Subject: Re: Solvent Recovery
From: gmbeasley@mindspring.com (RosalieAnn Beasley)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:10:15 GMT
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <5auqdq$d0q@camel1.mindspring.com>,
> gmbeasley@mindspring.com (RosalieAnn Beasley) wrote:
>>Path:
>news.hal-pc.org!insync!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.spr
>intlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnpl
>anet.com!news.mindspring.com!usenet
>>From: gmbeasley@mindspring.com (RosalieAnn Beasley)
>>Newsgroups: sci.engr.chem,sci.environment,talk.environment,tw.environment
>>Subject: Re: Solvent Recovery
>>Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:43:08 GMT
>>Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
>>Lines: 18
>>Message-ID: <5auqdq$d0q@camel1.mindspring.com>
>>References: <01bbfcb1$a9869100$63a015a5@queklc.singnet.com.sg>
>>Reply-To: gmbeasley@mindspring.com
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: ip84.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net
>>X-Server-Date: 8 Jan 1997 00:40:26 GMT
>>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>>Xref: news.hal-pc.org sci.engr.chem:14224 sci.environment:66231
>talk.environment:62619
>>Status: N
>>
>>"QUEK LENG CHUANG" wrote:
>>
>>>I am assessing systems for solvent recovery - from paint waste, IPA, and
>a
>>>myriad of other organic solvents (About 25 T/day). I would very much
>like
>>>to hear about :
>>>a. Problems with distillation systems
>>
>>Main problem is that the still is not electrically safe for use with
>>flammable liquids, and they sometimes blow up (the commercial ones).
>>
>>>b. Alternative solutions
>>>c. Markets for recovered solvent
>>
>>>Your opinions will be treasured . Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>They blow up because of operator error, not equipment design problems. The
>refinery I work at distills nothing but flammable liquids, and they almost
>never have a problem (yes, rare accidents still happen).
I e-mailed you about this before I realized that you were not the
original poster. I think we are talking about two different things.
I am talking about a small portable still used in car body paint shops
to reduce the downstream hazardous waste volume. The area in the
still where they are evaporating the solvent is a Class I Division I
location. Outside this area is a Class I Division II location. The
equipment, and the area surrounding the equipment is not rated for
Class I Division I or Class I Division II. This is found in NEC, NFPA
and OSHA. When a release occurs, sometimes there is an explosion.
This may indeed be due to operator error, but it is unacceptable.
Unless the mfgs of this equipment have re-engineered it, I would not
approve of the use of such a still.
Subject: Re: emf health risks?
From: Anders Jelmert
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 10:22:43 -0800
Tue, 07 Jan 1997 08:51:39 -0600
tony tweedale wrote:
>
> Anders Jelmert wrote:
>
> > Well, perhaps not exactly what you had in mind, but here is the
> > NRC press release on their recent EMF study.
>
> > 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
>
> well, here's a problem in a nutshell. i watched the press conference on c-span, and after a
> similar opening statements from the chair, q&a; revealed that the content of the study said
> something substantially different. ie the conclsuions were very limited to home wire fields, and
> tha, after exhaustive search of the lit., they could find no cause but neither could they explain
> the significant risk repeatedly observed associated with this source. a couple other smaller
> drawbacks were drawn out in Q&A;, but i don't recall them.
You might wery well consider this "political crap". On the other hand,
such a characterization will work both ways, don't you think? Both for those
eager to augment, and those eager to diminish the perception of risks.
Statistical metaanalysises have obvious weaknesses, and I would guess
interpretations with some right could be said to be biased.
Methinks there are actors with an agenda on both sides in the EMF issue.
For those who wants to keep their pet scare, I can assure you there are good
news around. Last number of Nature (vol385, no6611, 2.jan.97) has an editorial:
"Risk and the inadequacy of science". Sounds like gefundenes fressen for you, Tony. :-)
On the other hand if you want onother opinion, you might want to look at
the Junk Science home page at: http://www.junkscience.com/
Second opinions are rarely harmful. I'd suspect even less than EMF :-)
[...]snip
--
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: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: hagerp@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 11:00:32 -0500
Mark Friesel writes:
>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.
True enough.
>The rise in the deficit parallels massive borrowing from Japan and
>elsewhere.
Yes, the Japanese and others helped to finance our debt.
> SS is wasteful only because it is poorly managed, not because
>it is a bad idea.
This is where we disagree. Read my position paper on SS on
my website -- which is still extant. The URL is:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/hagerp/hager-cont.html
You may not agree with my conclusions but the figures are
correct.
> Recipients who get part of their SS taxes back are
>far better off than those who get nothing back, no? Projected
>unsustainability is nonsense.
That receipt of some benefits is better than receipt of none is
trivially true. My argument is that a voluntary, privatized
system would be much better than what exists. It would be
fair, eliminate a large regressive tax, greatly improve the
rate of return, thus leaving retirees better off, and it
would provide additional funds for capital markets. Remember
the word coined by Robert Heinlein: "tanstaafl". It's an
acronym for, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".
Social Security and Medicare are effectively a +15% flat
tax on the average American worker and a large chunk of the
tax burden.
I agree that "projected unsustainability is nonsense." As
I said during the campaign, neither the Republicans nor the
Democrats are going to talk seriously about SS and Medicare
until AFTER the election. Commissions will be appointed
and after much fanfare, SS will be "saved" by cutting
benefits and raising taxes. Events thus far are proving
me right.
>But the real benefits of downsizing is
>the issue.
Sure, let's talk about them.
>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.
Answered above. I'm talking about the big picture, you seem to
be fixated on a few programs.
>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.
That's the debate.
>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.
Here's another item I used on one of my opponents -- the Democrat
in this case. He gave a speech in which he came out with some
platitudes about the New Deal and the War on Poverty and then
how horrible the Republicans were for cutting government and
trashing the American Dream. I then pointed out that government
was around 8% of GNP at the height of the New Deal, was over
17% during the War on Poverty and is 25% today. The American
Dream, I said, has been "consumed" by government.
--
paul hager hagerp@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: Mark Friesel
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 08:38:17 -0700
Guru George wrote:
>
.....
>
> 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.
>
I reply:
By your first definition it takes an extreme case to qualify as
downsizing. Laying off 25% of Hanford employees because of budget cuts,
for example, is not 'slight reshuffling'.
You continue:
....
>
> 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.
I reply:
The point you fail to grasp is that this is the human condition - and it
occurs primarily because people's level of understanding of issues
differ while do-one understands the entirety of a problem, and their
vested interests differ which stirs the pot even more since this drives
most actions.
You continue:
....
> 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.
I reply:
If so, it is primarily because there is a large contingent which has no
interest in using the present institutions to carry out social
functions, but is convinced that some other approach is necessary hence
they refuse to cooperate, or they work to undermine the system. The
concept of 'eroding capital' is of little concern when capital can be
generated, and in fact would cause holders of capital to use it more
effectively - but the tax need last no longer than is necessary to pay
off the debt. Once such a tax is irrevocably (until the purpose is
accomplished) implemented, the wealthy are in the best postition to
ensure that the money is in fact used to pay the debt.
You continue:
>
> You mustn't be misled by analogies (bad analogies made by Republicans,
> at that).
>
I reply:
Good advice, which applies also to 'common knowledge', and what you hear
on the TV.
You continue:
.....
>
> 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.
I reply:
True enough, except the deliberate confusion of terms has been a common
propaganda technique of the Right since the late '70's at least.
You continue:
>
> 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.
>
I reply:
I fear we're doomed to misunderstanding. But I still see no positive
effects of downsizing to date - and it has occurred.
Mark
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: hagerp@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 10:32:31 -0500
Mark Friesel writes:
>Paul Hager wrote:
>>
>....
>>
>> This is really not complicated. If funding for the DoE is reduced,
>> but overall federal expenditures rise then THE GOVERNMENT is not
>> downsizing. The DoE is not the totality of the federal government.
>>
>I note:
>Eliminating government-supported personnel is indeed downsizing. What
>you're saying is equivalent to saying that Lockheed-Martin can lay off
>20% of their workforce, but because their increased profits only go to
>stockholders or to overseas expansion they have not downsized.
No, that's what you are saying. If Lockheed-Martin cuts staff
because it loses a contract on one project but wins two other other
contracts and ends up hiring more people, that is not downsizing
for Lockheed-Martin as a whole.
> How
>ridiculous! You're simply reiterating that there have been no benefits
>to the public from government downsizing to date. Why do you want to
>deny it?
NET BENEFIT is the operative phrase. Given that DoE cuts include
funds for nuclear weapons research and absurdities like the Excaliber
X-Ray laser, of course THOSE cuts are beneficial. One must, however,
look at the totality of federal expenditures which continue to
INCREASE.
>You say..
>>
>> This shouldn't even be controversial. Look at the material from the
>> Concord Coalition -- they're definitely not libertarian, and
>> certainly not conservative Republican.
>I reply:
>I know nothing about this coalition or their political bend. Is it
>relevant?
>.....
If you knew about them, you wouldn't be posting. There should
at least be a set of facts upon which everyone agrees, from which
we can spin our various political arguments. The Concord Coalition
is "non-partisan" (ostensibly -- it has no libertarian constituency
that I'm aware of) and was founded by Liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas
and Conservative Republican Warren Ruddman. Their figures for
federal budget line items are very accurate and I have referred to
their materials frequently. Because this "non-partisan" organization
is committed to the preservation of the huge middle-class entitlement
programs, the kind of solutions they discuss are ultimately
unacceptable to libertarians like me. The Concord Coalition is
very well-respected for "telling it like it is".
I don't have the address handy but I'm sure you could find it or
someone could post it.
>You continue:
>>
>> Read POOR POLICY: HOW GOVERNMENT HARMS THE POOR by D. Eric Schanberg.
>>
>I reply:
>All I asked was whether government downsizing has benefitted the general
>public.
No, you included a statement that you were for federal entitlement
programs. You introduced a separate point to which I was responding.
> What should I care about this side issue? If government
>downsizes, then misuses the savings it accrues from doing so, no amount
>of downsizing is going to change this behavior and the approach is a
>failure - it cannot be successfully implemented. Something else needs
>to be done, clearly.
I, and others, take the position that by any reasonable measure,
government has not downsized. When I was debating my Republican
and Democratic opponents during the '96 Congressional campaign
(I ran as a Libertarian for Indiana's 8th district), they
continually attacked each other for trying to "cut" Medicare.
I pointed out that neither was cutting anything; that Republicans
and Democrats were actually REDUCING THE RATE OF INCREASE with
the difference being that the Republicans were growing Medicare
(and other entitlements) a little more slowly than Democrats.
Even the newspaper editorials backed my position on this.
As I said, this is not controversial stuff. If you like
government entitlements, fine, join the Concord Coalition
and try and figure out how to pay for them. But don't
claim that the federal government is downsizing and spending
less money overall because it is simply not true.
It's absurd to talk about benefits from reducing government
when no reductions are taking place.
>Mark Friesel
--
paul hager hagerp@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
Subject: Re: Advanced Incinerator
From: "Iver McLeod"
Date: 8 Jan 1997 16:06:05 GMT
FYI
BTW, in no way do I represent Elsevier, I simply subscribe to their Federal
Compliance Alert service. I thought this announcement was applicable to
this thread.
Iver McLeod
iver.j.mcleod@state.me.us
"Come grow the scorched ground green..."
>>>>>>>Federal Compliance Alert<<<<<<<
Title: Hazardous Waste Combustors; Revised Standards; Proposed Rule
Action: Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments
Issue Date: January 7, 1997
FR Pages: 62 FR 960-962
Affected CFR Parts: 40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 260-261, 264-266, and 270-271
Summary: This announcement is a notice of availability and invitation for
comment on EPA's updated database of emissions and ancillary information on
hazardous waste combustors pertaining to the proposed revised standards for
hazardous waste combustors (61 FR 17358; April 19, 1996).
EPA notes that only comments about new information discussed in this
current
notice will be considered during the comment period. Issues related to the
April 19, 1996 proposed rule that are not directly affected by the
documents
or data referenced in the current notice are not open for further comment.
Elsevier Analysis: Elsevier plans to publish an in-depth review and
analysis
of this action as part of its "Hazardous Waste Regulatory Analysis Service"
on January 22, 1997. The analysis--HRAS Article Number 97-01--is available
for US $69, plus $5 postage and handling OR $12 for overnight delivery. A
subscription to the "Hazardous Waste Regulatory Analysis Service" is $680
($780 outside the US). To order the analysis article or to subscribe to the
service, contact Glenda Smith, Elsevier Science Inc., 8773 South Ridgeline
Blvd, Highlands Ranch, CO 80126, phone: (303) 470-1900 ext. 10, fax: (303)
470-5119, e-mail: gfsmith@elsevier-hr.com.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Disclaimer: No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury
and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence, or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods,
products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. While
every effort is made to present accurate information of general
applicability, this publication does not render legal or technical advice
for
specific applications. Competent professional assistance should be obtained
for specific applications.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Copyright 1997 by Elsevier Science Inc.
Bryan Heung wrote in article
<01bbf47c$ea8000c0$42f443ca@bryan>...
> I am currently writing a paper concerning the above subject. Can anyone
> give me somre help? I want to know how it works, pros and cons when
> compared with other means of waste disposal. Thanks!
>
>
Subject: US-CHICAGO, IL-ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGER
From: envr_jobs@mailzone.com (ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS BULLETIN)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 21:51:28 GMT
==============================================================
ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS EMPLOYMENT BULLETIN
TECHNICAL and SALES & MARKETING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
for the ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, & SAFETY INDUSTRY
==============================================================
PROJECT MANAGER - Chicago, Illinois
K-Plus Environmental, Inc. is seeking a mid-level experienced (3 to 5
years) environmental engineer, hydrogeologist, or geologist for a
project management position providing industrial compliance,
subsurface soil & groundwater investigations, hazardous waste
management consulting, LUST, and other RCRA remedial program Services.
The successful candidate will begin as a project manager and must have
the ability to progress and develop into a senior technical advisor or
senior project management professional. Candidate MUST have USEPA,
IEPA, or other Midwestern regulatory agency experience and MUST have
recent work experience within the Chicagoland marketplace. An
appropriate BS degree in engineering, geology, or hydrogeology is
required.
Reply via e-mail to: mail@k-plus.com Fax: 312-226-9753, or snail
mail your resume to: K-Plus Environmental, Inc., 921 W. Van Buren,
Suite 100, Chicago, IL 60607.
___________________________________________________________
ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS is an information service. Please send your
responses to the Reply Service, the snail mail or e-mail address, or
FAX number contained in the specific ad. For information on posting
available industry employment opportunities please e-mail us at
envr_jobs@mailzone.com
------- Environmental Jobs Information System ------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE send e-mail to: envr_jobs@mailzone.com with a
SUBJECT and a MESSAGE of: UNSUBSCRIBE. To SUBSCRIBE send e-mail to:
envr_jobs@mailzone.com with a SUBJECT and a MESSAGE of: SUBSCRIBE.
=====================================================
Subject: GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 970108
From: gsenet@nac.net (Phil Reynolds)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 12:54:59
970108
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* HUNTERDON COUNTY - RADIOACTIVE DUMP MEETING
* OPEN SPACE IN MORRIS COUNTY PRESERVED
* MORRIS COUNTY OPEN SPACE TAX
* INTERNET TACKLES MYSTERY OF AMPHIBIAN DECLINE
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
HUNTERDON COUNTY - RADIOACTIVE DUMP MEETING
Date: 07 Jan 1997
From: Louis Judice
Bethlehem Township (Hunterdon County, NJ) LLRW Dump Meetings
The Township Environmental Committee will be holding two workshops at
the Conley School on Iron Bridge Rd. This is accessible off of I-78
at exit 12. Turn right to "Norton" onto Charlestown Rd. Appx 2 miles
on left is Mine Road. Iron Bridge Rd is about 1/2 mile on right.
These meetings are being organized by the NJ State Siting Board, with
NO representatives of opposing points of view.
They will be held on the following dates:
Wednesday, January 15th, 3:45pm - 9:00pm
Saturday, January 18th, 11:00am - 3:00pm
------------------------------------------------------
Louis J. Judice
Office: 1-908-562-6287
FAX: 1-908-537-6627
E-Mail: ljudice@worldnet.att.net
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OPEN SPACE IN MORRIS COUNTY PRESERVED
Site of Bear Rock to be saved by gift
By Lawrence Ragonese, Star-Ledger Staff
Star-Ledger 970108
Approximately 230 forested acres on Pyramid Mountain in northeastern
Morris County, including the site of the Bear Rock glacial formation,
will be preserved through donations and a government purchase, it was
announced yesterday.
Thomas Marotta, president of Marotta Scientific Controls, will
immediately turn over 59.5 acres, including Bear Rock - considered an
important archeological site - to the Morris County Park Commission.
He also agreed to donate another 45.4 acres later this year and 70.7
acres in 1998. said Quentin Schlieder, executive director of the park
commission.
Another 52.3 contiguous acres was purchased from Marotta in late
December for $900,000 in funds that came from the state, county and
Upper Rockaway River Watershed association.
Schlieder praised Marotta for reengineering his Bear Rock Estates
housing project in Montville to provide for the land donations, which
expanded and maintained the integrity of the Pyramid Mountain park.
"He was sensitive to the environmental concerns," said Schlieder.
"It was done at...considerable personal expense and was in large
measure responsible for this significant addition to the Pyramid
Mountain Natural Historical Area."
Combined with the purchase of a 39.9-acre Boonton Township tract,
funded by the private Deer Lake Club, the county park now totals 1,393
pristine acres in Montville, Kinnelon and Boonton Township.
Efforts to preserve Pyramid Mountain began in 1988, when the first
land purchases were made by the park commission in what had seemed a
somewhat dim hope to save the mountain. But a combined private and
government effort, including participation by the county, state,
towns, non-profit groups and interested residents, has preserved most
of the key parcels.
There are still a few tracts in Kinnelon that are being sought to
complete the preservation effort, said officials.
The park commission has virtually exhausted its financial resources
to buy more land on the mountain, but it is working on new funding
methods. Schlieder cited the $214,972 raised via the Turkey Mountain
Square Yard Sale in Montville and a gift of appreciated stock last
year from the Deer Lake Club, which financed the 39.9 acre purchase.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MORRIS COUNTY OPEN SPACE TAX
Tax taken to the max for open-space fund
By Lawrence Ragonese, Star-Ledger Staff
Star-Ledger 970107
Morris County's voter-approved open space and farmland preservation
tax will be increased to its maximum, raising $8 million this year,
the freeholders decided by a 6-1 vote yesterday.
The funding, up from $6 million last year, would cost taxpayers 2
cents per $100 of assessed property value, or about $40 on a $200,000
property.
"Are we going to have a county built up all over like Bergen County
or will we have open spaces in the future?" asked Freeholder Frank
Druetzler. "I think 100 years down the road, people will enjoy this...
be glad we took this action."
"If we don't do this now, our future generations won't have the
opportunity," added Freeholder John Fox.
The Morris County Open Space and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund was
approved overwhelmingly by voters in 1992. It can generate between $2
million and $8 million annually, with the rate to be set each year.
The freeholders began it in 1993 and 1994 with the minimum tax of one-
half cent per $100 of assessed value, and have raised it one-half cent
each year.
The board split 5-2 last year, deciding not to set the tax at its
maximum, despite some strong public pleas by county residents, the
open space trust fund committee and freeholders Chris Christie and Sue
Murphy Ostergaard. But at the government reorganization meeting on
Friday, Druetzler and Freeholder Joan Bramhall said they would move to
increase the tax this year. Yesterday they followed up on that pledge.
"In New Jersey, where the electorate is upset with tax increases,
voters have never rejected a Green Acres bond issue," Bramhall said,
defending the tax hike.
Freeholder Jack O'Keeffe was the lone dissenter, arguing limits
should be placed on the amount of open land purchased with public
money.
"We have plenty of open space; we've done more than our share," said
O'Keeffe, pointing out the vast acreage of open space and farmland
that has been preserved in Morris County via federal, state, county
and local dollars. "This is a further tax on the people in this
county... and we have better uses for the money," he added.
But the majority of freeholders contended there is quite a bit of
development pressure on sensitive acreage throughout Morris County,
and favor keeping the county as green as possible.
More than 69,000 of Morris County's 305,280 acres are preserved,
according to county statistics. The breakdown is as follows: state
government, 14,698 acres: county government, 11,638 acres; municipal
government. 10,625 acres; federal government, 8,808 acres, and
nonprofit organizations, 7,611 acres, Also, there are 15,954 acres of
watershed lands in Morris County.
"People move to Morris County for its natural beauty," said
Ostergaard, who cited President Theodore Roosevelt's "radical action"
of creating massive national parks at the beginning of this century.
"It was really forward thinking on his part," said Ostergaard.
Fox suggested that one particular open space area warranting county
intervention is more than 200 acres of state-owned land adjacent to
Greystone Park State Psychiatric Hospital in Parsippany. The site off
Old Dover Road was once considered for a county jail and also had been
on the state's long-term planning guide as a possible site for a state
prison.
A committee chaired by Fox was formed to consider possible
acquisition of that land. Fox recommended a joint effort to include
Parsippany and neighboring Morris Plains, Morris Township and
Denville.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
INTERNET TACKLES MYSTERY OF AMPHIBIAN DECLINE
Date: 7 Jan 1997
From:
"Internet Tackles Mystery of Amphibian Decline [Science]."
New York Times, 7 January 97, C4.
The Third Annual Meeting of the North American Amphibian Monitoring
Program took place entirely on the World Wide Web, as organizers and
participants decided information needed to be shared quickly but costs
would prevent many scientists from traveling to such a specialized
meeting. The conference includes discussion of inventory monitoring
techniques for amphibians and of amphibian deformities. The fifty-one
submitted papers have been divided into "`conference rooms,'" where
visitors can read the papers and meeting minutes, and if registered,
post comments. The conference can be found at
http://www.im.nbs.gov/naamp3/.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* G A R D E N S T A T E E N V I R O N E T *
* Tel 201-586-4128 MAILBOX@GSENET.ORG Fax 201-627-8616 *
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
* EcoNet Conference: env.nj *
* WWW Site: http://www.gsenet.org *
* BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400 *
* Listserver: majordomo@igc.org subscribe gsenet-L *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=END=
Subject: Course Announcement: Monitoring Dam Safety / Hydrologic Engineering for Dam Design
From: David Dennnis
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:45:56 -0800
The School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
The Water Resources Center at
The Georgia Institute of Technology
PRESENT THE FOLLOWING CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Monitoring Dam Safety
April 23 - 25, 1997
Atlanta, Georgia
Hydrologic Engineering for Dam Design
April 28 - 30, 1997
Atlanta, Georgia
==========================================
Indivigual Course Information
Monitoring Dam Safety
April 23 - 25, 1997
Atlanta, Georgia
Course Description
This course is intended to provide practical training and guidelines for
the inspection and surveillance
of earth and concrete dams. Questions and topics to be covered include:
* Why should a dam owner invest in a dam safety program?
* What type of instrumentation should be installed to monitor dam performance?
* Practical hands-on exercise on evaluation of instrumentation data
* Introduction to Woodward Clyde's "DAMSMART for Windows 95"
* What's new in the area of automating dam safety surveillance?
* How to conduct a visual inspection of an earth dam
* How to conduct a visual inspection of a concrete dam
Who Should Attend
This course is designed for engineers responsible for dam safety and dam
safety surveillance, dam owners, dam owner's engineers, and federal, state, and local agency
personnel responsible for regulating dam safety.
Course Instruction
James O. Patrick
James O. Patrick has spent his career of 28 years involved as an owner's
engineer responsible for the inspection and dam safety surveillance for the
Georgia Power Company. While employed by Georgia Power Company and
Southern Company Services, he has been responsible for development and
implementation of a comprehensive dam safety inspection and surveillance
program protecting the safety of over 30 dams. Now retired, Mr. Patrick is
the founder of Patrick Hydro Consultants providing consulting engineering
services in the area of dam safety.
Mr. Patrick has a Bachelor of Civil Engineering and a Master of Science of
Civil Engineering from Georgia Tech. He is a registered professional
engineer in Georgia. During his career he has been responsible for
designing instrumentation for new dams and has monitored the initial
filling and refilling of major reservoirs including Lake Oconee, Lake
Juliette, and Lake Harding. He has overseen the reevaluation of the
stability of concrete dams and eventual strengthening of 9 dams using
post-tensioned anchors. Mr. Patrick has served on national advisory groups
for development of dam safety research by the Electric Power Research
Institute.
James B. Hummert, Jr.
Jim Hummert is a registered professional engineer with expertise in
application of computer technologies to geoengineering and environmental
practice areas. He currently works as the Manager of the Systems
Integrations Group with Woodward-Clyde Consultants. As leader of the
Systems Integration Group in St. Louis, he is directly involved in the
design and implementation of automated data acquisition and control systems
and software integration projects for geotechnical and environmental
remedial applications.
Mr. Hummert conceived and oversaw development of the DamSmart system and
initiated the Systems Integration Group in St. Louis. Since then, the
Systems group has been providing focused software solutions to a wide
variety of clients throughout the U. S. and Europe.
Mr. Hummert was the recipient of the Innovative Practice Award (Yves
Lacroix) in 1987.
====================================
Hydrologic Engineering for Dam Design
April 28 - 30, 1997
Atlanta, Georgia
Course Description
This course provides hydrologic engineering information used in the design,
construction, and operation of dams, reservoirs, and state-of-the-art
methods used in evaluating the safety of dams from floods. It does not
include geotechnical dam safety issues, such as earthquake criteria.
There are presently 80,000 dams of various sizes across the United States.
Many others will be designed and constructed. They all require sound
engineering and continual care and maintenance to protect people and
property, and to remain operational and functional for all intended
purposes. When a dam impounds water upstream from a populated area, a
distinct hazard is created for that area from possible failure of the dam.
Extreme care must be exercised in every phase of the engineering,
construction, and operation of the project to assure complete safety. On
the average, world-wide, a significant dam failure is an annual event, and
many more damaging near failures have occurred. Many have resulted from
unanticipated large floods. The importance of the problem will increase as
population density increases and water becomes a scarce resource.
Who Should Attend
This course is intended for hydrologic engineers concerned with the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of dams, including local, state,
and national dam safety officials and consultants.
Course Instruction
Bert Holler, P.E., Ph.D.
Bert Holler is the principal hydrologic engineer for the South Atlantic
Division of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers with headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. The South Atlantic Division is responsible for the design,
construction, and operation of lakes and dams in seven southeastern states
and Puerto Rico. Major dams include Lanier, Allatoona, Carters, and
Hartwell. Dr. Holler has been a practicing hydrologic engineer for 29
years. He holds bachelor, masters and doctoral degrees in Civil
Engineering and is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of
Georgia. He has discussed hydrologic issues on local and national
television.
The Water Resources Center
The mission of Georgia Tech's Water Resources Center is to "Provide
leadership in fostering water resources research, education, training, and
technology and information transfer in Georgia, nationally, and
internationally."
In support of this mission, the courses outlined herein are a part
of a comprehensive continuing education and technology transfer program
designed to ensure that water resources professionals have the opportunity
to keep current with new technologies and analysis methods. Forthcoming
courses will cover various disciplines including, among others,
surface-water and ground-water hydrology, remote sensing, geographic
information systems, water resources management, contaminant transport in
subsurface and surface water systems, stormwater management, statistical
and geostatistical analysis of environmental data, decision support
systems for water resources planning and operation, decision making
processes in a regulatory environment, and conflict resolution.
More information regarding the educational and research activities
of the Water Resources Center can be obtained from Professor Aris P.
Georgakakos, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Tech,
Atlanta, GA 30332-0355, Tel.: (404) 894-2240; e-mail:
aris.georgakakos@ce.gatech.edu.
Registration Information
FEE AND REGISTRATION
To register:
FAX the registration form along with your credit card information to:
404-894-8925. This line is available 24 hours, every day.
or
CALL (404) 894-2400 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time. Have
your credit card and your registration form available to aid in this process.
or
MAIL your registration to:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Distance Leaning, Continuing Education, and Outreach - R
P. O. Box 93686
Atlanta Georgia 30377-0686
or
E-MAIL your registration to:
register@conted.swann.gatech.edu
Please include all of the information outlined on the registration form.
Also include the course name, date, number, key code and method of payment.
The program fee of $795 for each of the two programs includes all necessary
classroom materials. For payment, we accept checks made payable to Georgia
Tech or VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover cards. Registrants
should make payment arrangements prior to the start of the program.
Register early to ensure your place in this program. After you register,
your confirmation letter will be faxed to you within one business day and a
confirmation packet will be mailed to you in five business days. If you
register ten working days or less before the program begins and are paying
by check, please bring payment with you on the first day of the program. We
gladly accept substitutions and can transfer your registration to another
program at any time. If we need to cancel a program, you will receive a
full refund of the program fees. However, Georgia Tech cannot assume the
responsibility for other costs incurred.
Program Location and Accommodations
These courses will be held at the Wyndham Midtown Atlanta Hotel, which is
located at Peachtree and 10th Streets, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Mention that
you are attending a Georgia Tech program for a special room rate. For hotel
reservations, call (404) 873-4800. The hotel provides a free shuttle to and
from the campus in the morning and afternoon. Please contact the hotel
concierge for shuttle times. Participants may wish to take MARTA (Metro
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) between the airport and the Wyndham
Midtown Hotel. The hotel can be conveniently reached by taking MARTA to the
Midtown train station. Exit on 10th Street and proceed two blocks east to
the intersection of 10th Street and Peachtree Street. After the
intersection, continue east on 10th Street for one-half block. The hotel is
on the right.
Travel Discounts
Delta Air Lines offers special fares to attendees of Georgia Tech programs.
Certain restrictions may apply. For information and reservations, call
1-800-241-6760 and refer to file U0175 (for domestic flights only). We
recommend that you do not purchase a non-refundable airline ticket.
Continuing Education Units
These programs meet criteria for the nationally accepted Continuing
Education Units (CEU). Each participant completing both courses
successfully will earn 4 CEUs. You may request a certificate of completion
showing the number of CEUs earned by call 404-894-2408.
Registration Form
Please check which course(s) you plan to attend.
CE-122
Monitoring Dam Safety
April 23-25, 1997
Atlanta, Georgia
(X18-740)
CE-123
Hydrologic Engineering for Dam Design
April 28-30, 1997
Atlanta, Georgia
(X18-739)
KEY CODE: W
Name__________________________________________________
*Social Security #_________________________________
Position_______________________________________________
Organization________________________________________
Registration Confirmation will be sent to this address.
Address__________________________________________________
City________________________State_____Zip________
Business Phone_________________________________________
FAX______________________________________________
Course Fee $795 (each course)
Payment Enclosed
Are you a Georgia Tech graduate?
Yes
No
This confirms my telephone registration
Check enclosed (Make check payable to Georgia Institute of Technology)
Charge my space with
American Express
Visa
Mastercard
Discover
Card Number_____________________
Expiration Date________
Cardholder's Name _____________________________
Signature____________________________
Course materials are available only to course attendees.
* Social Security number is used to confirm computer name retrieval for CEU transcripts.
Subject: Re: No Nukes?(was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: samhall@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:13:40 GMT
On Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:59:47 -0800, "D. Braun"
wrote:
>
>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
>>
>>
>
How does disarmament effect this? Stop the spread of nuclear weapons
and disarmament don't seem to have anything in common. We are reducing
our weapons in a deal with the Russians. That seems to be a good idea,
but it doesn't have anything to do with stopping other countries from
building a bomb. In fact, it may encourage them.
Sam
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: pausch@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 20:23:23 +0100
In article <32D3CBD7.53F59D97@alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Richard Mentock wrote:
>
>>> At best they sould be equivalent views.
>>
>> Ah, progress.
>
> I notice you still haven't addressed my question of what possible reason
> your have for asserting that starting from BC 1 Jan 1 is superior to
> starting from AD 1 Jan 1. There is no reason; it's arbitrary, and since it
> has already been defined as starting from AD 1, it makes no sense to change
> it.
Starting it at 1 AD is just as arbitrary.
There is one good reason to start it at 0 instead: then new centuries and
milennia will start when the years roll over from ...99 to ...00, which
seems nore natural.
> I could just as well declare that the first day of the first
> millennium is 1969 Jul 20; that doesn't make me any more correct than
> anyone else picking some weird, arbitrary day for the start of the
> millennium.
And -- more importantly -- very few, or nobody, would celebrate this
new milennium with you. If you instead say that the new milennium
starts at 1 Jan 2000, then you'll have company with a vast majority
of the world's population when celebrating this.
> Convention dictates that the first day of the first year was AD 1 Jan 1;
> this necessarily implies that the first day of the second millennium is
> 2001 Jan 1. If you don't like convention, invent your own calendar.
Another convention says that new centuries and milennia starts when
the years roll over from ...99 to ...00 -- this necessarily implies that
the first day of the first year was 1 Jan in the year 0.
>> You're saying that the "masses" have not thought this thing through?
>> Agreed. But my point (the only reason I've pressed this) is that
>> the *masses* are not as stupid as some people think they are.
>
> Getting something right for the wrong reasons does not classify as
> correct.
What's wrong with adapting to the actual customs of people?
Isn't this what science really is about: adapting your mathematical
models to reality, instead if claiming that your model, when it
disagrees with observations, is THE reality ???
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch@saaf.se psr@net.ausys.se paul@inorbit.com
WWW: http://www.raditex.se/~pausch/ http://spitfire.ausys.se:8003/psr/
Subject: Re: We Now Return You to the Civilization We Interrupted.
From: Don Dale
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 13:41:29 +0000
Michael Turton wrote:
>
> In your last post you asked me to put up or shut up, so here it is.
> All of the above data are incorrect. I finally had a chance today to go
> over to a bookstore here in Taipei and check out Needham. Needham's work,
> published in 1986 (the first sections of the gunpowder and weapons stuff)
> supersedes them all. The section on cannons begins on page 276 of vol. 5,
> no 7. of _Science and Civilization in China_. The earliest extant cannon
> he was able to find in China dates from 1288, obviously they must been
> developed even earlier (earlier ones may well be extant, but Needham
> couldn't visit *all* the museums in China). Those 14 century Westerners
> were truly amazing -- not only were they transmitting technology they
> hadn't developed, but they were sending it back in time too.
> Furthermore, in White's time a list, compiled in 1962, had already
> appeared with fourteenth century Chinese cannon dating from 1332, earlier
> than the cannon he lists (with the exception of the arrow-firing one).
> Handguns are plentiful in China from the 13th century on. The only trick
> is figuring out exactly when in the eleventh or twelfth century guns were
> developed in China, since the terminology changed more slowly than the
> technology. Gimpel cites White, a brilliant scholar who simply was not
> aware of all the scholarship of his own time and had no way of knowing what
> would come in the 70s and 80s when Needham began publishing.
Clue: Needham began publishing on Chinese technology in 1946 -- at least
that's the earliest reference I can find.
> I suggest that next time you go wading in such deep waters as
> East-West technological transmissions, you come equipped with a life
> preserver better than scholars regurgitating history which was out-of-date
> when it was written. Also, the next time you do something insulting like
> define "occidental" for a poster, you spell "Byzantine" correctly.
I suggest that the nest time you insult a poster regarding erroneous
dates of publication, you get your own dates straight.
Don
Subject: Re: Space colony - OK but how?
From: Dan Evens
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 17:07:11 -0500
DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <32D3E554.6BE0@hydro.on.ca>,
> Dan Evens wrote:
> >DaveHatunen wrote: (in reply to a post of mine)
> >> Typical western arrogance, confounding the western industrialized
> >> nations with the "global population".
> >
> >Which I did not do, as you would have seen had you actually been
> >awake during the reading of my post.
>
> I did read it. Were you asleep when you wrote it? To whit:
> ************************************************************
> DaveHatunen wrote:
> >
> > In article <5as50o$icm@nntp.interaccess.com>,
> > Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> > >The rate of growth of the global population is declining even without
> > >fancy tin cans in space. In another fifty years the growth rate
> > >should be even lower. It may even be negative. No space colonies
> > >are required, thank you.
> >
> > Now there's a leap of faith for you...
>
> A leap of faith is not required. A leap to your bookshelf
> to get yourself an almanac is required. I have two almanacs,
> one from a Canadian publisher, one from a USA publisher. Both
> state that births in western industrialized nations have
> fallen to the point that, if it were not for immigration,
> populations would be very close to constant, and maybe even
> falling a little. This in connection with the fact that
> life expectancies have been increasing quite strongly for
> the last century in those same countries is quite remarkable.
> ***************************************************************
>
> Note that in the first paragraph above you discuss the rate of growth
> of the *global* population. You then proceed to cite from almanacs
> regarding the westernindustrialized nations in support of your claim
> once I commented on it.
>
> However, the leap of faith is that today's trends will be true fifty
> years from now.
>
> --
>
> ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
> * Daly City California *
> * Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
> *******************************************************
Gronk! Wrongo! Learn to read. I said "births in western nations."
You snipped it, but I also said that births have not fallen in non-
industrial nations to the same extent. Narf! Pa-ting!
You might also have noticed, had you actually turned on your brain,
that "in the first paragraph above" I was *QUOTING*, not discussing.
Now if you actually paid any attention to what you were reading
instead of leading with your bias and ignorance, you might see
that what I was doing was providing extra information that is
quite relevant to the discussion. I did not in any sense at
any time say anything that could remotely be construed as
"confounding" global and western populations.
Further, the "however" paragraph you put up there is brand new.
If you meant to express concerns about applicability of trends
to the future, you ought to have done so instead of being a jerk
when people failed to read your mind.
There is quite good reason to believe the trends will apply to
the next 50 years. This is because the trend to decreasing
birth rates associated with increased technology and education
has already continued, in every country industrialization has
occured in, for more than a century. If human nature is such
that a phenomenon can be observed world wide for more than a
century, and you want to call it a leap of faith to suppose
human nature will not change radically so that it continues for
the next 50 years, so be it.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens
