Newsgroup sci.environment 114271

Directory

Mark Friesel (mfriesel@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I've never read Heinlein, but there is no difference between a properly 
: managed SS fund run by the government and a private fund, except that if 
: the government goes bankrupt the whole nation is in trouble, while if 
: the private firm goes bankrupt, only those expecting to get their social 
: security investment back lose.  I prefer the former.
Difference 1> if a privately managed firm goes bankrupt, it affects
a few thousand people. If a nation goes bankrupt, it affects hundreds of 
millions of people.
Difference 2> the government has little incentive to properly manage its 
assets. Private firms do. If gov't mismanages SS - and believe me, it has -
it still requires you by law to contribute. If a private firm mismanages
your assets, you take your money somewhere else. This competition is what
encourages private firms to do a better job.
How many private firms spend $600 for toilet seats? $2000 for coffepots?
: Certainly public control of government is a myth.  But then, divide and 
: conquer has always been an effective strategy if used judiciously.
-- 
Terry McIntyre     http://www.greenepa.net/~tmcintyr    tmcintyr@greenepa.net
     Libertarians Do It By Consent; Other Parties Do It By Force!
           http://www.lp.org/                 800-682-1776 

I am looking for information concerning  Stage II Gasoline Vapor
recovery systems, especially looking for manufacturers of such
equipment.

My Name is Tom Chappell
I am a graduate of Shippensburg University and I am looking for
employment. Anyone that knows where to look please let me know by EMAIL
at: tchappell@sprintmail.com
Any help would be appreciated. I am looking for work in the
environmental field around Central PA. I have sent out something like
440 resumes with no success, Probably because I do not have much
experience with Acad or GIS software. I do have the basics of ACAD 12
and ARC View 2.1 but it does not seem to be enough. I have used GIS
lists on the internet and they tend to turn out jobs I am not qualified
for or jobs in the UK or Australia. 
Thank You
Tom

Nuclear Electric's Haversham reactor site had a fire accident today
and that reactor site is reportedly shut down. Although no radioactives
were lost (according to news claims), a thorough investigation has been
ordered. It goes once again to prove that accidents happen despite the best
will, care and attention in the world, and money spent on procedures...
I have now uploaded a new class of robotics technology to
http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/nuclear.htm
Mirror http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar/nuclear.htm
that can deal with any kind of disaster - even something 10 times more
complex than Chernobyl. (If you have latest Netscape / Explorer you can
see animations as well.)
The technology uses fractal robots to reach parts where no other robots
can reach, and it has built in self repair which means they can be used
in evolving accidents.
Have fun!
*-------------------| http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk |-------------------*
|  Joseph Michael                  *    Robodyne Cybernetics Ltd         |
|  Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk         |    23 Portland Rise, London N4 2PT  |
|  Tel 0836 703945 (Mobile)        :    Tel 0181-800 9914 Fax 9915       |
*-----:  MIRROR -> http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar  :-----*

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
....
> 
> For this reason, premise one must be wrong, and technological advances
> do not necessarily lead to industrialization.
> 
I reply:
Very nice, Harold.  Oops - didn't mean to compliment anyone on the net.  
Please ignore this.
Mark Friesel

The moving finger of Dennis Nelson  having
written:
>Where and when did vitrification get proved as a technology?  
BNFL, at Sellafield, if anywhere
Does anyone more knowledgable care to comment on how advanced BNFL
currently are, and whether their vitrification technology could
provide a useful solution for Hanford ?
--
Smersh Spamionem

snark@swcp.com wrote:
> 
> The WSJ reports today (Jan. 9) on a new vaccine for malaria.  The
> results are in this weeks New England Journal of Medicine.  6 out of 7
> volunteers (to be bitten by infected mosquitoes) who had taken the
> particular vaccine did not develop malaria.  All 6 of the controls (no
> vaccine) did, as did most of the others who had a different vaccine.
> 
> SmithKline and Walter Reed hope to do field clinical trials in West
> Africa soon.
> 
> snark
Hot D*n!! I'm a prophet!!!!!!  The next Powerball winning numbers will 
be ....  8^)
Mark Friesel

Greg Ebling wrote:
: In a world where half the human population is hungry, and where there
: are much more serious environmental problems with the potential for
: long-term devastation (soil degradation etc), the ozone hole is, by
: comparison, a storm in a teacup.
  I have some sympathy for this. The most crucial environmental
 issue facing the planet is human over-population. There are simply
 too many of us. It's almost trite to point this out, and a short
 leap to the conclusion that our collective impact is the root
 cause of most if not all of the environmentall 'crisis' we face.
  But that doesn't alter the nature of the ozone hole problem. This is
 something we can -- and have -- done something about. That there
 are other problems in the world doesn't mean we should ignore this one.
--
  =====================================================================
     Paul Brown                                     ^..^
     pbrown@postgres.Berkeley.EDU                   (oo)  -  Oink!
     #include 
            "Think global - act loco!" - Zippy the Pinhead
  =====================================================================

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> I note that Dave Braun has spent more time expressing suspicion of
> _Extinction Rates_ than a trip to the library or bookstore would take.
> 
> It occurs to me to recall that I got the book from the library,
> because Alan McGowen, a biodiversity enthusiast who posted here a lot
> and criticized me a lot, recommended it.  Then I got my own copy in
> order to have a record of what extinctions are actually occurring.
> 
The great majority of extinctions are of species not yet known to man.
Great numbers are going extinct before they are ever discovered, so you
can't know "what extinctions are actually occuring", but can make
numerical projections based on knowledge of rainforest biology.

Two recycling investment forums are scheduled in early 1997.  The forums
introduce selected private recycling companies seeking additional equity
capital to investors and economic developers.  They feature keynote speakers
trends and opportunities for investment and entrepreneurship in the
recycling industry.  The events are as follows:
________________________________________________________________________
SOUTHEASTERN RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM    February 10-11, 1997 
Charleston, SC  Francis Marion Hotel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizers: SC Recycling Market Development Advisory Council with KirkWorks,
the NC Recycling Business Assistance Center, and the Southern States Waste
Management Coalition.  Contact Shelly Carson, SC DOC at 803/737-3622 or 
David Kirkpatrick, KirkWorks at dkirkwks@igc.org, 919/220-8065.
Information and the registration brochure are available at the website: 
http://www.state.sc.us/commerce/recycle/srifmenu.htm 
CURRENTLY ACCEPTING REGISTRATIONS FROM INVESTORS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPERS.
Registration fee: $150 by January 15 and $175 after January 15.
________________________________________________________________________
NORTHEAST RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM    May 15-16, 1997 
New York City, NY  Consolidated Edison Building 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizers: Northeast Recycling Council with the Mid-Atlantic Consortium
of Recycling & Economic Development Officials, KirkWorks, and Silby,
Guffy & Co., Inc.  Contact Mary Ann Remolador at the Northeast Recycling
Council at mremolad@sover.net or 802/254-3636.
CURRENTLY ACCEPTING BUSINESS APPLICATIONS AND BUSINESS PLANS BY 
January 24 for a registration discount or by February 14 final date.
________________________________________________________________________
Please excuse any cross postings.  Please forward this message to any investors,
economic developers, recycling entrepreneurs, listserves, or newsgroups that
you think may be interested.  Thank you for your help in fostering investment
in the recycling industry!

The Giddings wrote:
> Programming aside, I can't think of any convention that starts counting
> with zero. Does a baby celebrate its zeroth birthday?
The baby doesn't celebrate its first birthday until it has lived for one
year. Until then it is zero years old.  The Xtian calendar starts out at
1 and at the end of the first year switches to 2.
 Is the day after
> Dec. 31 Jan. 0?
No. So we complete the first ten days of the year when the calendar
changes to January 11.
 Do you know any buildings with a zeroth floor? Is the
> first serial number on a manufaturer's plate  "0000000". Where is
> channel zero on my TV? There is an arbitrariness to it, but there is a
> lot of linguistic momentum as well.
> 
> > 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.
It may well seem more natural.  Unfortunately, it is a fact that the
Xtian era begins at AD 1 and not AD 0.  Unless we are going to go back
and change all the recorded dates by knocking off a year ( so that this
year is the real 1996) we just have to live with this fact.  2000 years
from the start of the Xtian era will not be completed until Dec 31,
2000.
PETE

On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 14:46:24 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
wrote:
> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 18:47:04 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
> >wrote:
> >> 
> >> I would say the primary contrast is that Hanson tries to use
> >> thermodynamics to support his view of an economy.  He has thus proven
> >> simply that he knows little of either.
> >> 
> >  Of all the posts and paragraphs Jay Hanson has published, 
> >  including his own writing and others,   what percentage make 
> >  any reference to entropy?
> 
> Do you really keep track of Hanson so closely that you even have the
> slightest idea what proportion of his posts are concerned with his
> erroneous ideas on entropy?
  Yes. Hanson's collection is at  csf.colorado.edu  and he has a mailing list.
>  If so, I am uncertain whether to laugh at
> you or feel sorry for you for you dedication to something.  I don't
> know what.  
 Sorry you're in such a state.  Can I help?
> 
> If you think there is any chance I would be willing to read all of
> Jay's postings, I will have to disabuse you of this notion.
> 
No one reads all of Jay's postings.  No need to disabuse me.
> >  The entropy stuff is crap but it's interesting to see people 
> >  jump on this.  Tells me they don't have other good arguments 
> >  to make regarding the huge mass of testimony by real 
> >  professionals in the environmental fields.
> 
> You seem to be saying that because I criticize Jay re his "crap" about
> entropy, I have no reasoned response to "real professionals".
> 
Present your reasoned responses.  But to do so, you must read some 
of the real professional articles that Jay provides.
> I would have to note that, since you responded to my post, you clearly
> have no good arguments to make regarding the huge mass of testimony
> contradicting the "real professionals" who you admire.
> 
You could be very helpful by providing a collection of the huge mass of
testimony contradicting the "real professionals."  This would be the 
best answer to Jay Hanson.  At least a bibliography.
I'll make you a deal.  If you don't have a web page, I'll post your 
collection on the web, with cross-reference to Hanson's.  That would 
be a good resource.  Perhaps it's been done; if anyone knows, please 
tell us.
> Why do you feel the need then to defend Jay?
> 
Because of the paucity of sense among his attackers.
-----------------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
  http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
  http://www.netcom.com/~masonc (slow,wait)
Vickery on the "Deficit" and notes on Vickrey
  http://www.netcom.com/~masonc/vickrey.html
  http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210/vickrey.html
 The Boskin report on the CPI, itself and links:
   http://www.naz.com/personal/masonc/boskin.html
---------------------------------------------------

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
> In article <32D473D4.674FA941@alcyone.com>,
> Erik Max Francis   wrote:
> 
> > Richard Mentock wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter how many people think
> > that the new millennium starts on 2000 Jan 1.  It's a question of
> > how the historical system of dating is defined, and has been used
> > for centuries.  And by that reckoning, the new millennium starts
> > on 2001 Jan 1, not 2000.
> 
> You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter how a minority in their
> ivory towers defines the new milennium, based on an obsolete number
> system.  It's a question of how new centuries actually have been
> celebrated for centuries, and how the new milennium _will_ be
> celebrated by a vast majority of the world's population.  And by that
> reckoning, the new millennium starts on 2000 Jan 1, not 2001.
I accept that most people will celebrate the supposed millenium on Jan 1
2000.  The changing of the digits from 9's to 0's is much more
impressive than the adding of a '1' the following year. This does not,
however , make 2000 the true millenium, since at this date only 1999
years will have elapsed since the start of the Xtian era in AD 1.  It's
not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.  The years are there -
count them!
PETE

Please forgive the duplication caused by cross-posting of the following 
to
several newsgroups.  Please feel free to forward
this posting to any individual, list  or newsgroup that would be 
interested in it.
The University of Idaho Library announces the availability of issue six, 
December 1996 of the ELECTRONIC GREEN JOURNAL (ISSN: 1076-7975),
a professional refereed  publication devoted to disseminating information
concerning sources on international environmental topics including:  
assessment, conservation, development, disposal, education, hazards,
pollution, resources, technology, and treatment.
Environmental issues frequently cross national borders; therefore, our
journal encourages the international sharing of environmental
expertise. The journal serves communities as an educational
environmental resource, and includes both practical and scholarly
articles, bibliographies, reviews, editorial comments, and
announcements.  We are academically sponsored; however, our focus is for 
the educated generalist as well as the specialist.
Preferred access to the journal is on the Worldwide Web. Point your
browser to:
   http://www.lib.uidaho.edu:70/docs/egj.html
The journal is also available by ftp:
   anonymous ftp:  www.lib.uidaho.edu (directory: /pub/egj)
PLEASE NOTE: gif files (graphics) must be ftp-ed in BINARY mode
Subscriptions are also available by email.  ASCII text versions of the
contents of the journal will be emailed to subscribers.  To subscribe,
email to:
  MAJORDOMO@UIDAHO.EDU
with the following in the body of the message:
  subscribe egj your_email_address (substitute your preferred email
address here)
Or, to receive announcements and tables of contents of new issues,
email to:
  MAJORDOMO@UIDAHO.EDU
with the following in the body of the message:
  subscribe egjtoc your_email_address (substitute your preferred email
address here)
Original contributions from authors are welcome.  Guidelines for authors
are available on the WWW site and from the editors.  Send contributions,
advertisements, requests for guidelines, or requests for any other 
information
about the journal to:
Mike Pollastro, mikep@uidaho.edu
Contents of Issue 6, December 1996 include Environmental Book Publishing: 
Trends and Tendencies; Fish Mortality in Bangalore Lakes, India; Stoss
on Environmental Information; Expanding the Capacity of the Public
Library: Partnerships with Community Based Environmental Groups; 
a report on The Wildlife Society (TWS) GIS Annual Remote Sensing Meeting;
Environmental Resources; The Ecocruiser; and nine book reviews.

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
> In article <32D2808F.3AF8E3AF@alcyone.com>,
> Erik Max Francis   wrote:
> 
> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >
> >> If you want to mumble the mantra "...there was no year zero...", ok,
> >> but this changes nothing:
> >>
> >> FYI:  traditionally Christ was born in 1 BC, not in AD 1 !!!!!!
> >
> > Then your argument falls apartment.  If Christ is born BC 1 Dec 25 (or 0
> > Dec 25 if you prefer), then the first year started on AD 1 Jan 1.  Correct?
> 
> Not quite -- the first year AFTER CHRIST'S (traditional) BIRTH started
> at 1.  There were many years before that year...
> 
> > In that case, then the one thousandth year started one thousand years after
> > that date, or on AD 1001 Jan 1.  Then the two thousandth year, the start of
> > the second millennium, starts on 2001 Jan 1.  You just made the point you
> > were trying to disprove.
> 
> I don't know how you count, but I would count like this:
> 
>      1st year         AD 1       (you agreed on this one!)
Completion of one year: Dec 31 AD 1
Start of second year: Jan 1 AD2
>      2nd year         AD 2
> ...............................
>    999th year         AD 999
>   1000th year         AD 1000
Completion of 1000 years:  Dec 31 AD 1000
Start of second millenium: Jan 1 AD 1001.
>   1001th year         AD 1001
> ...............................
>   1999th year         AD 1999
>   2000th year         AD 2000
Completion of 2000 years: Dec 31 AD 2000
Start of third millenium: Jan 1 AD 2001
>   2001th year         AD 2001
> ...............................
>   et cetera

Sam Hall wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:12:31 -0700, Jim  wrote:
> 
> >Sam Hall wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So how would you feel about a law to grant indigenous land rights to
> >> >> >amazon indians, and keep settlers, loggers, and miners out of their
> >> >> >territory?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know enough about the situation to say. However, I wonder if
> >> >> your purpose is more to protect the rainforest than the Indians. Would
> >> >> you prohibit them from clear cutting or similar activities, should
> >> >> they advance that far?
> >> >>
> >> >> I will comment that providing reservations for the Indians in the US
> >> >> has not worked very well, nor has the state of Israel been an unmixed
> >> >> blessing.
> >> >
> >> >Such a law would protect the rainforests as well as the indian societies
> >> >within them from the western economy, as indians are masters of
> >> >sustainable use.
> >>
> >> Somebody called me uncivilized, but what you are proposing is inhuman.
> >> Those indians have a _very_  poor lifestyle.  Forcing those people,
> >> and their descendants, to forgo any improvement in their standard of
> >> living is terrible.What you are calling sustainable use is really
> >> subsistence living. I guess that you really do value the jungle (to
> >> give it it's true name) more than people.
> >
> >You don't understand the situation. Indian representative groups are
> >currently fighting legal battles against the government and
> >multinational corporations to acquire ownership of their land. There was
> >recently a posting about an amazon conflict in alt.save.the.earth.
> >Bloody conflicts between indians and encroaching settlers are common.
> >What I propose is a proclamation to finally grant indians legal
> >ownership of the land they have inhabited for centuries, sometimes
> >milleniums, and giving them the right to keep out loggers, miners, and
> >settlers. That would hardly be "forcing them to forgo" anything.
> 
> Is the proposal to give them _full_ rights to the land, or would there
> be deed restrictions? For example, would they be able to mine the land
> if they wished? How about selling house lots to outsiders?
> 
Full legal rights. Indian culture is different from ours. Mining and
selling land are both foreign concepts to them, based on what translated
statements I've seen. I doubt that indians would ever practice the vary
activities they currently battle. In fact, the whole notion of
"progress" does not play in their thinking, as it does in ours. The
following is a translation of a statement made by a S.E. Asian indian
representative. The "blockades" they refer to are indians literally
joining hands across the logging roads to keep out timber companies.
"Almost all the forest reserve of the Penan are gone. The river water
has become more silted especially during the rainy season like at
present...When we set up blockades from June to October 1987 the
situation became a little better. The river water was beginning to
clear. Forest destruction stopped temporarily...many police and soldiers
came with helicopters and weapons. We say that the problems of the Penan
make the Penan set blockades. Penans want the land and forest of their
ancestors. The police and soldiers reply that there are new laws. If we
do not open our blockades, we will be caught and sent to prison. We
Penans do not want to fight with force. We do not want families and
village people getting hurt. When the police and soldiers opened the
blockade, we did not resist. When we seek the help of the police they do
not come. When the company asks, they police come and stay near our
village for a long time. Why is the new law so harsh? We want laws that
help us. But the new law is most disappointing. We are not being killed
by weapons, but when our lands are taken, it is the same as killing us."

Dennis Nelson wrote:
> 
> Sam McClintock wrote:
> >
> > David has an important point here for those that are actually reading
> > the material.  I don't believe he is claiming that a cement kiln is a
> > relatively clean source.  It isn't and a facility with two large kilns
> > can emit a substantial amount of pollution - NOx, VOCs, CO, SO2, and
> > particulates even though most sources are controlled for particulate
> > emissions (we generally talk about a several thousand tons per year of
> > criteria pollutants from one cement facility).  But a cement kiln will
> > not generally show worse emissions by burning hazardous waste.  In some
> > cases, such as burning high BTU haz or tire waste, the facility
> > actually shows a DECREASE in its pollutant emissions - because you are
> > substituting for coal.
> 
> My problem with cement kilns is that they receive special treatment under
> the law because they are classified as recyclers because they use the
> waste heat to produce cement.  They therefor do not have the same requirements
> for monitoring and minimizing releases as do hazardous waste incinerators,
> even though they are burning the same things.  Both facilities should have
> the same requirements to meet in minimizing effluents.
This is a myth fabricated by the incineration industry and some
environmental groups. Check out the 195 pages of 40CFR part 266 vs 4
pages of part 264 subpart O.  Commercial incinerators don't even have
metal limits in the current regulations.  Nor are cement kilns
classified as recyclers.  They are BIFs. How do you require a cement
kiln to minimize effluents like an incinerator?  As has been said before
they exist as a source wether or not they burn waste.  All emissions
from incinerators are from the waste combustion.  If incinerators were
required to have the net impact that a cement kiln does burning waste
they would all be shut down.
> 
> The other problem that I almost never see mentioned on the net is that cement
> kilns produce huge amounts of CO2.  In addition to the CO2 produced from burning
> the fuel, i.e. coal or oil, there is also the CO2 derived from the decomposition
> of CaCO3 ----> CaO + CO2.  Thus cement kilns produce a double whammy in the
> global warming cycle.
While this is technically true there are a few points of interest. Some
studies have shown that construction with cement vs other materials such
as iron and wood have the smallest net impact on the environment.  No
one, to my knowledge, has come up with a viable substitute for Portland
cement in construction.  Cement, over time, reabsorbs a portion of that
CO2, that was one of the problems in the Biosphere II project.  As a
percent of the total contributions to global CO2 I believe cement kilns
are in the single digits.  Finally you just made another case for
burning waste in cement kilns since there is no net increase in CO2
production vs incineration which will necessarily increase CO2.  In fact
pound for pound waste produces less CO2 than coal combustion so there
may be a very small decrease.
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
| David Gossman             | Solutions for the Environment |
| President                 |        GCI Solutions          |
| Gossman Consulting, Inc.  |   http://gcisolutions.com     |
| dgossman@concentric.net   |                               |
 -----------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Mark Friesel wrote:
> Harold Brashears wrote:
> > 
> .......
> > 
> > As for the shakers, I doubt they will be remembered for anything but
> > their beautiful furniture.
> 
> I note:
> 
> Fortunately, we have people called 'historians' who make it possible for 
> future generations to learn a great deal about the Shakers, and decide 
> for themselves what is and is not important to remember.
> 
> You continue:
> ......
> > 
> > You just go right along and have all the artistic, intellectual and
> > religious motivations you wish.  I think those can serve to strengthen
> > a culture.  If the culture does not allow self perpetuation, though,
> > it will be forgotten, and eventually have no impact, or an impact
> > which will not ever be known.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Partly true IMO.  The part about art and intellectual motivations 
> certainly.  The latter part is false.  The real shortcoming of groups 
> which do not allow reproduction is, if everyone followed this dictum, 
> the human race would cease to exist hence it cannot be part of a 
> successful universal philosophy.  It does not mean that other aspects of 
> the culture will or should have no impact.
> 
Also, for the tribes within various countries in Amazonia, the surrounding
countries have had the capability to both recognize and enforce tribal
land borders, and innoculate the natives against many introduced diseases.
The degree to which they have failed, and continue to do so is a
measure of complicity in genocide.  Apparently, Brashears believes that 
these native cultures should build there own universities, train their own
doctors, and buy and use their own medical services.  Lucky for these
tribes, the rest of the world does not neccessarily abide by Brashear's
cold calculus. This calculus is both inhumane and downright stupid. For
example, the ethnobotanical knowledge, and primary forests it is grounded
in, are lost as well---and will never benefit the rest of us. We can all
feel that this is simply a natural progression of strong culture over
weak.  Yea, right.
		Dave Braun
> 
> You continue:
> 
> (re: the asteroid impact hypothesis)
> 
> > 
> > What it would prove is that the culture of the Roman Empire could not
> > protect its citizens from an asteroid impact.  Thank you for the
> > example, but I am surprised that you participated to the extent of
> > providing one, even if inadvertently.
> > 
> 
> I note:
> 
> Since no other culture could either, the example does illustrate why 
> environmentalism is actually conservative, not liberal.  Such an event 
> could, however, cause a strong culture to vanish and allow a weak one to 
> become strong.  'Strong' and 'weak' must be used with care IMO.
> 
> You continue:
> 
> ....
> 
> > 
> > Disease resistance is not by chance, not any more anyway.  The effects
> > of disease can be mitigated by medical knowledge, if the culture is
> > one which acts to encourage the increase of medical knowledge.  I am
> > forced to thank you for another good example, one which I did not
> > think of.  You compliment this argument quite well.
> > 
> 
> I note:
> 
> Certainly disease resistance is still by chance - we cannot cause 
> children to be born with high disease resistance, our interest in 
> medical knowledge notwithstanding.  Maybe next century things will be 
> otherwise, maybe not.  Projections mean little, and out culture may 
> prove to be unequal to the task.  Current indications are that we will 
> lose much of what we've already gained through carelessness, bad 
> planning, or an an inability to make treatment affordable, again IMO.  
> Perhaps the Japanese are a stronger culture.
> 
> Mark Friesel
> 
> 

GREEN MOUNTAIN TAKES AN
ENVIRONMENTAL STANCE IN N.H.
     Green Mountain Energy Partners (GMEP), the retail marketing
partnership that includes Hydro-Quebec and Green Mountain Power
(see WIND ENERGY WEEKLY #696, May 6, 1996), has staked out a
strong pro-environment position in New Hampshire's retail
wheeling pilot program with an electricity product that it bills
as 98.5% greenhouse-gas-free.
     "What does 'green' really mean?" GMEP asks in a proposal to
the town of Epsom, N.H.  "For [GMEP], it means only 1.5% of the
electricity we're supplying for the New Hampshire pilot project
is made from sources that generate greenhouse gases.  Those are
the gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, that cause global warming. 
Primary sources of these gases include fossil fuels such as coal,
oil, and gas."
     The New Hampshire pilot project is the first in the nation
to "test-drive" the concept of open competition at the retail
level among electric power suppliers.  The roughly 17,000
customers taking part are being wooed by dozens of utilities from
within the state and elsewhere.  Another limited, slightly
smaller retail wheeling trial will begin soon in Illinois.
     GMP director of corporate relations William K. Porter said
in an interview May 28 that GMEP has "gotten a good response"
from customers, although "no one has all the numbers yet."
     GMEP's marketing materials include the slogan "Choose
wisely--it's a small planet," and are decorated with graphics of
pine cones and seedlings.  The company explains that 97% of the
power it will be selling in New Hampshire comes from hydropower,
the dominant source of electricity on the Hydro-Quebec system. 
Of the remaining 3%, it says, about half comes from nuclear power
and the remainder from fossil fuels.
     GMEP's prices also appear competitive.  Companies competing
in the New Hampshire pilot are offering power only, under the
ground rules established by the state's Public Utilities
Commission (PUC).  According to the PUC, the cost of delivery and
overhead is approximately 7.5 cents/kWh and is not included in
the trial.  Companies may offer power for anywhere between zero
and "about 3.5 cents/kWh," Porter said.  GMEP's product is priced
at 2.6 cents/kWh, with further volume discounts to 2.47 cents/kWh
if a certain minimum number of customers in a given geographical
area sign up with the company.
     In addition, GMEP offers "EcoCredits" to customers who take
various energy-saving actions, such as filling out a home energy
analysis questionnaire that identifies possible areas for
conservation.  "EcoCredits," the company says, "can be used to
purchase energy savings products, such as compact fluorescent
lighting and water-saving devices, to be offered by [GMEP], or as
cash equivalent to pay your electricity bill."  For business
customers, GMEP offers a straight $75 discount off the
approximately $200 cost of a professional energy efficiency
review.
     "Green Mountain Energy Partners," the company concludes,
"will:
o    Deliver energy choices that protect the environment.
o    Enhance your business competitiveness through initiatives
     that support energy efficiency.
o    Offer small-town, personalized service.
o    Be your advocate and partner for clean energy solutions that
     deliver reliability and savings."
_______________________________________________________________________________
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted (from a back issue), at no cost.
For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back
issues, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable energy,
energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The
electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length. 
The free electronic edition of the _Weekly_ is intended as an educational
publication for those without a commercial interest in the wind energy 
industry.  If your interest in wind is commercial in nature, please write to
 for more information about AWEA membership and
publications.
If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization, and
reason for interest in the publication. 
____________________________________________________________________________
Tom Gray 					          tomgray@econet.org
____________________________________________________________________________
Support renewable energy!  Visit the Electronic Lobbyist for
Renewable Energy Web Site: 
	http://www.serve.com/stevie2/doorway.html

I've uploaded technology about a Genesis Device to
http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/teraform.htm
Mirror http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar/teraform.htm
Basically this machine can be used to terraform planets the moon etc
and cheapen access into space.
A project to do colonise the Moon cheaply can be found at
http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/omega.htm
Mirror http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar/omega.htm
Locating this technology on the Moon cheapens space access because
gravity is 1/6th which means your requirements for resources such
as fuel is far less than a space program based on launching from the
Earth.
This technology will allow resources to me mined from different planets
and moons ultimately and could save planet Earth from over exploitation
if used wisely.
Comments and feedback welcome.
.--------------------.                        .--------------------------.
|  Joe Michael        \______________________/  Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk  |
:                                            \__________________________/:
|  Futuristic  .  Shocking  .  Mind Blowing  .  Shape Changing Robots    |
:-------.                                                                :
|        \         http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/                       |
`---------+--------------------------------------------------------------'

Edmond Wollmann  wrote:
>Even IF he was born at 12am on 0 BCE it still would not come out right
>because of the time errors in ANY calandar just about we still would
>arrive earlier than calandars and clocks say as we would lose time as
>the years have gone by. This thread is so irrlevant that I can't
>understand how its gone this long. 
It would have ended last week if it hadn't been for the
backpressure of all those leap seconds.
JoAnne Schmitz
jschmitz@qis.net

Terry McIntyre wrote:
> 
.....
> 
> Difference 1> if a privately managed firm goes bankrupt, it affects
> a few thousand people. If a nation goes bankrupt, it affects hundreds of
> millions of people.
I reply:
Exactly my point.  Since so many people are affected there will be 
greater political pressure to have it run properly, or if it's not to 
have payments made anyway.  It's a political hot potato now, while if 
privately run the CEO's would take the cash, say 'too bad', and leave.  
And that's only one of the problems.
You continue:
> 
> Difference 2> the government has little incentive to properly manage its
> assets. Private firms do. If gov't mismanages SS - and believe me, it has -
> it still requires you by law to contribute. If a private firm mismanages
> your assets, you take your money somewhere else. This competition is what
> encourages private firms to do a better job.
I note:
Your assuming a lot about private institutions that doesn't jive with 
reality.  You may notice that you can't get much improvement on your 
insurance by moving from one company to another, you cannot get much 
savings on gasoline by changing brands.  Sure you can take it somewhere 
else, no it won't do you any good.
You continue:
> 
> How many private firms spend $600 for toilet seats? $2000 for coffepots?
I reply:
Take a look at the Glaxo Pharmaceuticals hallways and corporate offices 
if you want to see how your drug money is spent.  Take a look at the 
salaries of insurance company CEO's if you want to see why your premiums 
are so high.  Watch Exxon managers fly to work in their private 
helicopters from their offshore estates to see where your gas money 
goes.  At least the toilet seat and coffepot money is distributed.
Mark Friesel

Tamy Guy wrote:
> 
> I am looking for information concerning  Stage II Gasoline Vapor
> recovery systems, especially looking for manufacturers of such
> equipment.
John Zink Co., would be a good place to start.
The EPA web site would also be a source of the standard.
http:\\wwwttn.rtpnc.epa.gov
A petroleum page is at 
http://www.petromin.com
plus you might contact your local air pollution control agency.

Jim  writes:
>Sam Hall wrote:
>> Is the proposal to give them _full_ rights to the land, or would there
>> be deed restrictions? For example, would they be able to mine the land
>> if they wished? How about selling house lots to outsiders?
>> 
>Full legal rights. Indian culture is different from ours. Mining and
>selling land are both foreign concepts to them, based on what translated
>statements I've seen. I doubt that indians would ever practice the vary
>activities they currently battle. In fact, the whole notion of
>"progress" does not play in their thinking, as it does in ours. 
This is an incredibly naive statement, reflecting the assumption that
Indian society will never change, there will be no desire among Indians
to change their lifestyle and, consequently, there will never be an 
incentive to sell their capital.
In fact, experience with traditional societies indicates otherwise.
In Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands there is a serious problem
of deforestation on tribal land: tribal people are selling their forests
to logging companies for a pittance, in blissful ignorance of the 
consequences.  Land is also being sold, and mining approvals are being
negotiated.  The only limitation on the exploitation of tribal people
is government regulation: catching up with the modern world is proving
very alluring and tricky at the same time.
George Antony

Two recycling investment forums are scheduled in early 1997.  The forums
introduce selected private recycling companies seeking additional equity
capital to investors and economic developers.  They feature keynote 
speakers
trends and opportunities for investment and entrepreneurship in the
recycling industry.  The events are as follows:
________________________________________________________________________SOUTHEASTERN RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM    February 10-11, 1997 
Charleston, SC  Francis Marion Hotel
------------------------------------------------------------------------Organizers: SC Recycling Market Development Advisory Council with 
KirkWorks,
the NC Recycling Business Assistance Center, and the Southern States 
Waste
Management Coalition.  Contact Shelly Carson, SC DOC at 803/737-3622 or 
David Kirkpatrick, KirkWorks at dkirkwks@igc.org, 919/220-8065.
Information and the registration brochure are available at the website: 
http://www.state.sc.us/commerce/recycle/srifmenu.htm 
CURRENTLY ACCEPTING REGISTRATIONS FROM INVESTORS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPERS.
Registration fee: $150 by January 15 and $175 after January 15.
________________________________________________________________________NORTHEAST RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM    May 15-16, 1997 
New York City, NY  Consolidated Edison Building 
------------------------------------------------------------------------Organizers: Northeast Recycling Council with the Mid-Atlantic Consortium
of Recycling & Economic Development Officials, KirkWorks, and Silby,
Guffy & Co., Inc.  Contact Mary Ann Remolador at the Northeast Recycling
Council at mremolad@sover.net or 802/254-3636.
CURRENTLY ACCEPTING BUSINESS APPLICATIONS AND BUSINESS PLANS BY 
January 24 for a registration discount or by February 14 final date.
________________________________________________________________________
Please excuse any cross postings.  Please forward this message to any 
investors,
economic developers, recycling entrepreneurs, listserves, or newsgroups 
that
you think may be interested.  Thank you for your help in fostering 
investment
in the recycling industry!

Sam McClintock wrote:
> 
> 
> Ohh, this is cold, going to force me to write against an industry that
> pays some of my salary.  Well, here goes my contract bids for the next
> two years.
> 
> Knowing a little bit :<) about who you work for, and knowing that I
> work for some of the same people from time to time, I think we need to
> be a little more straightforward about cement kiln emissions in
> general.
> 
> 1.  There has been no real improvement in active measures to control
> criteria emissions in the last decade.
Not true for many of my clients.  I have seen multimillion dollar
investments in better particulate controls.  It has become a zero sum
game that produces little net impact, particularly considering nearby
dirt roads.  Many plants have more affectively reduced emissions by
paving roads and running street sweepers around their plants.
> Some of the decreases in the
> last decade are a result of better accounting and/or monitoring of
> these sources. 
true but isn't that EPA's problem and wasn't industry taken to task even
with the bad numbers?
> There have been no active measures to decrease NOx,
not true - a lot of work has gone into reduced NOx burners - the problem
is that more modern cement manufacturing technology which reduces fuel
consumption and some other pollutants actually increases NOx.  The
result has largely been no net improvement for this parameter.  I'm sure
the industry would be interested in how you might reduce NOx while still
obtaining the 2700F temps required to make cement clinker. If you know
I'ld like to talk to you about a marketing agreement.
> and
> if the number of kilns were held constant, then the ONLY change in NOx
> emissions would have come from accounting unless it was an increase.
> Beyond process control and fuel input changes made 10-20 years ago,
> most cement kilns make no active attempt to control VOCs, NOx, SO2, or
> CO.
There are a small number of plants that have set up active controls of
SOx (ex in Maine and CA), but the systems are very expensive and still
considered experimental.  A plant in Michigan is spending big dollars to
develop experimental VOC controls and one in Colorado, because of a
unique design and raw material feature, nearly eliminated VOCs.  Some
other plants primarily in the midwest are actively experimenting with
raw material substitutes to decrease VOCs.  Part of the difficulty is
that VOCs do not come from the fuel combustion but rather out of the
limestone and shale that make up most plants' raw materials.  Some
plants have single digit ppm levels of VOCs others hundreds of ppm.  It
is entirely raw material dependent.  Trucking cleaner raw material to a
plant produces more transportaion related pollution than it saves. CO is
also mostly raw material, not fuel, related.
> 
> 2.  Even though cement kiln emissions have decreased since the 70's
> (lower sulfur in fuel, better process control, use of baghouses), they
> still pollute a hell of a lot.  On your web site you compared national
> impacts, but you said (conveniently) nothing about local impacts. 
historically most local impacts were from particulate.  Dispersion
modeling and local ambient studies rarely show any impact. A major study
in Texas where 3 cement plants with I think 8 kilns are all within a few
miles of each other failed to show any negative health impact.
> In
> general, each large cement kiln will produce about (these numbers are
> only general and do not reflect the performance of any one kiln;
> performance in any one criteria emission rate will vary by operator,
> kiln design, fuel sources, and total operating hours):
> 
>  1500 tons/yr NOx
>  1000 tons/yr SO2
>   100 tons/yr CO
>   100 tons/yr VOCs
>   120 tons/yr PM-10
Compared with 500,000 to 1,000,000 tons of product produced. About 0.5%
relative to production.  Without having any idea, how does that compare
with other commodities?  And I'd bet that product transportation related
pollution is bigger - any idea?
> 
> Sam "submarine his industrial bids" McClintock
> scmcclintock@ipass.net
My experience in the industry is that they are generally willing to try
just about anything to decrease emissions.  I have been involved in both
successful experiments and failures - none of which were cheap.  I am
relatively certain that any good ideas for reduction of emissions in the
cement industry will be seriously considered by someone.  Once a
technology is proven at a few plants it is typically adopted by the rest
of the industry.  One qualification, cement plants because of
differences in design and raw materials are each very unique
operations.  Sometimes what works at one plant does not work at others.
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
| David Gossman             | Solutions for the Environment |
| President                 |        GCI Solutions          |
| Gossman Consulting, Inc.  |   http://gcisolutions.com     |
| dgossman@concentric.net   |                               |
 -----------------------------------------------------------

Dan Evens wrote:
.....
> 
> This is largely an effect of govt action in the market rather
> than collusion among petrol suppliers.
I reply;
You're right.  The same is true of the Gulf War.  Petrol suppliers have 
been influencing government for their own benefit for years. 
You continue:
.....
> 
> Again, this is largely a result of govt action in the market
> rather than collusion among drug providers.
> 
Again you're right.  These industries are some of the influence peddling 
heavies.
Mark Friesel

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
> In article <32D48626.3ABA@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Giddings   wrote:
> 
> > Juha Mensola wrote:
> >
> >> Not necessarily, because scientist are not all agreeing with the 6 BC. The
> >> birth of Jesus has been dated between 6 BC and 9 AD. (if I remember the
> >> years correctly).
> >
> > By the Gregoran calendar, perhaps, but I wonder what year was actually
> > on Jesus' birth  certificate?
> 
> No need to worry about that.  Birth certificates seems to be special to
> the U.S., and there was no U.S. around back then.  Very likely there
> were no equivalent to birth certificates either....
So I guess my plan to visit the Bethlehem town hall would be a waste of 
time... ;)
All the same, at that time, what did they call the year? I have heard of 
a Jewish calendar that would have been around 3,000 at the time. Was 
there also a Roman calendar? What are these centered on?

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
> "D. Braun"  wrote:
> 
> [edited]
> 
> >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. 
> 
> You are going to get rebel factions to agree to disarmnment?  Who will
> you negoiatate with in the PLO or the IRA?
I didn't say that. We would negotiate with the major powers, to get them
to agree to disamament.
> 
> When we get down to the final few nuclear weapons, how much faith do
> you have in, say, the North Korean government?  Will you consent to
> destroying yours first, in faith that the North Korean (or Chinese)
> leaders will then destroy their last ones?
> 
> Do you trust the Chinese to not hide any nuclear weapons, say in the
> suitcases you mention?  Do you trust the US government to destroy all
> of their weapons, when they have legitimate reason to worry about, say
> Syria, keeping theirs?
I guess you would be a good negotiator, for the "bad cop" role.  
> [edited]
> 
> Regards, Harold
> ----
> "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a 
> chance of saving the world ecologically.   I think it's 
> possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.
> I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
>      - Judi Barry, Earth First,"Policy Review", Jonathon Adler,
> 	summer 1992
> 
> 

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
: eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
: 
: >During normal operation they release a few grams of radioactive noble
: 
: Which go on to decay into nuceotides that are known heath hazards.
Do you have any idea how may nuceotides (sic) are floating around in your 
house and how this compares to living on the border of a commercial 
plant?  Please enlighten us cretins and let us bask in the glow of your 
knowledge ;-)
: >gases and a few kgs of waste which is easily managed, compared to
: 
: Considering how mnay times they have been accidently vented, its not
: all that easy to manage.
Perhaps you could list how many curies were released from commercial 
plants last year and how this compares to natural sources.
: >thousands of tons of (radioactive) ash from coal fired plants, not to
: 
: Well granite is radioactive to, you are being dishonest here as the
: coal ash is low level, about the same as background and present no
: hazard due to the radioactivity.
Are you stating that granite and flyash are *not* radioactive?  If you feel 
granite and flyash are not a problem then let me be the first to welcome you 
aboard the nuclear bandwagon, you've finally seen the light!
: >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
: 
: Another piece of disinformation Pu is still the most toxic element
: known.
I said it so it true!  The ultimate Usenet arguement tool.
: 
: >Nuclear doesn't use any more of this stuff than the alternatives.
: 
: That is certainly debatable considering the short lifetime of a nuke
: compared to a coal fired plant or a hydro dam.
Just what do you consider short? 
: Well no other energy source has spent billions digging a hole to put
: their waste into.
Wow, I guess it's irresponsible to attempt to manage the "waste" byproducts 
that you produce.  
tooie

On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 08:38:17 -0700, Mark Friesel
 wrote:
>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'.
>
It is certainly not a 'slight reshuffling' for those directly
affected, I agree; but anybody who takes a job makes an
entrepreneurial decision, hazards a guess about what will be.  We are
all in the same boat re. the future.  But it is 'slight reshuffling'
in terms of what would be necessary to clear the debt.
>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. 
>
But that is preciselyl my point!  What do you think I am saying that
is different from what you have just written?  The above two
paragraphs mean the same, to me.  It seems that we take a different
view of the consequences of the situation.
>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.
>
How can the present intstitutions carry out social functions?  You
really seem to think that government action necessarily does more harm
than good, don't you?  I say: intentions don't count, results count.
If the logic of an ideology promises good results in counterfactual
debate, surely it is worth considering?  The trouble with Leftist
arguments is that they do not produce, and never have produced, good
results in counterfactual debate.  And Leftist policies have borne
this out whenever they have been enacted in the real world.  This is
what you can't stand, isn't it, that the Left has been vastly wrong in
many important ways (not totally wrong about everything, of course).
I say: admit that you were wrong about some stuff, then you may begin
to be able to understand what libertarians are saying.
Yes there is a large contingent that doesn't want to pay for
semisocialist experiments, sometimes their opposition is principled,
sometimes selfish.  They are quite happy to pay for semifascist
experiments though, aren't they?  Libertarianism says: neither
semisocialist nor semifascist social engineering ought to be allowed.
Capital can be generated?  How?  What are the way/s?
>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.
>
And of the Left since the 19th century. 
BTW, I think you must learn to distinguish libertarianism, which is
the continuation of pure classical liberalism, from Right
libertarianism, from the Right.
>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.
>
Glad you admit that you don't get it!  There's hope for you yet. :-)
- Guru George
******************************
"Nothing to do or undo,
nothing to force,
nothing to want,
and nothing missing -
Wow! Marvelous!
Everything happens by itself."
--Gendun Rinpoche
*****************************

Some where there is a organization that opposes the use of air conditioning
citing energy use and the temperature "shock" some people suffer going from
very cold environments to a hot humid outside environment.  Does anyone
out there know who it is or can point me to related documents covering this
issue?
Thanks,
-Steve

I removed the one news group in the grossly over long list
of groups that I read.  Any other groups that are not
relevant to the content, well, you remove `em from
your replies.
Mark Friesel wrote:
> Your assuming a lot about private institutions that doesn't jive with
> reality.  You may notice that you can't get much improvement on your
> insurance by moving from one company to another, you cannot get much
> savings on gasoline by changing brands.  Sure you can take it somewhere
> else, no it won't do you any good.
This is largely an effect of govt action in the market rather
than collusion among petrol suppliers.
> Take a look at the Glaxo Pharmaceuticals hallways and corporate offices
> if you want to see how your drug money is spent.  Take a look at the
> salaries of insurance company CEO's if you want to see why your premiums
> are so high.  Watch Exxon managers fly to work in their private
> helicopters from their offshore estates to see where your gas money
> goes.  At least the toilet seat and coffepot money is distributed.
Again, this is largely a result of govt action in the market
rather than collusion among drug providers.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
> It would have ended last week if it hadn't been for the
> backpressure of all those leap seconds.
> 
Surely it ended next year, Dec 31, 1997?
But why December 25, Why didn't we start counting January 1 when Christ 
was born in AD 1 or is that AD 0 instead of waiting a few more days? Or 
is that those leap seconds again?
Pete

STUDY OF ONE TARIFA PLANT
FINDS LITTLE AVIAN IMPACT
     A study of the effect on local bird populations of a 10-MW
wind power plant in Tarifa, Spain, near the Straits of Gibraltar
has concluded that the facility did not have "an important impact
on the birds present in its surroundings and, on the contrary,
created a new habitat for some species of birds not present in
adjacent areas."
     The study, which was reported at the recent European Wind
Energy Conference in Sweden, was funded by Ecotecnia, the wind
plant developer.  The Estacion Biologica de Donana designed the
study and was responsible for interpreting the data.
     The Ecotecnia project consists of 66 150-kW turbines
approximately 40 meters in height, situated in a single row on a
north-south mountain ridge.  Observations of nesting birds in the
wind plant were slightly higher than in two comparable control
areas, a fact the study attributed to nests in "small crests or
rocks" absent in the control areas.  Observations of roosting
birds in the wind plant were somewhat lower than in one control
area, but similar to the other.
     Migrating birds, however, were far more common over the wind
site, with nearly four times as many being recorded as over the
control areas.  Notes the study, "A total of 72,000 birds were
recorded, most of them passing above the wind farm, but at a
higher altitude than over the other two areas.
     "Average flight altitude in the wind farm was more than 100
m, while in the other two areas birds flew at about 60 m above
the mountain ridge. . . .
     "Weekly visits were made to all the wind turbines to check
any collision incidents.  The visit frequency was actually higher
when other activities near the turbines not directly related to
bird collision registration were conducted.  Two birds, a griffon
vulture and [a] short-toed eagle (Circaetus gallicus), collided
with a turbine in the course of the 16 months of study at the
wind farm.  Annual passage of vultures over the farm is estimated
to be about 45,000, and annual passage of eagles about 2,500.
     "Therefore, [the] collision rate at the wind farm was
considered to be low.  The figure of griffon vulture collision[s]
with power lines is higher than the observed rate at the wind
farm and even so it is considered to be low.
     "On the whole, the wind farm did not prove to represent an
important impact on the birds present in its surroundings.  On
the contrary, the wind farm created a new habitat for some
species of birds not present in adjacent areas.
     "Although a reaction to the wind farm could be observed in
bird flight behavior, differences in flight frequency were such
that there were no indications of the wind farm obstructing the
passage of birds at all.  Bird mortality was recorded but could
be considered insignificant when weighed against other bird
mortality causes."
     "Bird Impact Study on the 10-MW Wind Farm of La Pena
(Tarifa)" was authored by N. Cererola and A. Martinez of
Ecotecnia and M. Ferrer of Estacion Biologica de Donana.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted (from a back issue), at no cost.
For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back
issues, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable energy,
energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The
electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length. 
The free electronic edition of the _Weekly_ is intended as an educational
publication for those without a commercial interest in the wind energy 
industry.  If your interest in wind is commercial in nature, please write to
 for more information about AWEA membership and
publications.
If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization, and
reason for interest in the publication. 
____________________________________________________________________________
Tom Gray 					          tomgray@econet.org
____________________________________________________________________________
Support renewable energy!  Visit the Electronic Lobbyist for
Renewable Energy Web Site: 
	http://www.serve.com/stevie2/doorway.html

Dennis Nelson  wrote:
>The idea of using Pu in a reactor core has been around for a long time but
>it has had numerous problems.  The use of mixed oxides fuels of Pu, U and
>perhaps Th has been tried with limited success.  Because of the different
>neutron dynamics, these mixed oxide reactors must use liquid metals not
>water for coolants.
MOX fuels can be used in conventional PWRs.  The french have done it.
And, all PWRs are getting most of their energy from Pu fission in
those fuel rods that are at large burnup.
Liquid metals coolants are used if you want to burn MOX fuels in a
fast reactor, which burns Pu more efficiently (due to reduce
non-fission neutron capture.)
	Paul

Peter Swindells wrote:
> I accept that most people will celebrate the supposed millenium on Jan 1
> 2000.  The changing of the digits from 9's to 0's is much more
> impressive than the adding of a '1' the following year. This does not,
> however , make 2000 the true millenium, since at this date only 1999
> years will have elapsed since the start of the Xtian era in AD 1.  It's
> not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.  The years are there -
> count them!
We've counted.
But you're going to have to rethink this Xian (note spelling) era
stuff.  First, the calendar wasn't started in 1AD, it was started
much later.  Second, the definition used the birth of X as a 
starting place--but screwed it up, as is well known.  Counting
years of "the Xtian era" doesn't seem germane.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:24:33 -0800, "D. Braun"
 wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
>
>> 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 
>
>I thought the connection was apparent.  Disarmament means no more weapons
>production, and destruction/recycling in energy plants of the
>delivery vehicles/plutonium, or other scenarios.  Eventually, the Russian
>mafia or the like will find it more difficult to procure a bomb. 
The countries that built bombs, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel
and those that tried (are trying) , North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Japan(?)
did so without materials or help from us or the Russians. I don't see
that anything that we do, or not do, will have any effect on others
that wish to build nuclear weapons.
 The
>second part of my post is important, too; a more progressive foreign
>policy would tend not to produce terrorist pissed off at the US, for real
>or perceived insults.  Abandoning MADD would mean that we would actually
>have to negotiate and have political solutions worked out. 
What it would mean is more work for the Army. Some aims can not be
negotiated (those that want to push Israel into the sea, for example).
It certainly
>would not be an over-night process. Once the major powers agree to disarm,
>international sanctions could be brought against those countries that
>persist in having nuke weapons programs. 
>
Before or after they use them on us?
>Any comment on my hypothetical? How useful are our nukes if they have few
>usuable scenarios today? Do you think MADD works in my scenario?  
>Who does it work against then? I suppose the Chinese-- however, I would
>think that an argument for phased reduction would go a long way with that
>capital-starved country, so that resources could be spent elsewhere.
>Disarmament may well take 30 years, but the sooner we have it as a
>stated goal, the better. At least one US cold-warrior (one of the
>ex Pentagon brass) has come out and said that it shold be our goal.
>
What works is the idea that we will kick the shit out of you if you
piss us off. That was the great value of Desert Storm.
>I would even settle for a token "MADD" policy after disarmament-- say, one
>nuke under each country's capital---with the "red button" in the other
>major powers' control. Why not? It would be simple, cheap, and
>instantaneous. Easy to detonate---you could set them off via
>the internet with the proper codes. 
>
>Of course, disarmament would require international peace and cooporation
>more than we have now.  That is an end in itself.
The _only_ way you will have world peace is if some big bad mother is
sitting on it. I don't want the U.S. to do it and I sure don't want
anybody else to.
Sam
>
>		Dave Braun
>
>> 
>> --
>> Samuel L. Hall
>> Systems Engineer
>> (communications systems)
>> 
>> 
>
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)