrate radon decay products new
> evidence in links with cancer published Wednesday 14th
> February 1996
>
> ...
> Scientists at Bristol University have found new evidence
> which may help explain the link between exposure to
> electromagnetic fields associated with electrical wiring and
> overhead power lines, and the incidence of certain types of
> cancer. They have discovered that the mains leads to
> ordinary domestic electrical appliances are able to attract
> the radioactive products of radon present in everyday room
> air.
>
> They have found evidence in similar studies that the same
> harmful concentrations of radon products may be present
> around overhead power lines. The electromagnetic fields
> associated with the lines can therefore concentrate a
> cocktail of potential carcinogens.
>
--
Tony Plate Voice: +64-4-472-1000 ext 8578
Dept of Comp Sci, Victoria University Fax: +64-4-495-5232
P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand Email: tap@comp.vuw.ac.nz
http://www.comp.vuw.ac.nz/Staff/Tony-Plate.html
Subject: Re: Origin of Resources (was: Re: Family Planning)
From: Jim
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 15:19:07 -0700
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 19:30:04 -0700, Jim wrote:
>
> >David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> >The problem is that we in the West consume fifty times the resources
> >> >of those in the third world.
> >>
> >> We in the west also happen to create those reources. Coal and oil are
> >> worthless underground minerals until there is a civilization around to
> >> give them value. We are that civilization, and we are going on to
> >> bigger and better things: in plutonium we creae the stuff itself
> >> (there being no plutonium in nature) before giving it value by
> >> generating electricity from it.
> >
> >
> >
> >We do not "create" resources. Natural resources are of natural origin,
> >and once they are exhausted, no amount of human willpower can make more.
> >Without the resource, there is nothing to "give value" to.
>
> Jim,
>
> There are two cases (where stuff, as opposed to services, is
> concerned): stuff which we actually create, which is rare, and stuff
> which has no value until we create a civilization to give value to it.
>
> Plutonium is in the first class: the stuff does not exist in nature,
> unless there are a very few atoms of it in the internals of some nova
> or sun someplace. We manufacture it out of worthless uranium 235, a
> plentiful metal which has no other use except in the manufacture of
> white paint. There's enough U235 in seawater and granite (where the
> seawater got it from) to last us hundreds of millions of years at any
> conceivable population and scale of energy use. Thus energy is very
> basically not something we need to worry about, except perhaps in the
> engineering sense.
>
It is still a natural resource that is required for the process. Also,
if nuclear power is so desirable, why is it not being used? I am in
favor of nuclear power in principle, but I have to wonder why it is not
being utilized as much as fossil fuels, which are not so plentiful.
> Other resources which we create from "nothing" in this way include
> impounded water, another source of elecctricity, and steam, which we
> can manufacture just by dropping water down a deep hole.
>
Impounded water gets there through a stream, and damming a river does
not increase the amount made available. Dropping water down a hole and
hydropower utilize potential energy already put into water through
nature's functions. You cannot get something from nothing.
> * * *
>
> Aluminum, tin, copper, gold, and so on are resources of a different
> kind. In nature they have o worth at all. Monkeys and elephants,
> both highly intelligent societies, have no use for them. We bring use
> to them, and by doing so we make the useless into resources. The
> "resourceness" of these things is our creation.
>
> Incidentally those four examples above are mainly mined above ground.
> The main source of copper is copper wire; new tin is mostly old tin,
> some of it dug up in Roman Britain. Almost all the gold the human
> race has ever dug up is now in vaults, and the amount being dug each
> year is tailing off as a percentage of the total amount owned. The
> human race's gold digging days are almost over.
>
> The main source of iron and steel in the advanced countries is scrap.
> We mine the stuff from junk yards, and we are the ones who created the
> junkyards in the first place.
Please see my post in response to jw. The distinction between resources
and natural substances and energy is irrelevant, because without the
latter, you cannot have the former. For example, the minerals you refer
to must exist objectively for them to be utilized by humans. Without it,
no amount of human creativity can create more minerals, except from
other substances, which also had to come from somewhere.
Example-phosphate desposits>>>factory>>>fertilizer
As you mention, our trash is a great resource, one that I would like to
see us utilize more instead of extracting more resources from nature
with damaging consequences.
Subject: Re: Space colony - OK but how?
From: dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 01:05:41 GMT
"Rick Tarara" wrote:
>It's interesting how people who would be quick to point out how the
>population projections based on growth RATES of the 60s and 70s have proven
>to be bogus, are quite willing to take the growth rates of the 80s and 90s
>and 'confidently' predict an end to population growth. ;-)
Well, you're right that prediction is fraught with peril. However,
we can predict with some confidence that growth rates will continue
to decline for some time. One reason is that populations are getting
older. Much of the current growth is a transient due to the larger
fraction of the population that is in its child bearing years, vs.
what that fraction will be in a few decades. To maintain even
current growth rates as the population ages, birth rates would have
to increase.
Anther reason for confidence is that the phenomenon of declining
birthrates with increased development has been seen
around the world, in many countries. The lesser developed countries,
where the birth rates are the highest, appear to be following in
the footsteps of the developed countries, with a variable time delay.
The prediction that the birth rates will continue to decline in the
lesser developed countries is not, then, a stab in the dark with
no basis in experience.
It's possible that birth rates can be reduced even without the
level of development seen in the west. In that case, the growth
rate will come down even faster.
Paul
Subject: Re: No Nukes?(was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:59:47 -0800
off-topic newsgroups snipped
subject line changed to a more appropriate one
On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Ross C. K. Rock wrote:
> John McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > We got by without use of nuclear arms for 50 years now. Can those who
> > want to abolish all nuclear arms offer evidence that their success
> > would make the world safer. Wouldn't their world put a premium on a
> > rush to recreate nuclear arms and achieve world domination?
> > --
> > 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.
>
> The reason why mutually assured destruction (MAD) works is because
> it is the only peace treaty which does not rely upon honesty.
> It relies upon the unequivicable statement, "if you violate this
> 'treaty' of MAD, you will, without question, die." No other
> form of 'treaty' works as well.
Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
"friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
phased fashion, would seem to be the answer. And a less hypocritical
foreign policy as well, in regard to human rights, would go a long way in
reducing terrorism.
Dave Braun
>
> --
> o--------------------------------------------------------o
> Ross C. K. Rock
> Reactor Safety and Operational Analysis Dept.
> Ontario Hydro, Toronto, CANADA
> ross.rock@hydro.on.ca
> http://www.inforamp.net/~rrock
> o--------------------------------------------------------o
>
>
Subject: Re: Brashears on Hanson
From: richp@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 00:55:38 GMT
Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: >Sam Hall wrote:
: >> Any group of people that "have been subject to cultural and at times,
: >> literal genocide" are a failure. If they were not they would have not
: >> allowed it Tough language, but the truth. The rules in this world are
: >> what the strong want them to be and all the " things should be___" are
: >> just whining.
: >> I assume you know what nature does with failures?
:
: I am not sure that the concept of "justification" even fits the events
: described. The facts are that weaker cultures and groups do vanish as
: time goes on. Weaker cultures are those which do not lead to the
: perpetuation of those who follow it.
A tautology. First you claim that weaker cultures vanish. Then you
explain this by defining "weaker cultures" as those that do not
successfully perpetuate themselves.
What's going on is what usually goes on when right-wingers like Hall and
Brashears take up pseudo-biological claptrap as a cover for their ideas.
In this case some vague concepts about "the strong surviving" lead to their
usual Social Darwinist conclusions; i.e. that's there's no point in
trying to protect people from those who wish to commit genocide or other
crimes.
: There are some religious cultures from early in the last century,
: somewhat communistic and naturalistic in character, centered in the
: northeast US, which no longer exist. One of their primary tenets was
: that they not have sex. Eventually, they all died.
Brashears is talking about the Shakers. I'm glad to say that their memory
will live on long after Hall, Brashears, and their idiotic philosophies
have long since been relegated to forgotten footnotes. The strength of a
culture, if it means anything, does not mean mere physical continuation.
Members of a culture may have other goals besides perpetuation. We are
not animals and we don't have to have perpetuation of our personal genes
as our primary goal unless we use our intelligence to decide that we want
that. Not that I would ever expect that likes of Hall or Brashears to
understand artistic, intellectual, or religious motivations.
: This is a simplistic example, and is meant only as one example. I
: would hazard the proposition that the American Indian culture was the
: weaker culture, in the sense intended, and the evidence is that much
: of it was indeed wiped out.
Bah. I suppose that if an asteroid had landed in Rome at the height of
its Empire and completely wiped out Italy, that would prove that the
Romans had a "weak" culture. Mere chance and other factors having nothing
to do with culture -- such as disease resistance -- can cause the demise
of one population and the capture of its land by another.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: Richard Mentock
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 20:28:14 -0500
Elliott Oti wrote:
>
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you want to claim that the Royal Greenwich Observatory is wrong?
> > >
> > > http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/pubinfo/leaflets/2000/2000.html says:
> > >
> > > "It is thus clear that the start of the new millennium will be 1 Jan
> > > 2001."
> >
> > I don't consider the GRO infallible -- do you?
> >
> > In particular I think the GRO is wrong if they seriously claim this
> > is the only possible interpretation of "new milennium". A majority
> > of the world's population, which undoubtedly will celebrate the new
> > milennium on 31 Dec 1999 instead of 31 Dec 2000, will agree on this.
>
> A majority of the world's population would undoubtedly agree, when
> asked, that the earth goes round the moon (most people as revealed
> in several popular surveys, don't know and don't care either), or that
> the sun goes round the earth etc etc.
>
> This has to be one of the weakest rebuttals I have ever seen.
Especially since you don't remember the results of that survey so
well. I have a copy of said survey and the results. Mine does
not agree with yours. Is there another one that says what you say
it does?
I agree that the majority is not always right--in fact, in science,
typically *one* person can shift the entire paradigm. On the other
hand, your argument is equally weak. People of science have been
resoundingly wrong (SJG mentions his hero Lavoisier ridiculing
peasants who had brought in chunks of rock that they said fell
from the sky. Who knew they were meteorite?). Arguments do not
rise and fall based upon *who* supports them. All we have been
doing is making our cites, and have not depended upon the
reputations of those that we cite.
> This never-ending argument is common at the turn of each century (not only
> millenia; the Times published a scathing article in 1799 rebuking people
> turning out to celebrate the new century in 1800). People have a
> thing about round numbers and numerology in general, and this debate has
> spawned the most beautiful self-serving sophistry from both sides: putting
> up infallible idols on one side (Stephen Jay Gould says bla bla bla and
> he's never wrong, the GRO says bla bla bla and it's pretty fallible)
> cracking them from another, and arguments praising the competence of the
> astronomer's year count while damning the GRO's proclamations.
>
> I would lend more credence to the GRO than any other asswipe's opinion,
> even respected palaeontologists,amateur astronomers,and #1 bestselling authors,
> considering they and their professional brethren have been the ones responsible
> for maintaining the definition of the second/day/year/general calendar in practice
> over the centuries. Even if those who hold that 2000 is the new millenium
> are more enlightened and intelligent than the troglodytes of 2001, Greenwich
> Mean Time means more to most people than Paul Schlyter's Mean Time.
>
> (Not that you should change your opinion, Paul. If ya like the sound of 2000
> better than 2001, by all means: party on!)
>
> Personally I don't give a shit;
This is hard to believe, given the length of your post.
> celebrations will undoubtedly occur
> on 31/12/99 and I will party along; a more modest celebration will occur
> on 31/12/00 and I will be there too. On january 2 2001 the whole
> thing will be totally forgotten anyway. And what other use is there for
> the "millenium" other than partying and to help the Jehovah's Witnesses
> decide exactly which year Armageddon will come, anyway?
--
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 20:15:38 -0500
In article <5ar8ch$fsi@valhalla.comshare.com>, mikep@comshare.com (Mike
Pelletier) wrote:
> In article <5a9uga$ia4@news.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr
wrote:
> >
> > It was refined, and of course it was not *in* a critical mass or it would
> > no longer be there. Forming it into the proper shape, and assembling
> > same, is the only 'problem' one must solve. But the main issue has to
> > do with the cavalier way this stuff was handled at Rocky Flats.
>
> I was under the impression that plutonium at its normal density could not
> be assembled into a critical mass, which is why they used the implosion
> design to increase the density of the plutonium core to force it to a
> higher, supercritical density.
>
> Is this incorrect?
Yes, it is incorrect. In fact, plutonium production and processing
facilities (Hanford, Rocky Flats, etc.) have to be designed very carefully
so that the plutonium cannot gather into a critical assembly. There was
at least one criticality accident at Hanford, which occurred in a piee of
plumbing where the plutonium in solution would gather, go critical, splat
against the sides, drip down, go critical again, etc. It took some time
(days?) before it was considered safe to go in and attempt a cleanup.
> -Mike Pelletier.
--
Mark W. Goodman
mwgoodman@igc.apc.prg
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: Dennis Nelson
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:10:02 -0800
Dewey Burbank wrote:
>
> jac@margit.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
> >dewey@televar.com writes:
> >>
> >>In the past, low-level radioactive liquids were discharged into
> >>unlined trenches. The radionuclides were promptly adsorbed onto
> >>the native soils, which have a rather large ion exchange
> >>capacity, and there they sat while decaying. Today, these
> >>trenches are considered radioactive waste storage units.
> >
What happened to organochlorine compounds such as trichloroethylene which
are considered to be chemical toxic waste. I love the euphonism mixed
waste for waste which is both chemically and radiologically toxic.
> > Although it is not entirely true that everything in these "units"
> > can be considered to be in a permanently fixed location. But it
Now there's a masterpiece of understatement. What about the volatiles and
water soluble compounds? Ion-exchangers don't bind ions forever. Eventually
they are eluted from the solid matrix.
> > is true that these low-level disposal areas are a minor problem
> > compared to the high-level waste in the tanks -- particularly
> > at Hanford where no records were kept of what went in the tanks.
>
Some of these tanks have so much radioactivity in them that they are maintained
constantly at or near the boiling point of the liquid. Only by continually
adding water are the tanks kept from boiling over. On top of that the radiation
is so intense that it strips hydrogen off of the hydrocarbon molecules in the
solvents releasing radiogenic hydrogen molecules. Only the good fortune of having
a low oxygen concentration over the liquid in the tanks keeps the hydrogen from
reaching an explosive proportion with oxygen. Some of the early attempt at
isolating corrosive radioactive wastes in steel drums lined with plastic met the
same fate as is occuring in the tanks, except that these drums were sealed. The
radiation decomposed the plastic liner releasing radiogenic hydrogen which caused
the drums to swell and burst.
> Wrong.
> I refer you to http://twins.pnl.gov:8001/ to see the records of
> what is in the tanks. You will find gigabytes of online
> information including photographs, reams and reams of analytical
> data, operations records, etc. etc. that will tell you whatever
> you might want to know about what is in the tanks - at Hanford,
> Savannah River, and INEL.
>
And unfortunately no one has a clue what to do with them.
> > I am told by a friend who works at Savannah River that, although
> > they have their share of sins, the chemical company that ran that
> > facility
>
> That would be DuPont, I think.
>
> >at least kept records and tended to put X in one tank
> > and Y in another.
>
> As they did at Hanford. The difference here between Hanford and
> Savannah River is that Hanford had at least four different
> production processes running at different times, each of which
> made waste with different chemistries. Savannah River only used
> one process, and so for the most part, their wastes are all the
> same.
>
> [snip]
> > But the one think to note in the information from the DOE about
> > cleanup are some of the dates, like 1970 and 1986. These places
> > were run for 30 to 40 years without any realistic waste management
> > plan in place, probably because cleanup would be the DOE's problem
> > since a contractor had no long-term responsibility for the place.
>
And indemnity from liability, no less.
> The contractors managed the waste just like DOE (or ERDA, or AEC)
> told them to. The issue of waste management was not really very
> important to our government when the Russians and were sending
> their nukes to Cuba and threatening to annihilate us.
After we first sent our nukes to Turkey and Germany to annihilate them.
> >> ... The tank wastes will be separated into a
> >>low-level fraction and a high level fraction, both of which will
> >>be vitrified (turned into glass). The low-level fraction will be
And how on earth do you propose to turn liquid into glass, without vaporizing
the major portion thereof.
> >>disposed on the Hanford site, and the high-level fraction will be
> >>stored in steel canisters again awaiting permanent disposal at
Which I suppose they will line with plastic to prevent corrosion?
> >>Yucca Mountain.
> >
> > Note the key word "awaiting". Here is where there is some bit
> > of controversy. Although it is good that that the DOE has a plan
> > (not bad after 50 years, right?) I would not characterize it as
> > "very viable". The alternative, accelerator-driven transmutation
> > of the high-level fraction on site, should be considered before
> > vitrification makes that approach more difficult.
>
> Fine. Just consider how you can put a hundred million gallons of
> liquid waste into a transmutation accelerator and do it before
> even the double shelled tanks start leaking. We need to do
> something *now* and vitrification is the only technology that has
> been successfully demonstrated on this kind of waste.
I heard that the pilot vitrification plant at Savannah River was having
a great many problems and was not working out as planned.
>
> >> ... I just hope the public interest "watchdogs" don't
> >>become rabid at the prospect of thier reason for existance being
> >>eliminated and blow the whole scheme again with thier incessant
> >>whining against everything the DOE proposes.
Based on the track record why should any thinking person accept anything
the DOE proposes. They are the ones who made the mess.
> >
> > There is a difference between constructive criticism and simply
> > opposing all that is proposed. The latter poses an environmental
> > risk of its own, since the stability and safety of the tanks at
> > Hanford -- sitting on the banks of the Columbia -- are a legitimate
> > concern. Doing nothing is not a good option in this case.
>
> ALL of the tanks at Hanford are at least 8 miles from the river.
> They are not "sitting on the banks of the Columbia." Nobody is
> proposing to do nothing. Your alternative of accelerator
> transmutation is just another pie-in-the-sky reason to delay the
> implementation of a proven technology - vitrification - that is
> ready and waiting to go, right now.
> >
Where and when did vitrification get proved as a technology? Pardon my
pessimism; I do think it is the most promising of all options if one
can figure out the liquid chemistry first.
Dennis Nelson
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 13:03:16 GMT
Dennis Nelson wrote:
>How so, clean? The only point that nuclearphiles can make about clean is
>that nuke power plants don't produce CO2.
During normal operation they release a few grams of radioactive noble
gases and a few kgs of waste which is easily managed, compared to
thousands of tons of (radioactive) ash from coal fired plants, not to
mention the volume of CO2 and SO2 from burning fossil fuels. Hydro
floods large areas of land and kills millions of trees, and disturbs
the ecology of whole river systems, solar involves the use of cadmium
(heavy metal toxicity greater than Pu), and for efficiency demands the
use of copper (ever seen a copper mine?) and for storage lead acid
batteries :-(, and wind power uses plastics (from oil - remember Exxon
Valdez)), and are noise and aesthetic polluters, and also use
batteries etc etc.
>They don't mention that heating
>certain UCO3 ores to produce U metal releases CO2 into the atmosphere, nor
>do they mention that the massive amounts of concrete needed for nuke plants
>release even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nuclear doesn't use any more of this stuff than the alternatives.
>Despite all that silence about the cons of nuke power,
Silence? All the information on any subject you want re nuclear power
is freely available if you bother to look, and there are many highly
educated individuals in this ng who would be willing to answer any
questions, if you could be bothered to ask.
>they continue to pound
>the global warming drum and say what a safe and environmentally friendly
>operation they run.
I don't think the nuclear industry has been responsible for the
drum-beating re global warming.
>Can you imagine how many millions of pounds of CO2 will
>be released into the atmosphere from the diesel engines of locomotives and
>18 wheelers as they haul over 16,000 shipments of rad waste from the nuke
>plants all across the country to Nevada.
And this doesn't happen in alternative energy production methods?
>Can you imagine what a catastrophy just one nuke-waste accident would be?
Imagination can run wild when not restricted by knowledge and reason.
...Greig
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 13:03:29 GMT
B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>AS my earlier post last year noted, these two linked articles ( one on health
>effects of UV, the other on the UV-B/Ozone levels over New Zealand )
>demonstrate that decreased ozone levels will increase the risk of
>adverse health effects for some populations.
From what I could see, the articles in question demonstrated that
increased UV-B exposure in NZ (for reasons other than ozone depletion)
resulted in a measured increase in health problems. It did not bridge
the important link re proving a correlation between ozone depletion
and increased UV-B exposure.
>The references provided were
>1. " Ozone depletion and UV radiation: A health risk for New
>Zealanders?" R.McKenzie ( The New Zealand Public Health Report.
>October 1996 p75-77 ) plots the Annual Mean Ozone measured over
>southern New Zealand for the years 1971-1995.
^^^^^^^^^
Including a period of high volcanic activity (specifically Mt
Pinatubo) which resulted in increased UV-B due to sulphate aerosol
action at mid-latitudes.
>In the Results section, the author notes;
>"Ozone declined by approximately 5-7% in New Zealand between
>the mid 1970s and the 1990s (Figure 1). .... Further ozone depletion
>over NZ may be expected as the concentrations of ozone-depleting
>chemicals continue to increase." Direct measurements of UVR
>( ultraviolet radiation ), from the R-B meter in Invercargill for part
>of the period, also indicate that there has been an increase in UVR...
>Spectrally-resolved measurements have clearly shown the expected
>inverse correlation between ozone and UVR" [ the 1994 WMO report
>is indicated as the source of that data ]. ^^^^
Again includes corrupted data.
Also this is purely a qualitative assessment. Whilst an inverse
correlation may be shown, this does not entail a proportional increase
UV-B. For example a decline in ozone of 5% may well entail an
increase in UV-B of only 0.1%.
>2. "Recent trends in melanoma in New Zealand" J.L.Bulliard, B.Cox
>( The New Zealand Public Health Report. October 1996 p73-75 )
>>Melanoma has a latency period of decades, so any stats on this are due
>>to things that happened 20 or more years ago, whilst ozone depletion
>>is a relatively recent phenomenon.
>Exactly. Nowhere did I say or imply that these were the consequences
>of human-induced ozone depletion. They are clear evidence that
>increased levels of UV-B will result increased levels of adverse
>health effects.
Agreed. However you did present the data, and then jump to the
conclusion that ozone depletion results in adverse effects. As long
as it is clear that you are not trying to show that there is actual
epidemiological data which supports your claim, because there is none
and (it appears) you know it.
>>> UV shows a strong diurnal variation, peaking when the sun is highest
>>> in the sky - about 130pm NZ DST. UV also shows a strong seasonal
>>> variation ( figure 2 ).
>>And these variations are much larger than the effects of CFC induced
>>ozone depletion.
>Never said otherwise - looking for strawmen are we?...
Not at all. That there is a very high diurnal range for UVR is
important in the understanding that small increases in UV-B (as
resulted in the early 1990s due to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo) do not
necessarily yield a statistically significant increase in melanoma,
since the confounding factor of human behaviour dominates the result.
>>>My earlier post noted the article discussed confounding factors etc, but
>>>it appears to me that the depletion of the ozone layer with decreasing
>>>latitude contributes to the increasing incidence of CMM in NZ.
>>An opinion I do not share, since I see no evidence to support it.
>What other conclusion can you derive from the provided table of age
>standardised incident rates?.
That UVR exposure increases with decreased latitude is not questioned.
That it is solely due to lower ozone is another matter. Weather
conditions (NZs blue skies) and the fact that the sun is higher in the
sky are also factors.
>>>"Estimates of ozone depletion and skin cancer incidence to examine
>>>the Vienna Convention achievements"
[snip]
>>Now this IS interesting, Bruce. Since you drew this reference, I
>>wonder if you might take the time to explain to me how a correlation
>>between ozone depletion and increased UV-B exposure is made. Based on
>>what assumptions?
>They used a two-stream atmospheric transfer model, validated by
>comparison with high resolution spectral measurements [ GRL v.22
>p.2721-2724 (1995), and GRL v.22 p2151-2154 ( 1995 ) ]. I don't have
>access to Geophys. Res. Lett.
I was not asking how the ozone measurements were validated. I am more
concerned with how UV-B increases are quantified (since this has yet
to be proven even qualitatively), and what assumptions were made to
correlate this with melanoma incidence (since a qualitative
understanding of the role of UV-B relative to UV-A and blue light,
remains in question).
>Jim Scanlon has provided information that shows your assumptions
>about well-covered people to be invalid. He's been there several
>times...
Rather anecdotal evidence isn't it.
>>>No, it doesn't mean that - it's reporting the destruction of ozone.
>>>Reference please...
>>Sorry, I have no reference. My understanding on this issue arises
>>from correspondence with Robert Parsons. Perhaps you should take the
>>matter up with him.
>No. As my references state that the chlorine loading of the stratosphere
>will peak in the late 1990s, and the ozone is expected to continue to
>decline for the next few years, reaching a minimum around the turn of
>the century, I can't give your understanding much credibility.. The
>hole has grown larger, *and* is lasting longer, right up to the mid 1990s,
>and some authors are suggesting that the duration may also increase.
>[ "Recovery of Antartic Ozone Hole". D.J.Hofman Nature. v.384 p.222-223
>( 21 November 1996 ). " The Ozone Layer: the Road Not Taken " M.Prather,
>P.Midgley, F.S.Rowland, R.Stolarski. Nature. v.381 p.551-554 ( 13 June 1996),
>" Continued Decline of Total Ozone over Halley, Antartica, since 1985"
>A.E.Jones, J.D.Shanklin. Nature. v.376 p.409-411 ( 3 August 1995 ). ]
That there is a plateau in the rate of increase in the size of the
hole has nothing to do with Cl loading in the stratosphere, and it is
disingenuous indeed to suggest that banning CFCs will have a measured
effect so soon. Robert has led me to believe that the plateau results
from the exhaustion of ozone in the stratosphere, along with the
unique meteorological consequences of the southern polar vortex. This
means that the hole is no longer growing at the rate it was in the 80s
and early 90s.
>>Adverse? In what way is the ozone hole causing an "adverse effect"?
>The ozone hole is the adverse effect, resulting from chlorine loading
>of the stratosphere exceeding 2 ppb. Maybe you have evidence
>that it is beneficial?. If so, please post the reference.
It may be beneficial, it may be adverse. There is no proof of either.
>Obviously if the ozone is depleted to a certain depth, then the
>determination of whether the hole has reached a plateau is
>decided by the size and duration of the hole.
The plateau I am referring to is a substantial lowering in the rate of
increase in the size of the hole. I did not say it is not growing at
all.
>>And I have already torn DeGruill's report to shreds, since it shows
>>only minor variations in the population of a certain species of
>>phytoplankton, and does not actually conclude that HARM is occurring.
>
>You have submitted your refutution to the author and journal?.
I am not refuting the report, it simply doesn't show significant harm,
and doesn't pretend to. Only those who are grasping for some form of
proof of harm think DeGruill's study proves anything.
>I've just given you references to a range of other papers that
>show that increasing UV will have adverse health effects, and
>that the expected inverse correlation between UV radaition
>and mean ozone levels exists.
And I respond:
From "A Challenge to Scientific Judgement"
by Frederick Seitz.
"There is much uncertainty concerning the long-range, average change
in UV-B radiation, which produces erythema, at the surface of the
earth. This level can be influenced by many factors, including the
level of ozone in the atmosphere. Measurements[1] made in Toronto
between 1989 and 1993 were interpreted to show that there has been a
significant rise in such radiation in a five year period, which the
investigators ascribe to a comparable decrease in ozone level.
Considerable doubt [2] has been cast on this conclusion, however,
since it is greatly influenced by the measurements during the last
year in which there was a strong influence of unusual volcanic
activity that began in 1991."
1. Kerr, J.B. and C.T. McElroy, 'Science' 262, 1032 (1993)
2.Waters, J.W., et al, Nature 362, 597 (1993). DeMuer, D. and
H.DeBacker, J. Geophys. Res 97, 5921 (1992)
>>Energy production, mining and agriculture are not follies, which is
>>why solutions to these greater environmental problems are difficult to
>>find, and are therefore virtually ignored.
>They are follies if they cause harm, and they are being extensively
>researched, along with alternatives.
They are not follies, since they are necessary technological
implementations which stave of the potential of cataclysm from
overpopulation. Refrigeration is a similar implementation.
>Acid rain has been a major issue in the USA and Europe, and has
>been comprehensively researched, as has soil degradation since
>the 1930s. The issues are economic, and political, not technical.
>Actions to mitigate adverse effects have been, and will continue
>to be, taken when the politicians perceive the need.
Yet the same economic and political implications are not applied in
relation to CFCs, or relative to the potential for environmental
damage.
>This is my last post in this thread.
Cheerio, it has been educational.
...Greig
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk (Guru George)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 02:47:36 GMT
On Mon, 06 Jan 1997 22:30:16 -0700, Mark Friesel
wrote:
>Guru George wrote:
>>
>....
>
>> He already answered you in his first reply. Downsizing hasn't been
>> downsizing, there have been some minor cuts and some re-shuffling, no
>> downsizing. This is, ironically, 'lucrative' in a way for federal
>> government: it allows the perpetuation of its own machinery.
>>
>
>I reply -
>
>Well- this definition of yours is so strange I confess I'm at a loss.
>The Republicans cut the income tax for the wealthy, but this is not
>downsizing. The DOE eliminated many of the individuals on its payroll
>at the national labs but this is not downsizing. The government
>drastically reduced the amount of funding for research, but this is not
>downsizing. I'm afraid I disagree with you, and unless you agree with
>me, you're wrong. Pretty easy. The answer then is that you can't
>answer either.
A libertarian or general procapitalist definition of 'downsizing'
would be something that actually cuts out functions, fiat laws,
everything, down to a bare minimum. A slight reshuffle and
re-balancing of the books to satisfy a few vested interests of one
kind or another are not downsizing.
>
>You continue:
>
>> More and more money is being spent every year by government on the
>> things it does that are *supposed* to do good. Problems get worse.
>> And you want the government to tax and spend even *more*?
>
>I reply:
>
>I want the government to be financially responsible, but whether it is
>or not I don't want social programs touched. They can go tax the ultra
>wealthy until they bleed century notes and I will be perfectly happy,
>otherwise I will not. But when similar actions to those I describe are
>done by industry, it's called downsizing.
The point you fail to grasp is that (according to libertarianism) it
is in the nature of the State to fuck up anything it touches above
and beyond a few strictly and vigilantly limited functions. Your
attitude is likely to cause social problems to become *more* fucked up
if enacted, precisely because government is the tool you are trying to
use to solve them. Particularly, (but not exclusively - I could go
on) taxing the ultra wealthy until they bleed century notes will erode
capital, which will result in economic stagnation.
You mustn't be misled by analogies (bad analogies made by Republicans,
at that).
>
>You continue:
>
>>
>> You are completely ignorant of economics. Read some books before you
>> engage people in conversation about it.
>>
>
>I note:
>
>Who cares what you think? You're just another character who can't
>answer the question.
You are likely to misunderstand the answers I might give, until you
understand where I come from: first we must clear that up.
The trouble with an idiot-savant bandying around of facts and figures
of the kind the Left indulges in is that it proves nothing until we
can agree on terms. Then we could interpret the facts from both our
points of view, and be swayed either way.
Theoretical understanding is what gives statistical interpretation
meaning. Until you understand my theory, you won't understand how I
interpret the facts, and vice versa.
-- Guru George
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The rule of law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the rule of men!
It's vastly more efficient."
R.W Grant, "Tom Smith and His Incredible Bread Machine"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: Re: Space Colonies ( was Re: The Limits To Growth)
From: "John D. Gwinner"
Date: 8 Jan 1997 02:40:38 GMT
Paul F. Dietz wrote in article
<5as56v$icm@nntp.interaccess.com>...
> I think John's point is that, once mined and enriched, the cost of
> actually shipping the uranium is small. So it pays to get the uranium
> where labor and capital are cheap -- i.e., on Earth.
Actually, I bet (being an economics group ) that you could build a
'Supply vs Travel Cost' curve or something. Travel costs until artificial
gravity drives or a beanstalk are invented will likey remain high. So for
some high expense and low mass items, especially high infrastructure items,
(Fissionables, medicals, fine wines), I think that shipping vs home growth
will always be an issue.
But aside from our solar system, what about Extra-solar trade? Same
problems, longer delay lines, higher shipping costs. I bet information
will be our stock in trade, although shipping some medical supplies to a
colony that's having medical problems will probably be necessary, no matter
what the cost. 'machines to make machines' and other economy starting
items would probably be shipping candidates, as well as initial seed stocks
of biologicals. Would these be a Government subsidy?
== John ==
Subject: Re: Space colony - OK but how?
From: "John D. Gwinner"
Date: 8 Jan 1997 02:49:10 GMT
Elliott Oti wrote in article
<32CFD051.1B64@stud.warande.ruu.nl>...
> But where to get the antimatter from? That's a good question. Ideas?
Assuming that it isn't naturally occuring (a pretty strong assumption
inside our Galaxy, unknown in other galaxies), one way that I've heard
which makes a fair amount of sense is to view Anti-matter as VERY efficient
'fuel'. You have a land or space based power plant (say, solar cells @
mercury) make the anti-matter (note: high technology here) through whatever
means. We do this now, although in labs, not engineering (production)
environments. Then, the anti-matter can be viewed the same way as electric
cars are: as a storage method, not a generation method. There's a lot of
advantages here.
Of course, better hope your containment always works!
Going from (musty) memory, the most efficient way to use anit-matter in a
rocket drive was in 100:1 mixtures of say, water and anti-matter. The
reaction chamber would look like a conventional nozzle, and the small
(very!) amounts of anti-matter combine to heat VERY hot the reaction mass.
That way, most of the annihilation just heats the remaining (99%) reaction
mass. You'd use water because it's pretty abundant and easy to handle.
You get very high deltaV and lot's of acceleration, as I remember. But ...
make sure your UPS on your containment coils is in good shape
== John ==
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 19:34:19 -0800
off-topic newsgroups snipped
On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Greig Ebeling wrote:
> Dennis Nelson wrote:
>
> >How so, clean? The only point that nuclearphiles can make about clean is
> >that nuke power plants don't produce CO2.
>
> During normal operation they release a few grams of radioactive noble
> gases and a few kgs of waste which is easily managed, compared to
> thousands of tons of (radioactive) ash from coal fired plants, not to
> mention the volume of CO2 and SO2 from burning fossil fuels. Hydro
> floods large areas of land and kills millions of trees, and disturbs
> the ecology of whole river systems, solar involves the use of cadmium
> (heavy metal toxicity greater than Pu), and for efficiency demands the
> use of copper (ever seen a copper mine?) and for storage lead acid
> batteries :-(, and wind power uses plastics (from oil - remember Exxon
> Valdez)), and are noise and aesthetic polluters, and also use
> batteries etc etc.
Some good points, but many have been left out.
First of all, the best way to reduce the impacts of fossil-fuel or nuclear
energy is to use less. Same for the impacts of that consumption of cheap
energy, such as by the growing populations in deserts fueled by
air-conditioning (highest growth in US is in Nevada).
Second, if you want to compare the impacts of various energy sources on
the environment, you have to do cradle to grave analysis.
Nuclear is rather open-ended on the "grave" end. While wind and solar use
elements that themselves are toxic, these can be re-cycled and need not
depend on huge new investments in virgin materials and mines.
Mine pollution, from tailings and run-off, is really serious in the US,
whether one looks at uranium tailings (you forgot that), or lead or copper
tailings/smelter fall-out/ash.
Third, why leave out biomass fuels? No net input to global warming at all.
In fact, more biomass-fuel farming may actually reduce soil erosion, and
sequester some carbon, if carried out on degraded farm and grazinmg land.
A significant portion of plant material is in roots, and if woody
materials are grown, even more is left behind; agradation of carbon in the
soil and litter is possible.
Fourth, merely comparing the costs of building solar panels or wind mills
vs. nuclear plants is missing the point--- the fuel is free--- no $ or
environmental costs in extraction, preparation, or waste disposal at all.
Finally, all this discussion may be interesting, but to be convincing,
one would have to post hard numbers. Maybe someone will. World watch
probably has them.
> >They
don't mention that heating
> >certain UCO3 ores to produce U metal releases CO2 into the atmosphere, nor
> >do they mention that the massive amounts of concrete needed for nuke plants
> >release even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
>
> Nuclear doesn't use any more of this stuff than the alternatives.
>
> >Despite all that silence about the cons of nuke power,
>
> Silence? All the information on any subject you want re nuclear power
> is freely available if you bother to look, and there are many highly
> educated individuals in this ng who would be willing to answer any
> questions, if you could be bothered to ask.
>
> >they continue to pound
> >the global warming drum and say what a safe and environmentally friendly
> >operation they run.
>
> I don't think the nuclear industry has been responsible for the
> drum-beating re global warming.
>
> >Can you imagine how many millions of pounds of CO2 will
> >be released into the atmosphere from the diesel engines of locomotives and
> >18 wheelers as they haul over 16,000 shipments of rad waste from the nuke
> >plants all across the country to Nevada.
>
> And this doesn't happen in alternative energy production methods?
See above
> >Can you imagine what a catastrophy just one nuke-waste accident would be?
>
> Imagination can run wild when not restricted by knowledge and reason.
Unfair "ad hominim" on your part. So, what is the impact of a worst case
scenario, similar to Chernoble, in the US, vs., let's say, a windmill
falling over? A panel of solar cells falling off a roof? A biomass farm
having a insect pest outbreak? Political meddling watering down efficiency
standards (to sell more nuke or fossil-fuel power)? Don't bother jumping
on me with the "it can't happen here, we don't have those graphite
reactors..."; I know that. On the other hand, there have been several
instances of coolant system failures; let's say that one of those went to
the worst case scenario: containment breach, no coolant, melt-down, in the
upper mid-west (you know, where the acidic particulates are born that
produce the acidic deposition over the northeastern US and eastern
Canada).
Dave Braun
>
> ...Greig
>
>
>
