Newsgroup sci.environment 114310

Directory

In article <32D49993.5E44@stud.warande.ruu.nl>,
Elliott Oti   wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> The normal scientific practice when a mathematical model produces
>> predictions which don't agree with observations is to modify the
>> model until it will agree with reality.  This practice should of
>> course also be applied here.  It's pointless to claim the new
>> milennium to "acutally" begin in 2001 and then have almost the whole
>> world ignoring you.
> 
> I really shouldn't be falling into this, but this one's a masterpiece.
> As you well know, the calendar is not a model of "reality". You said
> so yourself!
If so, the calender cannot contains any truth, and it's then just
plain wrong to claim some specific date to be the "true" start of the
new milennium: it's just a matter of how you define things.
> It's a model, period. That has nothing to do with observations of "reality".
> The model, as expounded by the GRO, USNO, myself, and other brilliant
> luminaries, puts the start of the millenium at 1/1/2001.
Others put it at 1/1/2000.  All are equally right because it's just a model
with no reference whatsoever to reality - right?
> The model, as expounded by Stephen Jay Gould, you, the unwashed masses,
> and other, er .. intellectually challenged, er .. persons, 
> puts this date at 1/1/2000.
You certainly don't lack any self-confidence....
> 
>
> So no, the GRO is not in the employ of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> You are.
> 
> 
Plase supply evidence for that claim  
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/

In article <32D48BDD.1CC0@ix.netcom.com>,
The Giddings   wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Programming aside, I can't think of any convention that starts counting
> with zero.
The time-of-day does: it goes from 00:00 to 23:59.  Of course
Americans do this in a very weird way, counting
"12,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11", but in my country the 00:00 to 23:59
notation of time-of-day is in widespread use.
> Does a baby celebrate its zeroth birthday?
The newborn baby is too young for that!  But the parents .... I
surely though the days when my kids were born as very special days,
and certainly worthy of celebration really -- although to actually
celebrate in a hospital has some practical difficulties.
> Is the day after Dec. 31 Jan. 0?
No -- Jan 1 comes after Dec 31.  Since Jan 0 and Dec 31 both are the
day before Jan 1, it follows that Jan 0 and Dec 31 are the same day!
Likewise, Jan -1 is the same day as Dec 30 (of the year before, of
course).  Yes, this notation is sometimes used, e.g. in the Astronomical
Almanac.
> Do you know any buildings with a zeroth floor?
Sure!  Here in Sweden they are all around!  I usually enter the house
at the zero'th floor (which we call the "bottom floor").  When I go
up one floor, I'm at floor 1, when I go up 2 floors I'm at floor 2 ..
et cetera.  While visiting the U.S. I found it weird to enter a
house, going up no floor at all and then being at floor one!
> Is the first serial number on a manufaturer's plate  "0000000".
Why not?  However the first serial number is rarely "0000001" either,
but usual some other number.
> Where is channel zero on my TV?
Dunno, but on my TV it connects to the video input.
> There is an arbitrariness to it, but there is a lot of linguistic
> momentum as well.
Yep!  And linguistics isn't always the way you seem to imagine.
>> 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.
> 
> Again with the digital clocks! Still, I will admit it is as good a
> reason as any.
>  
>>> 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.
>  
> Although the current frenzy is enough to make this a convention, if you
> research it, you will find that it is unprecedented. The last turn was
> celebrated 12/31/00, not 12/31/99.
Could you supply any reference that supports this claim?
I recently saw the film "The Time Machine", based on the novel by
H.G.  Wells with the same hane.  In that movie they celebrated the
new century on the evening before 1 Jan 1900, not 1901....
> I imagine this held for all previous turns.
This is not about imagination....
> The digital clocks have us hooked on the feel of the digits
> "rolling over". 
Even before digital clocks we had digits.  The years printed on top
of newspapers, alamancs, etc also "rolled over" once a century.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/

Jim Carr wrote:
> 
> Jim Carr  wrote:
> |
> | It was refined, and of course it was not *in* a critical mass or it would
> | no longer be there.  Forming it into the proper shape, and assembling
> | same, is the only 'problem' one must solve.  But the main issue has to
> | do with the cavalier way this stuff was handled at Rocky Flats.
> 
> Mike Pelletier  wrote:
> }
> } I was under the impression that plutonium at its normal density could not
> } be assembled into a critical mass, which is why they used the implosion
> } design to increase the density of the plutonium core to force it to a
> } higher, supercritical density.
> }
> } Is this incorrect?
> 
Yes this is incorrect!  Have you heard the story of Louis Slotin at Los Alamos?
The "geniuses" at Los Alamos often performed experiments called "tickling the
dragon's tail" wherein they created momentary critical masses of U-235 and
Pu-239 by dropping a smaller piece of fissionable material on a wire or pendulum
through a larger piece of the same material.  During the instant that the two
pieces were together a critical mass was achieved and the growth of the chain
reaction was monitored using neutron detectors placed geometrically around the
apparatus.  After a few times when they were successful in not blowing themselves
up they got a little careless; that's where Slotin came in.  They found that in
addition to assembling critical masses on wires, they could also make a
subcritical mass go critical using neutron reflectors.  Slotin had a subcritial
spherical mass of substance 39 (code for element 9(3), atomic weight 23(9)) around
which he had placed a Be reflector in the form of a hollow shpere.  As 
Slotin attempted to lower the upper half of the sphere over the lower half
containing the Pu the screwdriver blade, which he was using to hold the two
halves apart, slipped.  The two reflector hemispheres fell together.  In that
instant Slotin and the other 7 people in the room saw a blinding purple flash.
Slotin and I think one other had been lethally irradiated, although it took 
him two weeks to die.  Slotin disassembled the reflectors by hand, and although
there had been no explosion there had been a criticallity event and a chain
reaction.  Alvin Grimes was in the room with Slotin and survived because 
Slotin's body shielded him from the highest radiation fluxes.  Grimes
subsequently became the manager of the Nevada Test Site and thought himself
immune to radiation.  Perhaps this accounts for the cavalier manner in which
the bomb testers treated radiaoactive fallout episodes from their "gadgets."
> hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
> >
> >No.
> 
>  Did you miss the double negatives?
> 
>  The answer below is correct, and correctly contradicts the statement
>  that you cannot form a critical mass of plutonium at normal density.
> 
> >Implosion is used precisely because plutonium can easily go critical.
> 
>  That is, as reiterated below, the objective is not just to get a
>  critical mass, but to hold it together long enough that it goes
>  through the 80 or so chains and explodes.  You can make a mass
>  that is subcritical react just by getting close enough that your
>  body helps reflect and moderate the neutrons.
> 
> >Bits of the core are arranged in a sphere and imploded to a single mass
> >to allow criticality to occur. They must be violently assembled because
> >if gently done the mass will go critical before tightly assembled, and
> >a low grade nuclear explosion will occur, scattering most of the
> >plutonium uselessly around.
> 
>  Or you could arrange it in a reactor and control it, if you wanted
>  that chain reaction to continue at a low rate for a long time.
> 
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.  The DOE finally pulled the plug on the integral fast 
breeder reactor at Chalk River.  Another Pu fueled reactor Fermi II melted
down outside Detroit barely averting a catastrophe.  The fuel fabrication
plant where Karen Silkwood worked in Oklahoma made mixed oxide fuel elements.
It was her exposure of quality control problems in these fuel bundles which
got her first contaminated with Pu and then murdered.
Dennis Nelson

Dennis Nelson wrote:
>
[snip]
> 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. 
WRONG!  You don't need to use liquid metals to cool a mixed oxide
reactor.  Commercial Light Water Reactors burn Plutonium all the
time - the Plutonium formed by neutron bombardment of the U-238
in the reactor core. (Recall that reactor fuel typically is of
an enrichment of 3% - 3% fissile U-235 and 97% fertile U-238 that
is transmuted to Pu-239 upon absorption of a neutron).  In fact,
during the 3 years that the average fuel assembly spends in the
reactor, 40% of the energy you get from that assembly comes from
fissioning Pu-239 that was created in the core.
You only need to use a liquid metal if you want a fast neutron
spectrum for breeding, i.e. converting more U-238 into Pu-239 than 
the you consume in U-235. 
In 1978, upon completion of the GESMO (Generic Environmental
Statement for Mixed Oxide fuel), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
was prepared to license utilities to burn mixed oxide fuel in their
LWRs (Light Water Reactors). However, reprocessing of spent fuel to
obtain the Plutonium was outlawed that same year.
> The DOE finally pulled the plug on the integral fast breeder reactor 
> at Chalk River.
The prototype IFR (integral fast reactor) is at the Argonne-West area
of the Idaho National Engineering Lab (INEL) west of Idaho Falls, ID.
(Before I came to LLNL, I worked on the IFR design at Argonne-Illinois)
Chalk River is the Canadian Nuclear Lab in Ontario, CANADA
> Another Pu fueled reactor Fermi II melted
> down outside Detroit barely averting a catastrophe. 
My hometown is a Detroit suburb where I was living in 1967 when
there was a partial meltdown of Fermi I, not Fermi II. Fermi II is
a General Electric designed BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) still in
service which is fueled by Uranium not Plutonium.
The partial melting in Fermi I was confined to 4 fuel assemblies.
(Far less damage to the core than the meltdown at Three Mile Island 
 Unit II) All radioactive material was completely contained within
the Fermi I plant.
This is another incident which the popular press has hyped completely
out of proportion - it was not a barely averted catastrophe.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Dennis Nelson (innrcrcl@erols.com) wrote:

: reaction.  Alvin Grimes was in the room with Slotin and survived because 
: Slotin's body shielded him from the highest radiation fluxes.  Grimes
: subsequently became the manager of the Nevada Test Site and thought himself
: immune to radiation.  Perhaps this accounts for the cavalier manner in which
: the bomb testers treated radiaoactive fallout episodes from their "gadgets."
Ahh, I knew it was too good to be true!  Nelson reverts to his natural 
troll like form.
: 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.  
Please explain how Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel is currently being used in 
LWRs?  Don't you have any pride?  Please share your knowledge of the 
"neutron dymanics", I must have slept through reactor theory.  Do you 
know that the average LWR, orignally fuel only with uranium, will be 
producing about 30% of its power from Pu by the end of cycle?  Of course 
you knew all this but were just testing the rest of us.
: The DOE finally pulled the plug on the integral fast 
: breeder reactor at Chalk River.  
Perhaps you mean "Clinch River"?  That was not the *integral* fast 
reactor, developed at Argonne, recently cancelled by the DOE.  I think 
Chalk River is in Canada.  Pretty good for only one sentence!
: Another Pu fueled reactor Fermi II melted down outside Detroit barely 
: averting a catastrophe.  
You're getting better, it was Fermi I.  Fermi II is a BWR still in 
operation.  Keep the faith Dennis, you're bound to get something right.
: The fuel fabrication plant where Karen Silkwood worked in Oklahoma made 
: mixed oxide fuel elements. It was her exposure of quality control 
: problems in these fuel bundles which got her first contaminated with Pu 
: and then murdered.  
Hmm, you spelled her name right, Kerr-McGee is in Oklahoma, hey 2 for 2.  
Oops I knew it wouldn't last.  
: Dennis "Don't Confuse Me With the Facts" Nelson
tooie

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
....
> 
> Farmers don't go broke because of Wall Street's depradations.  They go
> out of business because the next guy over in the farming business is
> more productive than them.
> 
I note:
Actually, many go, or rather went, broke because they were small or 
tenant farmers to begin with, leasing their 80 or 120 acres, and were 
surviving year-to-year on marginal profits.  One bad year and they're 
buried.
Mark

In article <32D55182.6474@sanjose.vlsi.com>,
John Giddings   wrote:
> 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?
There were many different eras in use at that time.  One era was the
number of years since "the foundation of Rome".  Other, more common,
eras, simply counted the years since the current ruler grabbed the
power.  It would be as if you considered the current year to be the
"4th year of Bill Clinton" or the "38th year of Fidel Castro" or the
"24th year of King Carl XVI"....
In Palestine at Jesus time the year ought to have been the "Xth year
of Herode", where the precise value of X is unknown to us.
Naturally all these different eras made it quite hard to synchronize
the calendar as used in different times.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/

David Gossman  wrote:
> 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.
Agree completely, but MOST of the industry has not done a lot over the
last decade.  And I am not arguing the viability or reasoning behind
any decisions into such.  Just pointing out that the industry really
has not done a lot over the last decade and comparing numbers to the
70s is a tad misleading.
> true but isn't that EPA's problem and wasn't industry taken 
> to task even with the bad numbers?
True, but also industry gained by better monitoring with increased fuel
efficiency and better control of clinker.  A lot of newer operators
nowadays depend on emission monitoring to guage the process (especially
NOx and CO).
> 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.  
Correct, sorry I forgot about the low NOx burners, just their impact
has not been outstanding within these kilns (relative to other apps). 
And I agree completely about NOx/fuel efficiency quandry.
> 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.
If you find it first let me know.  :<)  Seen a lot of theoretical
modeling of kiln environments, etc. but a lot still looks like voodoo
to me (I swear some of the better older operators must sacrifice a
chicken or something for some of things they come up with to work).
> 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.  
Not arguing a bit about the expense of controlling a kiln.
> > each large cement kiln will produce about (these
> >  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?
But see, you are not arguing about the impact of this ONE source.  I am
not arguing about the benefits of cement, or the relative pollution
index.  I am just saying that a cement kiln is a dirty source.  
> My experience in the industry is that they are generally 
> willing to try just about anything to decrease emissions. 
I think we attend different board meetings. :<)  I am not casting
dispersion on the industry, nor arguing with whatever technology may be
useful, I am just pointing out that it is a large local impact source. 
As to what they will try - well provided the incentive is there, maybe.
 But a lot of companies can get real tight in budgets.  And just
messing with the process minimally can ruin whole batches, bring the
kiln down for weeks, etc.  But by the same token they are not making
overt attempts to pollute, just the nature of the beast.
> 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.  
Agree.  BTW, good response on haz waste.  I helped write some of the
BIF test methods and helped with some of the regs.  Cement kilns have
it real tough with regards to burning waste (provided the state agency
holds to the letter of the regs).  I think the funniest thing I ever
heard was how the industry was getting over by interim permitting. 
Just about every one I knew wants to be under an official RCRA permit
to get the enforcement monkey off their back - as the interim rules
allowed A LOT more room for "judgement" calls on the part of the
enforcement officer.  And the folks in interim permitting would not
talk to the folks in enforcement and vice-versa - what a nightmare.
Sam McClintock
scmcclintock@ipass.net

  Yep,  eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Tue, 07
Jan 1997 09:29:36 GMT about:
   Re: Nuclear Power in Australia?   Why not? 
>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>>Cheaper?  All of them.  
>Other than coal and gas (no doubt unacceptable
>due to greenhouse emissions, eh Doug?) there are none cheaper.  For
Sorry, by "all of them", I meant all the biggies; coal and gas
and hydro.  We have no coal plants in California.  Your snide
remark is wrong.  In California, we are out of new hydro sites
that are economically viable.  However, they may have the lowest
operating expenses of all since the fuel is self renewing and
free, low maintenance, and no waste. 
>>Name one power company in the USA that wants to build one.  
>Coal and particularly gas (cough, cough) are cheaper at present.  But
>not in all circumstances and not forever.
I never suggested otherwise.  My encyclopedia says nuke breeder fuel
could last two centuries, not forever. 
>>Safer?  Name one nuke power plant
>>that is cheaper to insure than any other kind of power plant
>>in existance.  I expect you will have to go Third World or
>>government insured, cause you won't find it in the USA.  Perhaps
>>you would care to make a case that the executives of our power 
>>and insurance companies are more of your so-called Chicken Little
>>environmentalists?   
>My sides are splitting. :-|
>The fact that nuclear power has resulted in less deaths than any other
>form of large scale energy production (including hydro) is a statistic
>which insurance companies do not ignore.  If there is any problem with
>public perception to nuclear power, it is entirely due to the
>dissemination of false and misleading information.
Again, you side-step the issue.  This time you seem to be
equivocating our power and insurance company executives
with "public perception".
>They are safe, and economically viable.  Over 30% of worlds power is
>generated by nuclear.  If it wasn't viable, then why is it so?
Taxpayer subsidies do not suggest economic viability.  Arguably, quite
the contrary.  (see my other post in this mail packet).
>If you mean 30-50 years for the volatile daughter products to decay so
>the rods are safer (and cheaper) to transport for processing
>(vitrification) and permanent underground storage, then no I don't
>think it is a problem.
You seem to be under the impression that sweeping the problem
under the carpet (under the ground) is a solution.  I had high hopes
for vitrification too, but it seems the radioactive "glass beads"
turn into puke.  I also like the idea of shitting that stuff into
the magma.  In many places the Eath's crust is only three miles thick.
>>How much would it cost to maintain??
>A levy is paid by all users of nuclear fuels in the US, which has
>already paid for all of the waste currently awaiting disposal.
You seem to be ignoring the costs of "permanent underground
storage", aren't you?   By "storage" don't you really mean;
"dumping"? 
>  I strongly recommend, Doug, that you cease airing
>your ignorance in these newsgroups, and stick to your forte' in
>alt.flame, or alt.pointless.ridicule, or similar.
I've always said I'm ignorant in this subject.  This is why
I mostly ask questions.  I think you're just pissed off because
unlike the others, I do more than question your facts.  I question
your logic, assumptions, and your motivation. 
Greig:
>>>> by condemning nuclear power,
>>>> env groups are condemning the only viable means of
>>>>producing centralised electric power without emitting greenhouse
>>>>gases.
>>Why, you're a real green guy, ain't you Greig?
>It is a valid point, so why do you side-step it with pointless abuse.
Because I don't really believe you think greenhouse gases are of
much true concern.  Only a rhetorical (propaganda) ploy. 
 Simple test?  Are you really worried about the greenhouse effect?
A yes or no will do.  Me?  No I am not.
Pointless??  No.  I despise deceitful rhetorical tricks.  
>>Is it true that a melt-down could melt bedrock, and look like a small
>>volcano from a distance?
>Say what?
Worst case scenario?  Yes or no and, yes or no?
>>And if you had a major melt-down, are you suggesting that it might
>>not be as expensive to "fix" in Australia?  Or are you making the
>>assumption that nothing can happen?  What?
>Huh?  You started this bullshit about nuclear power in Australia.
laughing!  ok....
>>Greig Ebeling was full of surprises!!  I'm not used to that from
>>anti-environmentalists.  You are just another pro-nuke general purpose
>>anti-environmentalist, aren't you, Mr. Ebeling?  Anti ozone, and all?
>>What other environmental issues are you against?  
>What the hell is an anti-environmentalist? 
Emm, where do I begin?  First by saying that if you were
an American, I would assume that to be a rhetorical question.
But I'll take it as face value.  Where do I begin?  For an
example of just another pro-nuke general purpose anti-environmentalist
on the net, pay attention to John McCarthy of Hoover Institute's
posts and website in sci.environment.
For the economist infinite-earth and man-as-god flavored varieties
read any book by Julian Simon.  He also fits the sci-fi Cornucopian.
For some mainstream theory about anti-environmentalists, visit my web
pages.  For the "Wise Use" vested interest slick propaganda-mill
varieties, search engine: "Wise Use".  There are
also 20 million Rush Limbaugh anti-environmental dittoheads, search
"Limbaugh" or read one of his books.  See also "Libertarian Party". 
For the real whackos, search Usenet for: ("Sahara Club" or "Pat
Chicas" or "Patrick Martin").     From my Web site:  
        Nature-hater;
           One who votes exactly like one who hates
           or fears nature.
>What the hell is an anti-environmentalist?
In short, "cleaning up your own mess" and the new 
non-infinite-earth economic assumptions do have real
costs.  For example, the $100 billion (your figure)
of the ozone/CFC ban.  Or auto pollution must be
cleaned up. No more infinite forests or seas.  Many
things. Real costs.  Anti-environmentalist are pissed 
off about that.  They prefer to remain  subsidized by
the taxpayer or environment.  I don't blame them,
that's their job.  Simple economics.
Frankly, Mr. Ebeling, from a distance, you look like
one.  Yet you don't have the typical blind dogma.  If you
are not one, I caution you to beware of becoming one.
>>(I called Mr. Ebeling's fear of the terrible CFC ban; Chicken Little)
>>>a tizzy?  This is your main point is it not?  How mean and horrible
>>>and unfair this ban is?  "EEEK! $100 $Billion!" is your cry when
>>>asked.  Why are you complaining?
>You are babbling, Doug.  When you are ready to make a valid point, I
>will respond.  >...Greig
Could be.  It also could be that being used to Australian
budgets, it never occurred to you what a minor amount
$100 billion is in the human economy.  (The USA pays triple
that in interest payments *PER YEAR*)  It just could be that
you would gain a whole lot of respect if you admitted your
error and moved on.  Or you could argue that $100 billion
is no small amount, dig in your heels, and begin a life of dogma.
That's how I see it.  Your choice, Greig.  Frankly, I think 
your autonomy may be on the line here.  Autonomy begins with
intellectual honesty.
-    We desire to increase Joe Public's wealth and freedom,
-  growthmania consumes what it promises. Ecology can deliver it.
--    Douglas bashford@psnw.com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html

Hi, I am mystified by this thread.  I would be interested to have the
purpose of the question explained.
As I understand the problem there isn't one.  The hole is healing and
will continue to do so provided (and this is the validity of any and all
appropriate legislation/agreements etc.) it is not made any worse.  With
the plans to date the only fly in this balm is population growth in what
is usually called the third world.  They burn wood and ignoring the
desert this makes the scale of it mushrooms as you project pop. growth
figures.  However, a minimum of pressure - as is available now - will
allow the healing process.  However, there is no way to minimise the
damage done and which will be done.  All the figures come from parties
we are supposed to trust and, though estimates, should note that all
info. is based on responsible conservative estimates.  i.e. the real
situation can only be worse.
Damage due to water level rises coming from global warming, especially
ice cap water, is minimised because so much oxygen has been lost through
the ozone layer holes (or thinning).  There can no longer be the water
made that was once forcast.  The practical outcome of this is to
reprieve half the world's cities (half of each at least) that would have
flooded.  Water levels were to rise by 200 to 250 feet in 250 years.
Now the figure will be 100 feet + in 2 centuries.  In the shorter term
this means, for London lattitudes N. & S. and similar, a rise of 20 feet
in 30 years.  Of course many islands/coasts/reefs are already
uninhabited/flooded/dead at more equatorial lattitudes.  A reef will
take 1000 years to partially recover so fishing is gone permanently of
reef fish once water rises a few feet to change the light balance.  The
effect on normal and more Western fish, pelagic and demersal, is unknown
save that there are already less of them than there should be allowing
for over fishing.  As a guide the Thames barrier allowed a few
centimetres over the highest ever expected surge tide in the estuary
under the worst conditions.  While the barrier and others will still be
handy it is already the case that the slack has been taken up plus some.
London must now flood in an ordinarily bad, say 75% of worst, scenario.
Part of the plan is to block water coming down river and allow areas to
flood to the West of London.  Virginia Water, Sunningdale, Shepperton
etc.  This empties The Pool of London but for some dregs.  The process
is undertaken regularly to recover bodies etc. but not when bad flooding
of the W. area would result.  Used in anger the barrier would allow
flooding of much of the City of London N. & S. of the river as far as
Westminster from basements (& underground lines etc.) up to pavement
level.  This series of claims alone would be a major catastrophe and
similar results can be expected in most coastal/vulnerable cities like
NY, N.Orleans, Lisbon, Marseille & Durban the world over.  Some, of
course, don't even have a barrier.  In Britain a twelfth of the land
area could be saved but effectively the whole third (or probably a
quarter allowing for oxygen loss) would go under.  Spending money
protecting nuclear sites to avoid pollution would take all the money
available.  There is, however, some prospect of promoting roro vessel
use and moving docks that can be cranked uphill a wee bit a year.  First
though the bullet of reorganising road transport to cart goods minimal
distances from/to ships has to be bitten.  This would free roads.  With
the move away from commuting to working from home/village cottage
offices also promoted new roads are likely to be 4 lane maximum & only
built to complete new coastal nets and central links between new mini
cities built on or in sheep hills.  Other countries will do similarly.    
None of the effects mentioned are at all preposterous.  I have worked
with relevant agencies for many years towards accepting situations and
beginning plans now (or then) to relieve panic, worry, hardship etc.  A
general demographic move away from the coasts is essential with such
retraining for those who stay as working fish farms in new shallows.
There will also be such problems to overcome as a resurgence of malaria
(once called the ague) in new swamp areas.  The warmer weather,
especially warmer winters, already allows thriving populations of things
we do not want including a nice little scorpion on the London
underground outside (branch end) stations on one line.  I live just
outside London and we have tropical butterflies breeding (butterfly farm
escapees), swarms of parakeets mixed with indiginous seed eaters and so
much more.  There are big parrots in Surrey (S. London) and have been
for years while some of you may be happy that our Yorkshire Moors and
Welsh hills populations of wallabies are going as strongly as our herds
of chinese water deer, sika and muntjac.  We also have wild pigs and
wild boar again and some idiots want wild wolves back in Scotland.
Warmer weather may mean they can have a prey bounty.  Certainly oak
forests are growing in Scotland again, the South Downs are ripe for
planting with olive groves and for the first time ever, including Roman
times, there are now wineries as far North as Lancashire.  (Vineyards
were possible South of The Wash near Peterborough in Roman times and
vineyards started to get set up here again with the growth of wine
drinking in the 1970's.)  
I will be pleased to consult further.    Regards,
-- 
Les Ballard         Les@gates.demon.co.uk
(Tree Wizard & environmental campaigner.)
c/o BM: Gates of Annwn       (The Pagan contact magazine)
London WC1N 3XX,  U.K.       44+(0)1708 670431
No copyright statement is attached as the author is litigious.

  Yep,  Kevin Barnard  wrote on Thu, 02 Jan 1997
00:34:38 -1000 about:
   Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum.... 
>Doug Bashford wrote:
>>
>> Yep.  Our record in managing nature is pretty dismal.  Most biologists
>> know that nature is like a balloon, if you poke it in one place, it
>> will probably bulge out in another.  Everything is connected, and
>> far beyond our understanding.
>>
>> The function of wildlife management is not to improve nature, because
>> that cannot be done.  Their function is to attempt to restore nature
>> where humans have disturbed the balance.  This is often impossible,
>> but that is their task.  It's often just better than ignoring the
>> disturbance.
>The main reason I disagree with that ideal is that you have to ask
>yourself.  Is attempting to take the chaos out of nature by using the
>same methods we put into the right solution?  I think not.
I fear I have no idea what you mean.  Nature is very well ordered.
And even if I tried "turning trails into streets" to mean taking the
chaos out of nature, I still don't understand.
>  That was the
>main point of the Hawaii thing.  When we interfere in an attempt to make
>right what we made wrong many times we only add more chaos.  This
>applies to any system unless enough energy is added, in the right
>method, to reduce the chaos.  Entropy and thermodynamics expains it
>best.
I think I agree with your thrust.  But wildlife management can have
some benefits.  A silly example: Man snuffs all the predators.  This
will cause a deer population explosion, then a crash.  By managing
hunting, he has substituted for predators, even if a poor substitute.
This benefits the deer population, and all things that have evolved
around them.  Better than no deer management.
>> >I think you could attribute the dead last problem on the structure of
>> >our government.  You know communism doesn't have these problems even
>some
>> >monarchies don't.  The truth is the US is way to fat with way, way to
>> >much power in the federal government and not enough in the state.
>The is
>> >know way that are govenement could compete with the European nations.
>> >They have a lot less land and population to control.  It doesn't take
>a
>> >rocket scientist to figure out that larger governments become less
>> >effective.  Look at the Romans.
>> >Kevin  >barnard@aloha.net
>>
>> Well, I'm always glad to see people at least acknowledging
>> the problem, and
>> applying logic to it rather than looking for somebody to blame.
>> People like to point fingers because not only is it fun to hate, but
>> fingers always point away.  Self-righteousness is also fun, and when
>> combined with hate and dogma, is an unstoppable joy ride from reality.
>>
>> I think your logic is on track: the USA is outstanding because it
>> is dead last in all of the above quality of life issues, so you
>> seek other outstanding qualities that might account for it.  But
>> I just don't see how an inefficient or even a crooked government
>> could account for our quality of life.  Afterall, our government
>> is not known for being overly repressive.  I wonder what other
>> outstanding qualities we have that might be factors?  I think this
>> may be the road to truth.   I also wonder; is there a common thread
>> in all of the above quality of life issues?  I don't know.
>The reason that it is dead last is because the federal govenment 
>is too big to handle the problems.
I wonder if these are government problems, per se. Just a
vague feeling.  It is government's job to clean up the mess.
That is, -- to lock up the criminals, or perhaps feed the starving,
on this I think we agree.  But does government CAUSE our high
crime or poverty rates, or our job instability, or our lack of
paid vacation time or lack of family/human values?   All nations
have poor.  Why does this nation convert poverty into violent crime?
>  I'm not saying that the govenment is better
>because it has other good qualities.  Take for instance a small town
>everybody knows everybody and takes care of everybody.  (I know this is
>only ideal situation and is not real world).  Now take a big city it is
>to big for everybody to take care of everybody because I don't know half
>of everybody.  By dividing the powers and authorities among the
>govenment to a smaller level the smaller level can take care of the
>local problems better than a single solution for everybody.  Does this
>make since of should I explain further?   >Kevin  >barnard@aloha.net
It sounds good, but I'm not sure it stands fully up to logic.
You would need to make a case that say, France or Germany
or Holland have a less centralized government.  Also you would
need to make a case that government, any government had the
solution to say; crime rate or job stability.  In otherwords,
what about our system might cause a high crime rate?  Something
not found in France?
"All that was required of them was a    .---.        .------------
primitive patriotism which could be    /     \  __  /    ------
appealed to whenever it was necessary / /     \(  )/    -----
to make them accept longer working   //////   ' \/ `   ---
hours or less wealth.   And even    //// / // :    : ---
when they became discontented,     // /   /  /`    '--
as they sometimes did, their      //          //..\\  
discontent led nowhere,     =====/===========UU====UU=============
because, being with only Company ideas,     '//||\\`
they could only focus it on Company           ''``
scapegoats. The rebellious ones only fought Company enemies.
The source of these evils invariably escaped their notice."
   [Apologies to George Orwell]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until
after they  have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
   1984,  George Orwell  
-    We desire to increase Joe Public's wealth and freedom, yet
-  growthmania consumes what it promises.  Ecology can deliver it.
--    Douglas bashford@psnw.com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html

>>>  quality-of-life issues
  Yep,  mdv@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote on 2 Jan 1997 13:06:36 
   Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum.... 
>>Kevin Barnard wrote:
>>> The reason the US is dead last is because the federal govenment is too
Friesel:
>>real benefits of government cutbacks you can point me to?  Can you show 
>>me where deregulation has been beneficial?  I mean real benefits, not 
Vincent:
>The inability to afford social programs (at current spending levels) is
>NOT 'projected'.
You may have a conceptual oxymoron here.  At what point does
a man become to weak to be able to afford to breath?  To my
knowledge, the only places where social programs are considered
a luxury are hypercapitalistic dictatorships.  
> Real downsizing is "slashing". When I see the
>depts of education, energy, and commerce completely shut down and their
>employees laid off (not shuffled into another department) then I will call
>that downsizing. Of course if the savings from that action is just pumped into
>another area of the government that neither is that downsizing. Spending
You may not have seen the beginning of this thread. 
The thrust was to be logical.  The hypothesis was,
since Europe is better at these quality of life issues,
it would be logical to assume some relationships exist.
Therefore, since Europe has higher taxes and more social
programs than we do, it is NOT logical to assume that we have
too many taxes or social programs, NOR that slashing them would 
be of any help within this context.  You may not have seen this:
  Yep,  bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote on Wed, 01 Jan 1997 
>  Yep,  Kevin Barnard  wrote on Sat, 28 Dec 1996
>>Doug Bashford wrote:
>>>  rafeb@tiac.net wrote:
>>-Funny... the "working stiffs" of Europe currently enjoy shorter work
>>-hours, longer vacations, and better benefits (eg., health care) than
>>-their "free" and heavily-armed American counterparts.  >-rafe b.
>>> Well, then there are the other quality-of-life issues such as infant
>>> mortality, care for children and the elderly, job security, crime
>>> rate, percent in jail, all of which the US comes in dead last in the
>>> civilized world.  But why label myself a LIBRILL! by knowing such
>>> unpleasant facts?  Wouldn't my argument seem stronger if I pretended
>>> that my head was buried too?   Could be.  Yet it seems to me that it
>>> would be logical to ask; "What really matters in Life?  What are the
>>> truly valuable things?"  and "How do we get them?"  It also seems
>>> logical to perhaps copy the methods of those who are getting what we
>>> fail to, -- is this not logical?  To get what is the most valuable?
>>> To stop playing the wrong games?      Could be.
>>I think you could attribute the dead last problem on the structure of
>>our government.  You know communism doesn't have these problems even
>>Kevin  >barnard@aloha.net
>Well, I'm always glad to see people at least acknowledging 
>the problem, and 
>applying logic to it rather than looking for somebody to blame.
>People like to point fingers because not only is it fun to hate, but
>fingers always point away.  Self-righteousness is also fun, and when 
>combined with hate and dogma, is an unstoppable joy ride from reality.
>I think your logic is on track: the USA is outstanding because it
>is dead last in all of the above quality of life issues, so you
>seek other outstanding qualities that might account for it.  But
>I just don't see how an ineffecient or even a crooked government
>could account for our quality of life.  Afterall, our government
>is not known for being overly repressive.  I wonder what other
>outstanding qualities we have that might be factors?  I think this
>may be the road to truth.   I also wonder; is there a common thread 
>in all of the above quality of life issues?  I don't know.
So, Mr. Vincent, would care to accept this challenge?
To seek other outstanding qualities that might account for it?
Why not try a different approach, just for the sake of argument? 
Just to be fresh, just for fun? 
      Re: Morality of Taxation (from the beginning)
"I am my own god."  -- Randist; Nicholas Rich, 04 Sep 96 04:21:03 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Views of life:  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Religious:      God created Man in his own image.
Atheist:        Man created God in his own image.
"Objectivist":  Ayn Rand created God in my image.  Nee-ner, nee-ner.

Kris wrote:
> 
>         I was wondering if anyone knows how hard it is to acquire employment in
> Australia (or New Zealand for that matter) if your from the states?  Do you
> have to get a work permit, and if you do, is it difficult?
>         I will be getting my degree in environmental science in may, so will this
> help my chances of landing a job over there?
>         Thanks in advance for any help.
> 
> Kris Bernardic
> (bernardic.1@osu.edu)
I found a position in Australia coming from the US recently. This
position
was advertised internationally and I accepted the position (after
interview)
while I was in the US. The rest of the paperwork was fairly
straightforward
(work VISA, some residence paperwork, etc).
I doubt whether you will be able just come here and find a position
unless
you find a company to sponsor you first. Then they fill out sponsorship
papers
required for a work VISA under the "skilled" or "specialist" category
(to do
so they will have to claim that they could not find an Australian with
the
same qualifications and show that they advertised for one).
Otherwise you would have to go through the standard immigration
procedure
which takes a long, long time. You could visit on a travel visa
(3-month) and
look for a sponsoring company. Environmental science might be in demand
here,
but that's just a guess (there are plenty of environmental problems in
Australia's fragile ecosystem). Otherwise the economy is doing poorly
with
about 9.5% unemployment.
Good luck, Wayne
-- 
#####################################################################
#   Wayne S. Pelouch, PhD         #   pelouch@cyllene.uwa.edu.au    #
#   Lions Eye Institute           #                                 #
#   2 Verdun St.                  #   Laser Scientist               #
#   Nedlands, WA 6009   Australia #                                 #

We guess you already have heard the report of the shipwreck of Russian oil 
tanker "Nakhodka"  in Japan Sea, on January 2.
About 3700kl of heavy oil(crude petrolium) leaked from the sank ship, drifting 
among the coastline of Japan, some casting on the wide area of seashore 
including sands and rocks.
We now remove this casted heavy oil(thick and sticky as a glue!) by ladle and 
pale, though the matter is beyond our human power.
I am a resident ot the environs of this serious accident, searching for the idea
 to treat the problem of this casted oil.
Please give us your advice, if you are experienced on this sort of treatment or 
not.
Send your heartly response to 	: sawano@seiryo.ac.jp,
and Cc to 			:fitnet@kanazawa.fitnet.ad.jp 

Paul Hager wrote:
> 
....
I include what I wrote previously for context...
> >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.
> 
You reply:
> No, that's what you are saying.
I note:
Not at all.  I'm saying that the government has slashed it's research 
budgets and eliminated many research scientists from the payroll, or 
reduced their income, and because of this (and other things) they have 
indeed downsized.  I asked for someone to tell me how this has 
benefitted the public.  No one has told me, but rather we're now arguing 
about whether the government has downsized.
You continue:
>  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.
I note:
I agree.  And I will agree with you that the government has not 
downsized if you show me that it has indeed hired on additional 
employees and where.  But the driver and excuse for DOE cuts was 
downsizing.
You continue:
....
> 
> 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.
> 
I reply:
Of course net benefit is the real issue.  The DOE cuts are ->not<- 
beneficial.  You seem to forget that the internet we're discussing this 
on, for example, was developed as part of a defense research program by 
DARPA.  So were many other products, and many small and large businesses 
began as defense program spin-offs.
If there has indeed been a net increase in government employees - 
despite DOE cuts, layoffs in the defense industry which are indirect but 
none-the-less employees, and etc. - I would frankly be surprised.  I 
would also suggest that you may as well forget downsizing since the 
Republicans have had control of either Congress or held the Presidency 
for the last sixteen years.  They have been the chief exponents of 
downsizing, and if what you say is true they have no more intention of 
actually doing it then the Democrats.  With the Democrats, however, at 
least some of our taxes are returned to the general public through 
entitlement programs such as SS rather than being shuffled off to the 
bankers.
You continue:
.....
> 
> 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.
I reply:
My question is, what is the relevance of this organization to the 
discussion?
You  continue:
.....
> 
> No, you included a statement that you were for federal entitlement
> programs.  You introduced a separate point to which I was responding.
I reply:
Yes, I was trying to get the issue back on track.  My response was in 
response to... etc. and I don't want to go off on a tangent.
You continue:
....
> 
> 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.
I note:
We disagree about whether they have downsized, but money is not the 
downsizing issue that I can see.  The excuse for downsizing is that it 
cuts costs, and to do this industry has cut employees. If the government 
cuts its employees (direct or indirect i.e. defense contractors) and 
thereby reduces its costs, it has downsized in the same way that 
industry has downsized.  How it internally allocates its savings, or how 
it nibbles away at my investments, is a secondary issue IMO.
You continue:
> 
> 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.
I reply:
I know how to pay for them.  If the government can't pay the bills that 
they owe, the past and present members of Congress, past and present 
presidents, and other functionaries in charge of the programs can up 
with the cash or be driven into poverty trying to get it.  Getting this 
implemented is another story.
You continue:
> 
> It's absurd to talk about benefits from reducing government
> when no reductions are taking place.
> 
I reply:
Then it's absurd to talk about downsizing at all if it is not happening 
and no-one intends for it to happen.  Since the Republicans have adopted 
this as their issue, they've simply lied to the public again, right?
Mark Friesel

gates (gates@gates.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>Damage due to water level rises coming from global warming, especially
>ice cap water, is minimised because so much oxygen has been lost through
>the ozone layer holes (or thinning).
The Earth is currently about 3 degrees cooler than it was 4000 years ago.
How do we know we're not in a cold anomoly and global warming isn't a
natural correction? We can't arrogantly assume what we see now is
"correct".
Cheers
David

In article <32D544FD.1732@wlv.ac.uk>,
Peter Swindells   wrote:
> I accept that most people will celebrate the supposed millenium on Jan 1
> 2000.
What else could you do?  Hire an army and try to stop these
celebrations? :-)
> 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!
It's of course a fact that 2000 years have elapsed between 1 and 2001.
But it remains a matter of opinion that this should mean that 2001 is
the start of the "true" new milennium.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/

John Giddings wrote:
> 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?
Yes, Roman.  The founding of Rome.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/astro/cnode1.html#SECTION00001000000000000000
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

In article <32D546C8.3F5B@wlv.ac.uk>,
Peter Swindells   wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> 
>> In article <32D2808F.3AF8E3AF@alcyone.com>,
>> Erik Max Francis   wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>> 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
In this post I didn't argue about the start of the new millennium.
Instead I wanted to point out that your earlier statement:
# then the first year started on AD 1 Jan 1.  Correct?  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.
If the first year starts in AD 1, then the 2000'th year of course
starts in 2000, NOT in 2001 !!!!
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/

In article <5apu14$9uu@news2.delphi.com>,
Andrew Russell  wrote:
>Phil Hays wrote:
>>Then why don't you post the historical data from other
>>sources that goes back to the 1950's and show why the 
>>1970's are a special case.  Or even better,  the data 
>>record that goes back to 1920's from the Swiss Alps?
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>
>>Phil
>
>Ok, here's a citation for you:  see the charts of global ozone levels from
>1958 to 1988 in the Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 2, 1,404
>(1989) by J.K. Angell. 
 That should be "Journal of Climate". 
 (The "Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology" only exists under
 that name as volumes 22-26, covering the years 1983 to 1987. Before
 that it was called the Journal of Applied Meteorology, and it
 reverted to that name in 1989. In the same year, the American 
 Meteorological Society began a new journal, the Journal of Climate.)
>Also see "Annual and Seasonal Global Variation in
>Total Ozone and Layer-Mean Ozone, 1958-1986", by J.K. Angell and J.
>Korshover. Publication NDP-023, from the Carbon Dioxide Information
>Analysis Center of the Department of Energy.
 Available at http://cdiac.ESD.ORNL.GOV/ftp/ndp023/
 (Incidentally, this site will trigger fond or not-so-fond memories in
 those who remember an earlier era of scientific data exchange. It
 contains several packed data files, together with a Fortran-IV
 program that reads them and prints them out in 132-column format. I
 feel like I should set my window's background pattern as alternating
 green and white horizontal stripes in order to give the data an
 authentic Late-1970's look-and-feel. :-) )
>The historical charts of global ozone published therein clearly show that
>1979 was the total ozone maxima for the period studied, although there were
>lesser peaks in 1958 and 1970.
 They clearly show no such thing. In Figure 1 of the 1989 paper, the
 1979 peak is very slightly higher than the 1970 peak. But in Figures
 3 and 4, the 1970 peak is higher. The only difference between the
 figures is the way in which the data has been smoothed for graphical
 presentation; the differences between the 1970 and 1979 peaks are
 completely insignificant. 
 As for NDP-023, that's even more obvious. The data archived under
 this directory include tabulated annual means. Here they are, presented
 as percent deviations from a 1958-77 reference mean, for 1970-79:
 1970        1.7
 1971        0.7
 1972        0.5
 1973       -0.2
 1974       -0.2
 1975       -0.1
 1976        0.1
 1977        0.4
 1978        0.1
 1979        1.7
 The 1970 maximum is exactly the same as the 1979 maximum.
 In contrast, the anticipated 1990-91 maximum is much lower,
 by ~3% (Stolarski et al., "Measured Trends in Stratospheric
 Ozone",  Science _256_, 342, 1992, or the 1991 WMO Scientific
 Assessment of Ozone Depletion, pp. 2.16 and 2.20; both show
 Dobson data for 1958-91 together with TOMS for 1979-91.)
>Picking a year where the global ozone layer was at it's historical maximum
>as the 'mean' is a great way to guarantee that you can claim 'ozone
>depletion', isn't it?
 Except that it isn't done that way. "Depletion" is determined by
 analyzing the time series, removing known systematic trends (such
 as the ~11 year solar cycle and the ~26 month quasibiennial
 oscillation.) No one takes any one year to be the "mean".
 This is discussed in the WMO Scientific Assessments and, in much
 more detail, in the many papers cited therein. Particularly important
 are the papers of Bojkov et al.
>But, hey, what's a little deceit about the mean level of the ozone layer 
>compared to the need for access to taxpayer's wallets and election to
>political office?
>
>"What you have to understand, is that this is about money.  If there were
> no dollars attached to this game, you'd see it played in a very different 
> way.  It would be played on intellect and integrity.  When you say the 
> ozone threat is a scam, you're not only attacking people's scientific 
> integrity, you're going after their pocketbook as well.  It's money, 
> purely money." 
>
> - Melvyn Shapiro, Chief Meteorologist, NOAA - Boulder
>   Insight Magazine, April 6, 1992  -
 Melvyn Shapiro isn't "Chief Meteorologist" at NOAA-Boulder (there
 is no such person), nor does he occupy any position that might
 be so described (e.g. Director of the NWS or of the Office of
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Research or its major subdivisions.)
 He's a research meteorologist at NOAA, period. I believe he's
 well known and respected in his own field. So maybe he doesn't
 like some of the folks in the lab next door. Who cares? If I
 had $10.00 for every time I've heard a scientist grumble that
 some other scientists were hyping their results to get grants,
 I could probably buy _Insight_ magazine from the Washington
 Times Corporation and its backers.
 ------
 Robert 

Dear Richard Penny:
>From your below post I am in question as to the purpose of the Friends
of the River (F.O.R.). Is it F.O.R or F.O.R. Flood??
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Penny wrote:
> 
> Media Advisory                            Contact: Charles Casey
> January 7, 1997                               916/442-3155
> 
>       River group calls for review of existing flood protection system
> 
> Sacramento - Friends of the River (F.O.R.), California's largest river
> conservation group, today suggested that a reassessment of the Central
> Valley's existing flood control facilities be initiated in light of the
> damaging 1997 floods.
> 
>    "It is clear where and when flood officials have paid close attention to
> existing structures and operations - the American River flood control
> system, for example - that flood control facilities can work well," said
> Betsy Reifsnider, executive director at F.O.R.  "We certainly don't need to
> straitjacket our rivers or build a series of new dams to fight the floods
> we've seen.  Indeed, it's ironic that some of the worst flooding has been
> just downstream from two of the largest dams in the state: Oroville and Don
> Pedro dams."
> 
>    Reifsnider noted that in the Sacramento area the American River flood
> control system worked well during the recent storms, largely because of the
> efforts of flood officials and F.O.R. during the past decade.  As a result
> of intensive analysis, planning, and actual construction, the federal dam
> at Folsom is now operated much more prudently during the flood season,
> levees have been bolstered and strengthened, and American River levees in
> particular are targeted for much more work because Congress - prompted by
> F.O.R. lobbying efforts - approved a $57 million flood control package for
> the capital city area late last year.
> 
>    Despite those forthcoming improvements, there is still more work that
> can be done along the American River.  Enlarging the river outlet works and
> lowering the spillways at Folsom Dam would offer much more flexibility and
> safety during large storm events.  Couple that with raising and improving
> downstream banks and levees along the American River and Sacramento will
> enjoy even more flood protection.
> 
>    "The recent flooding throughout the Central Valley underscores the fact
> that we do not need something like an Auburn dam.  A structure on the North
> Fork of the American River - no matter how big or expensive - would have
> done nothing for the people and property hit by flooding along the Feather,
> Bear, Cosumnes, San Joaquin, Mokelumne, Stanislaus or Tuolumne rivers,"
> said Ron Stork, associate conservation director and flood control
> specialist for F.O.R.  "Let's get serious about evaluating our flood
> control system and stop wasting time on an unnecessary, billion dollar dam
> that would be located on an earthquake fault."
> 
>    Borrowing in part from the 1994 federal task force recommendations that
> followed the Mississippi floods (a study by the Interagency Floodplain
> Management Review Committee known as the "Galloway Report"), Friends of the
> River makes the following suggestions for improving public safety while
> preserving the important features of the state's rivers:
> 
> *  Analyze and reassess the entire flood system in the Central Valley;
> *  Consider levee reinforcement, upgrades and future setbacks in order to
> 
>    improve waterway conveyance reliability and efficiency;
> *  Improve flood control operations at existing dams;
> *  Make better land use and floodplain management decisions so people can
> safely
>    build, or simply avoid building, in at-risk areas;
> *  Encourage more hazard mitigation in flood prone areas, including such things
>    as buyouts, floodproofing buildings by elevating them, flood warning system
>    improvements, and increased flood hazard awareness programs;
> *  Encourage flood insurance for those at risk.
> 
>    "These are common sense, cost-effective solutions for much greater
> public safety, while at the same time preserving and restoring our river
> systems," said Stork.  "We don't need new dams as much as we need to
> upgrade and improve the aging infrastructure that's already in place.  The
> best and most environmentally responsible investment we can make is in the
> existing flood control system.  Obviously, there's plenty of room for
> improvement." he added.
> 
>    Stork, who last year led the environmental efforts to secure flood
> protection improve- ments for Sacramento without the Auburn dam, emphasized
> that California should make sure the existing systems are more reliable,
> safe and effective.  He noted that the devastating levee breaks appear to
> be a result of inattention, lack of investment, or woefully inadequate room
> for rivers to flow.
> 
>    Friends of the River is nearly 25 years old.  Based in Sacramento,
> F.O.R. is a membership organization that works on a variety of
> river-related issues throughout the state.  For more information on flood
> control or other river issues, contact Charles Casey: (916) 442-3155.
> 
>                                     # # #

In article ,
Jim Scanlon  wrote:
>The January 97 issue of Physics Today has a seven page article: "The
>Discovery of The Risk of Global Warming--- An accidental confluence of old
>interests and new techniques led a few scientists in the 1950s to realize
>that human activity might be changing the world's climate." by Spencer R.
>Weart.
 I recommend this article. I think some people on this newsgroup make too much
 of global warming being based upon "simple physics." Actually, a number
 of fairly subtle issues have to be gotten out of the way before the
 "simple physics" emerges. Arrhenius' 1896 estimate was fundamentally 
 flawed because he didn't realize that the absorption of radiation by
 CO_2 was saturated. Until the late 1950's, virtually everyone believed
 (if this article is correct) that very little anthropogenic CO_2 would
 stay in the atmosphere for very long, because the ocean appeared to be
 an efficient sink. To understand why it doesn't work that way requires
 solving some nasty coupled equilibrium problems relating to the
 carbonate/bicarbonate buffer system. 
 I am also reminded of my earlier remarks that most of the greenhouse
 skeptics - not Lindzen, Balling et al. but most of the non-scientists
 and quite a few scientists as well - have a knack for behaving like
 Burnside at the battle of Fredricksburg, ignoring the real weaknesses
 and attacking the theory at its strongest points. CO_2's saturated 
 absorption, water vs. CO_2 as an IR absorber, how long does it take
 before CO_2 goes into the ocean, etc. etc. - sheesh, that stuff was
 being discussed 40, 50, 60 and more years ago! 
 ------
 Robert

In 
rpenny@ix.netcom.com (Richard Penny) writes: 
>
>
>Media Advisory                            Contact: Charles Casey
>January 7, 1997                               916/442-3155
>
>
>      River group calls for review of existing flood protection system
>
>
>Sacramento - Friends of the River (F.O.R.), California's largest river
>conservation group, today suggested that a reassessment of the Central
>Valley's existing flood control facilities be initiated in light of
the
>damaging 1997 floods.
>
>   "It is clear where and when flood officials have paid close
attention to
>existing structures and operations - the American River flood control
>system, for example - that flood control facilities can work well,"
said
>Betsy Reifsnider, executive director at F.O.R.  "We certainly don't
need to
>straitjacket our rivers or build a series of new dams to fight the
floods
>we've seen.  Indeed, it's ironic that some of the worst flooding has
been
>just downstream from two of the largest dams in the state: Oroville
and Don
>Pedro dams."
>
>   Reifsnider noted that in the Sacramento area the American River
flood
>control system worked well during the recent storms, largely because
of the
>efforts of flood officials and F.O.R. during the past decade.  As a
result
>of intensive analysis, planning, and actual construction, the federal
dam
>at Folsom is now operated much more prudently during the flood season,
>levees have been bolstered and strengthened, and American River levees
in
>particular are targeted for much more work because Congress - prompted
by
>F.O.R. lobbying efforts - approved a $57 million flood control package
for
>the capital city area late last year.
>
>   Despite those forthcoming improvements, there is still more work
that
>can be done along the American River.  Enlarging the river outlet
works and
>lowering the spillways at Folsom Dam would offer much more flexibility
and
>safety during large storm events.  Couple that with raising and
improving
>downstream banks and levees along the American River and Sacramento
will
>enjoy even more flood protection.
>
>   "The recent flooding throughout the Central Valley underscores the
fact
>that we do not need something like an Auburn dam.  A structure on the
North
>Fork of the American River - no matter how big or expensive - would
have
>done nothing for the people and property hit by flooding along the
Feather,
>Bear, Cosumnes, San Joaquin, Mokelumne, Stanislaus or Tuolumne
rivers,"
>said Ron Stork, associate conservation director and flood control
>specialist for F.O.R.  "Let's get serious about evaluating our flood
>control system and stop wasting time on an unnecessary, billion dollar
dam
>that would be located on an earthquake fault."
>
>   Borrowing in part from the 1994 federal task force recommendations
that
>followed the Mississippi floods (a study by the Interagency Floodplain
>Management Review Committee known as the "Galloway Report"), Friends
of the
>River makes the following suggestions for improving public safety
while
>preserving the important features of the state's rivers:
>
>*  Analyze and reassess the entire flood system in the Central Valley;
>*  Consider levee reinforcement, upgrades and future setbacks in order
to       
>
>   improve waterway conveyance reliability and efficiency; 
>*  Improve flood control operations at existing dams;
>*  Make better land use and floodplain management decisions so people
can
>safely 
>   build, or simply avoid building, in at-risk areas;
>*  Encourage more hazard mitigation in flood prone areas, including
such things 
>   as buyouts, floodproofing buildings by elevating them, flood
warning system 
>   improvements, and increased flood hazard awareness programs;
>*  Encourage flood insurance for those at risk.
>
>   "These are common sense, cost-effective solutions for much greater
>public safety, while at the same time preserving and restoring our
river
>systems," said Stork.  "We don't need new dams as much as we need to
>upgrade and improve the aging infrastructure that's already in place. 
The
>best and most environmentally responsible investment we can make is in
the
>existing flood control system.  Obviously, there's plenty of room for
>improvement." he added.
>
>   Stork, who last year led the environmental efforts to secure flood
>protection improve- ments for Sacramento without the Auburn dam,
emphasized
>that California should make sure the existing systems are more
reliable,
>safe and effective.  He noted that the devastating levee breaks appear
to
>be a result of inattention, lack of investment, or woefully inadequate
room
>for rivers to flow.
>
>   Friends of the River is nearly 25 years old.  Based in Sacramento,
>F.O.R. is a membership organization that works on a variety of
>river-related issues throughout the state.  For more information on
flood
>control or other river issues, contact Charles Casey: (916) 442-3155.
Lets face it, no one saw this one coming. You chose to live in the
cenral valley, below a levy, its only a matter of time... Mother nature
is going to win sooner or later. Only due to the good nature of those
in the central valley, looting and a feeding frenzy will not take
place. God speed to those trying to bring life back together.          
                         # # # #

  Yep,  "D. Braun"  wrote on Tue, 7 Jan 1997
   Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum.... 
>off-topic newsgroups snipped
Well, I hope you notified them.
D. Braun continues:
>Second, if you want to compare the impacts of various energy sources on
>the environment, you have to do cradle to grave analysis.
>Nuclear is rather open-ended on the "grave" end.  While wind and solar use
>Third, why leave out biomass fuels? No net input to global warming at all.
>In fact, more biomass-fuel farming may actually reduce soil erosion, and
>Fourth, merely comparing the costs of building solar panels or wind mills
>vs. nuclear plants is missing the point--- the fuel is free--- no $ or
[....]
Greig Ebleing:
>> Silence?  All the information on any subject you want re nuclear power
>> is freely available if you bother to look, and there are many highly
>> educated individuals in this ng who would be willing to answer any
>> questions, if you could be bothered to ask.
>> >Can you imagine what a catastrophy just one nuke-waste accident would be?
Greig:
>> Imagination can run wild when not restricted by knowledge and reason.
Braun replies:
>Unfair "ad hominim" on your part. So, what is the impact of a worst case
>scenario, similar to Chernoble, in  the US, vs., let's say, a windmill
>falling over? A panel of solar cells falling off a roof? A biomass farm
I really do think that is one of the main concerns, -- that so
far has not been addressed.  Until this and waste disposal concerns
and economics are, we simply beat around the bush with red herrings.
I'm glad to see Dave Braun participate here since unlike myself he
seems to know a little about this topic. 
I think all opinions aside, one must first consider the economic
viability of nukes.  Fact is, in the USA, not one single power
company wants one.  If nobody wants one, why is there a debate?
Well, the nuke-boys want them, but does anybody else?  So it seems
reasonable to conclude that this conversation would not exist
without the nuke-boys (vested interests, such as unemployed nuke
scientists or builders).
Several years ago I heard that it had been a decade or more since
anybody even applied for a permit in the USA.  I believe
that this is largely because the USA has enacted "cradle to grave"
responsibility on (toxic) pollution.  That responsibility now cannot
be alienated.  (All owners of toxins in the chain of ownership are
forever responsible for it.)
I will note that this unalienable responsibility has several
weak points in the context of decades or centuries.
Most obviously, those responsible (including entire governments)
die or otherwise become unviable.  In effect this absolves
responsibility, while the cost/problem remains.  This raises
a great many ethical questions; in a nutshell: the future subsidizing
today's benefits, and the (future) taxpayer/environment subsidizing 
(today's) private interests.
---    We desire to increase Joe Public's wealth and freedom.
--    Douglas bashford@psnw.com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html

  Yep,  scotth@wormald.com.au (Scott Hamilton) wrote on Wed, 8 Jan
Re: Nuclear Power in Australia?   Why not? 
>  I think that the main point that everyone here has missed is that 
>it was Henny-Penny and not Chicken-Little that said the sky was falling.
>(at least it was when I was told the story.)  >Scotty.
EGADS!!!  Well who is Chicken Little?????  
Those interested in a better informed environmentalist's
post than mine on technical nuke questions may want to see:
  D. Braun"  wrote on Tue, 7 Jan 1997
   Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
  on sci.environment,talk.environment, and a few other groups. 
For some economic and ethical questions, see my reply to it.
I believe its been over a decade since anybody applied for
a nuke-plant in the USA.
Why doesn't ANY US power company even want a nuke-plant?
They lose money, big-time.  See Diablo Canyon in California,
one of America's newest plants.
And, if safe, why are they so expensive to insure?   
I got an e-mail asking if they don't want it, why do they
(the U.S.) have so many?  In my opinion, it is a combination
of 1) they didn't know what they were doing, and 2) in those
days they had better ways of ducking the long-term costs by
shifting those to the a) taxpayer, b) environment, and c) the
future.  This ducking the long-term costs is in effect a
subsidy paid by those three to the nuke-boys.  For more
details on this, see my above reply to D. Braun.
-    We desire to increase Joe Public's wealth and freedom.
-  Growthmania consumes what it promises. Ecology can deliver it.
--    Douglas bashford@psnw.com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html

Paul Hager wrote:
> 
....
I include what I wrote previously for context...
> >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.
> 
You reply:
> No, that's what you are saying.
I note:
Not at all.  I'm saying that the government has slashed it's research 
budgets and eliminated many research scientists from the payroll, or 
reduced their income, and because of this (and other things) they have 
indeed downsized.  I asked for someone to tell me how this has 
benefitted the public.  No one has told me, but rather we're now arguing 
about whether the government has downsized.
You continue:
>  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.
I note:
I agree.  And I will agree with you that the government has not 
downsized if you show me that it has indeed hired on additional 
employees and where.  But the driver and excuse for DOE cuts was 
downsizing.
You continue:
....
> 
> 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.
> 
I reply:
Of course net benefit is the real issue.  The DOE cuts are ->not<- 
beneficial.  You seem to forget that the internet we're discussing this 
on, for example, was developed as part of a defense research program by 
DARPA.  So were many other products, and many small and large businesses 
began as defense program spin-offs.
If there has indeed been a net increase in government employees - 
despite DOE cuts, layoffs in the defense industry which are indirect but 
none-the-less employees, and etc. - I would frankly be surprised.  I 
would also suggest that you may as well forget downsizing since the 
Republicans have had control of either Congress or held the Presidency 
for the last sixteen years.  They have been the chief exponents of 
downsizing, and if what you say is true they have no more intention of 
actually doing it then the Democrats.  With the Democrats, however, at 
least some of our taxes are returned to the general public through 
entitlement programs such as SS rather than being shuffled off to the 
bankers.
You continue:
.....
> 
> 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.
I reply:
My question is, what is the relevance of this organization to the 
discussion?
You  continue:
.....
> 
> No, you included a statement that you were for federal entitlement
> programs.  You introduced a separate point to which I was responding.
I reply:
Yes, I was trying to get the issue back on track.  My response was in 
response to... etc. and I don't want to go off on a tangent.
You continue:
....
> 
> 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.
I note:
We disagree about whether they have downsized, but money is not the 
downsizing issue that I can see.  The excuse for downsizing is that it 
cuts costs, and to do this industry has cut employees. If the government 
cuts its employees (direct or indirect i.e. defense contractors) and 
thereby reduces its costs, it has downsized in the same way that 
industry has downsized.  How it internally allocates its savings, or how 
it nibbles away at my investments, is a secondary issue IMO.
You continue:
> 
> 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.
I reply:
I know how to pay for them.  If the government can't pay the bills that 
they owe, the past and present members of Congress, past and present 
presidents, and other functionaries in charge of the programs can up 
with the cash or be driven into poverty trying to get it.  Getting this 
implemented is another story.
You continue:
> 
> It's absurd to talk about benefits from reducing government
> when no reductions are taking place.
> 
I reply:
Then it's absurd to talk about downsizing at all if it is not happening 
and no-one intends for it to happen.  Since the Republicans have adopted 
this as their issue, they've simply lied to the public again, right?
Mark Friesel