Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: mcoburn@coho.halcyon.com (Michael L. Coburn)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 04:41:53 GMT
In article ,
John McCarthy wrote:
>In article <32C7DCF1.31F5@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
> >
> > David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> > >
> > .....
> > >
> > > When has Latin America ever been capitalist? It has been various
> > > kinds of feudal from the 1400's to the last ten years. Free markets
> > > are being constructed for the first time there, but anything more
> > > capitalist than a large plantation is a rarity there still.
> > >
> >
> > I note:
> >
> > Capitalism and Feudalism seem to have a great deal in common.
>
>They do indeed, but the differences are what make capitalism (when
>working well) a progressive society and feudalism (when working well)
>a static society. Feudalism is never pure, and actual feudal
>societies have bits of capitalism within them.
>
>So what are the important differences?
>
>Feudalism, when working well, is based on fixed inherited roles in
>society. The hierarchy is based on control of fixed pieces of land
>and authority over the inhabitants thereof. It works most smoothly if
>each man has exactly one son to inherit. Since this condition is
>often not met, feudal societies are subject to turmoil and conflict,
>ideally adjudicated by higher lords but often leading to fighting.
>
>Capitalism is based on possession of capital invested in production.
>The joint stock company or corporation makes capital divisible. There
>is nothing anomalous, and it often happens, that an innovator, either
>an inventor or a commercial innovator, rises from nothing to control
>large amounts of capital. There is also nothing anomalous about a big
>company going bankrupt or losing money to the extent that it has to
>merge.
>
>To see the difference, imagine Bill Gates becoming the Duke of
>Seattle. There would be a lot of fighting, or perhaps an important
>marriage.
>
>Socialism, as actually practiced, tends towards feudalism, because
>when positions are nominally obtained by judgment of merit, they often
>are actually awarded via connections. Capitalism is different.
>Boeing did not become the manufacturer of 52 percent of the world's
>commercial airliners because of some authority's decision that it
>ought or by a fortunate marriage by the president of Boeing.
>
>--
>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.
>
Your selection of Boeing is unfortunate and you will find that
politics and government have a lot more to do with world wide corporate
operations like Boeing than does technology and innovation. It may be a
human condition, a governmenttal phenomina, or just indemnic to the US,
but there comes a point when corporate size becomes much more important
than profitability or competitivness. There are organizations so large
that they will not be "allowed" to fail. When Boeing spends 5 times what
it should on the introduction of new technology it simply raises prices
and depends upon the government to insure its markets. Chrystler is a
shining example of the good that can come of this type of thing. But most
often it simply allows the current rulers to remain on the throne. The
larger Eastern banks were bailed out by the Fed as Volker tightened the
money supply, but the farmers all perished. "We just didn't know what
would happen if a bank that size was to fail".
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Let me assure you that | Michael L. Coburn | mcoburn@halcyon.com |
* my employer agrees with| Softfolks Inc. | softfolk.wa.com |
* what I say. He's me. | UNIX,c,X/Motif,Oracle,DCE,CM,& SYS ADM |
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: Mark Friesel
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:13:58 -0700
Guru George wrote:
>
......
> >
>
> 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.
>
I reply:
What kind of decision it is is a side issue. Anything can be labelled
'slight reshuffling' if your prerequesite for it to be anything else is
that it clear the debt.
You continue:
......
>
> 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.
>
I reply:
When you refer to 'the state' I assumed you meant the government - which
is not the same as the general public.
You continue:
...
>
> 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 reply:
How? How do they carry out social functions? THey have a
responsibility which they have periodically attempted to meet, to a
greater or lesser degree. A lesser degree when the country has been
hornswoggled like it is now. As to your assertion about what I think, I
have never intended to say or imply what you assert. What have I
written that indicates this?
You continue:
> I say: intentions don't count, results count.
I note: Oh, good.
You continue:
> If the logic of an ideology promises good results in counterfactual
> debate, surely it is worth considering?
I reply"
I tend to be an experimenter rather than a theorist. I do theory for
fun, experiment to obtain information.
You continue:
> The trouble with Leftist
> arguments is that they do not produce, and never have produced, good
> results in counterfactual debate.
I note:
I haven't heard a leftist argument in almost twenty years - I'm assuming
I'd recognize one but I can't be sure. Lot's of things people >say< are
leftist...
You continue:
> 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 reply:
This is really wierd. I don't know how I suddenly became a leftist,
whatever you mean by this. I know hot air when I hear it about 80% of
the time.
You continue:
> I say: admit that you were wrong about some stuff, then you may begin
> to be able to understand what libertarians are saying.
I note:
Ok, let's try it. I was wrong to think you're going to make sense in
this discussion....AHHHH! NOW I understand what libertarians are
saying. What are you saying, by the way?
You continue:
>
> 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?
I reply:
When you through out semi-fascism and semi-socialism in this context you
completely lose me. I have other fish to fry.
You continue:
> Libertarianism says: neither
> semisocialist nor semifascist social engineering ought to be allowed.
>
I reply:
Well....tough luck.
You say
> Capital can be generated? How? What are the way/s?
>
I reply:
The mint.
You continue:
....(re: right-wing propaganda)
>
> And of the Left since the 19th century.
I note:
I wasn't around then. I haven't heard as much as a whimper from any
organization that I would classify as the left, much less any
propaganda.
You continue:
>
> BTW, I think you must learn to distinguish libertarianism, which is
> the continuation of pure classical liberalism, from Right
> libertarianism, from the Right.
I reply:
I really couldn't care less about libertarianism, however you define it.
I'm not in a position to use them as a political tool, I don't see that
they have much political power, I haven't heard that their programs
would benefit me in any tangible way, and I'm really to busy to go
hunting down the scoop on every noisy political sect that thinks they
have all the answers.
You continue:
....
> Glad you admit that you don't get it! There's hope for you yet. :-)
>
I reply:
I also don't get why downsizing has occurred but so many seem to want to
deny it, why it has been detrimental and promises to be worse yet so
many seem to support it, why the Republicans can rob the public blind
yet so many of their victims want to excuse it. I haven't noticed >you<
saying that you don't get it. Does this mean there's no hope for you?
Too bad. 8^(
Mark Friesel
Subject: Nuclear Power in Australia? Why not?
From: geoffh@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 15:49:09 GMT
In article <5as02j$ckj@thrush.sover.net>, tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
wrote:
>Please describe how solar, wind, etc. are going to be implented on
such a
>large scale (105,000 MW) at a comparble cost (few $/MW-hr).
There are two parts to this question:
a) the resource - in previous postings I and others have pointed
out that the solar resource is huge compared to humanity's present
energy requirements. About 178,000 TW* of solar energy are striking
the Earth, compared to about 17 TW of all forms of energy that we use,
i.e. the solar resource is 10,000 times present requirements. Taking
into account conversion efficiencies the land area requirements to meet
all our present energy requirements are approximately as follows (for
three illustrative technologies - there are several others):
17 TW solar (thermal electric) - 0.2% of dry land excluding Antarctica
17 TW wind - 0.04% of dry land excluding
Antarctica
17 TW biomass - 28% of dry land excluding Antarctica
Biomass is important of course because it provides annual storage which
solar and wind lack. 28% of our land may seem a lot or a little
depending on your viewpoint, but the point is that it is technically
viable if we want to do something to avert climate change. And the
fact that other technologies are much less land intensive is
encouraging because it makes the 28% figure an upper limit, "if needed"
sort of scenario.
b) price - you seem to assert that nuclear power costs only a few
$/MWh. This is nonsense. 5-10 c/kWh would be a typical ballpark
figure. This is $50-100/MWh. Wind power, solar thermal and biomass
are all in this same ballpark, so they are all "comparable" in price to
nuclear power. Depending on local wind, solar and biomass resources,
they are cheaper in many cases. Given the problems and risks
associated with nuclear power, the "solar" options are the logical
choice for countries with low populations densities (lots of land per
capita) like most of the developing world, Australia, New Zealand,
Canada and the USA. Only highly populated areas like Europe, Japan and
India need contemplate nuclear power in the 21st century.
* all TW figures are continuous or annual average rates of energy flow.
Subject: Nuclear Power in Australia? Why not?
From: geoffh@wtl.co.nz (Geoff Henderson)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 15:50:24 GMT
In article <5as02j$ckj@thrush.sover.net>, tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
wrote:
>Please describe how solar, wind, etc. are going to be implented on
such a
>large scale (105,000 MW) at a comparble cost (few $/MW-hr).
There are two parts to this question:
a) the resource - in previous postings I and others have pointed
out that the solar resource is huge compared to humanity's present
energy requirements. About 178,000 TW* of solar energy are striking
the Earth, compared to about 17 TW of all forms of energy that we use,
i.e. the solar resource is 10,000 times present requirements. Taking
into account conversion efficiencies the land area requirements to meet
all our present energy requirements are approximately as follows (for
three illustrative technologies - there are several others):
17 TW solar (thermal electric) - 0.2% of dry land excluding Antarctica
17 TW wind - 0.04% of dry land excluding
Antarctica
17 TW biomass - 28% of dry land excluding Antarctica
Biomass is important of course because it provides annual storage which
solar and wind lack. 28% of our land may seem a lot or a little
depending on your viewpoint, but the point is that it is technically
viable if we want to do something to avert climate change. And the
fact that other technologies are much less land intensive is
encouraging because it makes the 28% figure an upper limit, "if needed"
sort of scenario.
b) price - you seem to assert that nuclear power costs only a few
$/MWh. This is nonsense. 5-10 c/kWh would be a typical ballpark
figure. This is $50-100/MWh. Wind power, solar thermal and biomass
are all in this same ballpark, so they are all "comparable" in price to
nuclear power. Depending on local wind, solar and biomass resources,
they are cheaper in many cases. Given the problems and risks
associated with nuclear power, the "solar" options are the logical
choice for countries with low populations densities (lots of land per
capita) like most of the developing world, Australia, New Zealand,
Canada and the USA. Only highly populated areas like Europe, Japan and
India need contemplate nuclear power in the 21st century.
* all TW figures are continuous or annual average rates of energy flow.
Subject: Re: Family Planning ( was: Re: Yuri's crude religious bigotry.)
From: bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:52:32 GMT
Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne@mmalt.guild.org) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: > : "We don't need birth control. We need to end poverty.
: >
: > This is the sort of idiocy that results from following the mode of
: > primitive binary thinking. Either/or world-view. In the REAL WORLD:
: >
: > Birth control = end of poverty.
: This statement is a much better example of primitive binary thinking
: than the quote from Marcia CCocllo. There are many factors involved in
: causing poverty. Simply supplying birth control without addressing
: economic injustice will not end poverty. Most supporters of birth
: control recognize this.
A drop in population will automatically increase the per capita wealth.
So my statement is correct.
: > : I witness daily
: > : that the intrauterine devices and pills that the United States floods our
: > : country with only create more frustrations for women and many times serious
: > : harm to their health, which worsens their financial condition even more.
: >
: > Oh, really? I suppose being pregnant most of your life -- the lifestyle
: > that the evil Vatican creeps desire for the poor women -- will improve
: > their "financial condition"?
: You amaze me, Yuri. You apparently think that you have a better grasp
: of what it is like to be a woman in a developing country than an
: actual woman in a developing country does. You dare to call the
: judgement of these people "idiocy".
I dare to call idiocy anything that is idiocy.
: It is incredibily arrogant for you
: to claim the right to decide what the problems and solutions are
: for people on the other side of the world.
So, it's OK for the Pope, but not OK for anyone else?
: You have decided that your
: perceptions are the "REAL WORLD". Of course, this illustrates
: what I've been claiming all along, that population control denies
: people autonomy. People have the right to decide for themselves what
: problems they consider the highest priority and what they want to do
: about it.
The Catholic Church always gave people autonomy!
: > : At times, I view with sadness that many women bring their children
with an : > : injury or a burn to health centers that don't even have
gauze or : > : antiseptics, but shelves filled with birth-control pills...
Our country : > : needs technical and economic assitance to make
progress."
: > Either/or again.
: The "either/or" mentality illustrated by this story is on the part of
: the foreign countries who are sending birth-control pills to people
: who need medicine. This woman would not be complaining if they were
: sending both.
How do you know what they are sending and not sending?
: This is a letter from a woman who is begging for
: help. She is explaining that the "help" currently being sent is
: inappropriate and unwanted. How can you claim to be motivated by the
: good of people in developing countries when you won't even listen to
: them?
I've spent many years in 3 world countries unlike you.
: > : And here is another from "Population Growth and Progress" by Simon and
: > : Zinsmeister in _The Nine lives of Popualtion Control_ ed. Michael
: > : Cromartie:
: >
: > : "For a quarter of a century now, a solid body of statistical evidence has
: > : contradicted the conventional wisdom about the effects of population growth
: > : in less developed countires. Research by economists has shown that much of
: > : alleged economic harm from population growth has not occurred.
: >
: > This is idiotic propaganda designed for the brain dead. What research?
: > What evidence? I'm sure that it demonstrates conclusively that black is in
: > fact white?
: The paragraph I quoted contains as much research and evidence as your
: posts usually contain. On its own, the paragraph is a completely
: unsubstantiated claim, just like you constantly make. The difference
: is that the authors of the quote can give evidence to support it,
: which would be clear if you read it in context.
I've seen your "evidence". Most of it is is such only for you and your
fellow true believers.
: I don't read all your posts, but I have read a significant number. I
: have never seen you present research and evidence to support your
: claims.
Why I don't present research? Because it would be a waste of time to
present research to convince a robot such as you. Most of the things I
say are self-evident and are understood as such by most people in these
ngs. Nobody except you complains about me not presenting research. You're
really not worth the time, Jayne. You're a pathetic propagandist of a
known falsehood. You have no supporters. Who cares about you?
I understand such complains from you as a strategy to waste my time. A
poor strategy: I can see through your tricks so easily. I can go to the
WWW and find hundreds of relevant files full of "hard research" to post
here. But why bother? Most already know these things...
You should be greatful you found one individual who is willing to waste a
few minutes to provide you an appropritate reply. Otherwise you would be
like John Lauzon spamming nonsense to the void.
Jayne... another kook screaming into the void...
Yuri.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------
Subject: Water Board and Lane Cove
From: "Silk - Young"
Date: 10 Jan 97 09:51:07 GMT
I need information on the potable water supply to Lane Cove Council. This
service is managed by the Sydney Water Board, so I would like to contact
anybody who can assist me in my research on the history, technologies,
problems etc. etc. relating to this topic.
As there is little water board activity in the council area, other than
pipelines, I also need to know the supply route, ie Warragamba Dam,
Prospect (information on new facilities), Ryde Pumping Station?, any other
pumping stations, history on this route, and any other information relating
to the topic.
My interest is due to an essay assignment, which I am just beggining to
gather information, so currently I would like to be overloaded with
information that I can filter myself, ie. any information relating to this
topic would be greatly appreciated.
Please Email on S.Y@onaustralia.com.au
Regards,
Scott Young.
Subject: Re: --Green Mountain Goes Green
From: "Iver McLeod"
Date: 10 Jan 1997 14:27:49 GMT
Well golly gee whiz - I feel so warm and cuddly because Hydro-Quebec is
using hydropower and not generating greenhouse gases. But don't be fooled:
hydropower is no panacea either, especially as provided by HQ. I quote from
the Sierra Club at http://204.29.238.193/ecoregions/hudsonbay.html:
In 1972, with no environmental assessment and over the objections of Native
peoples, Quebec's energy corporation, Hydro Quebec, launched the first
phase of hydroelectric developments here. By means of nine dams and 206
dikes, the company diverted four major rivers into the mighty La Grande,
flooding 7044 square miles of forested land. This was only the start of the
damming and diverting of the rivers in the La Grande watershed, where
another 38 dams and 461 dikes are still planned. Thus has begun the most
massive and destructive engineering and river-replumbing scheme in history,
one that threatens to alter the entire Hudson Bay/James Bay ecosystem and
destroy Cree, Inuit, and Naskapi societies.
And this from the Earth Island Journal at
http://www.earthisland.org/ei/journal/hydroque.html:
Hydro Quebec is Back
by Alexis Lathem
For the last 50 years, Hydro Quebec (HQ) has led an assault on one of North
America's last great wildernesses -- the sub-Arctic region of vast boreal
forests, fragile tundra, and networks of freshwater rivers and lakes. HQ's
industrial invasion began with the damming of the wild rivers of eastern
Quebec and Labrador, a region called Nitassinan by its aboriginal people,
the Innu.
The James Bay project, a four-phase hydroelectric scheme involving dozens
of pristine rivers in Quebec, brought HQ's hydroelectric projects into the
international spotlight. The Cree people of the region have been
challenging this project since the 1970s, gaining widespread international
support. Much of Phase I has been completed, but construction continues.
Phase II would divert the Great Whale River and three of its tributaries,
reducing flow by 85 percent and flooding 1090 square kilometers (436 square
miles) of land. In Quebec's current political climate, it is unlikely that
Phases III and IV will go forward, but building plans are complete.
In November, 1994, after New York state canceled the second of two $19
billion contracts for James Bay electricity, Quebec Premier Jacques
Parizeau announced that he was postponing Phase II, known as the Great
Whale project.
The jubilant mood that surrounded the announcement was quickly dampened
when Great Whale's opponents learned that Parizeau refused to instruct the
state-owned utility to pull out of the environmental permitting process.
Many believed that the announcement was only a political gesture intended
to silence Quebec's international critics prior to a 1995 referendum on
Quebec's independence from Canada.
With the spotlight on Great Whale, HQ continued to build access roads for
the Sainte Marguerite 3 (SM3) project on Quebec's North Shore. Meanwhile,
the Innu opposing SM3 fought the project in isolation from the
international support networks that brought the plight of the James Bay
Cree to the world's attention.
SM3 is an HQ proposal to build a new dam and restore two abandoned dams on
the Ste. Marguerite River, which flows through Innu territory in Quebec. In
comparison to Great Whale, the SM3 project would be small, but its
consequences would be equally devastating to Innu culture. SM3 would join a
collection of 14 existing dams erected on the St. Lawrence River's
tributaries that have already flooded an area comparable to the reservoirs
created by Phase I of the James Bay project.
Nitassinan territory follows the North Shore of the St. Lawrence from
Quebec City to Labrador. In this region, HQ has dammed the Bestiamites,
Manicougan, Outards and Ste. Marguerite rivers, flooding seven percent of
the rich river basins that the Innu have inhabited for thousands of years.
Now me again.
This information is a year or two old. I searched for more recent
information hoping to find something that said HQ had relented. But I
found nothing.
Hydro DOES have some advantages but the dams are a major problem. No fuel
source is free of environmental impact so please let's not try and make the
mega-power corporations look so concerned about the environment.
"Eco-credits"? Give me a break!
--
Iver McLeod
iver.j.mcleod@state.me.us
"Come grow the scorched ground green..."
tomgray@igc.org wrote in article
<9a7651a1&199701092144.NAA12165@igc6.igc.org>...
> 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.
>
snip
> 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
snip again
>
> In addition, GMEP offers "EcoCredits" to customers who take
> various energy-saving actions, such as filling out a home energy
snip some more
> "Green Mountain Energy Partners," the company concludes,
> "will:
>
> o Deliver energy choices that protect the environment.
>
and more snip
Subject: GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 970110
From: gsenet@nac.net (Phil Reynolds)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 10:11:04
970110
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* WATCHUNG RESERVATION DEER HUNT ENTERS FOURTH BLOODY YEAR
* OPEN PUBLIC MEETING - AUTO EMISSIONS TEST
* BUTTERFLIES PRESS RELEASE
* SUBSCRIBE TO STUDENT ANIMAL ACTIVISM LISTSERVER
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
WATCHUNG RESERVATION DEER HUNT ENTERS FOURTH BLOODY YEAR
Date: 10 Jan 1997
From: veganman@mail.idt.net (Stuart Chaifetz)
New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance
PO Box 174, Englishtown, NJ 07726 908-446-6808
News Release - January 9, 1997
Contact: Stuart Chaifetz 201-955-9203
WATCHUNG RESERVATION DEER HUNT ENTERS FOURTH BLOODY YEAR
Deer population larger than before hunts started
UNION COUNTY - In the past three years, more than 300 tame deer have
been killed in the Watchung Reservation. In a few short days, hunting
will begin again. It will last until the end of March, with 189 more
deer facing certain extermination. Since hunting was introduced into
the Reservation, the deer population has risen dramatically. Before
the first hunt started, there were less than 300 deer. After three
years, with 300 deer killed, the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife
now lists the population at 412!
"If hunting truly reduced deer herds, the herd would be reduced in the
Reservation, not increased, especially with so many killed" states
Stuart Chaifetz, Chairperson of NJARA's Anti-hunting Committee.
"Before the hunts started, NJARA activists told the Freeholders that
hunting would increase the deer population, not lower it." The only
thing that the Watchung Reservation hunts have done is provide a few
hunters with their own private killing ground.
FACT: Hunting increases deer populations. Competition for food, land
and breeding is eliminated when a large number of deer are killed
within a herd, causing the birth rate to soar. With plenty of food to
go around, more females will get pregnant, and twin and triplet births
occur. This added nutrition also allows fawns to gain enough weight by
the time they are 6 months old to become pregnant. Normally, it takes
2 to 3 years. This high birth rate not only replaces those that were
killed, but it adds significantly to the size of the total population.
This is what has happened at the Reservation.
Another factor is that the Daniel Bernier, Bureau Chief of the Union
County Parks Department, arranged for Union County employees to put
out thousands of pounds of food for the deer, to bait them for the
kill. Not only is this despicable, but this feeding has helped
increase the herd, and has guaranteed larger numbers of deer for
hunters to kill for many years to come.
Three Years Of Slaughtering Deer Has Cost The County More Than
$160,000
Investigating the true cost of the hunt to the tax payers of Union
County has revealed a shocking $90,000 in unreported expenses. When
combined with the $72,689.74 that was reported to the county, the
three years of deer slaughter has cost the tax payers more than
$160,000.
One example of an unreported expense is $28,560, which comes from
1,000 hours of County Police time used to kill deer. "Mr. Bernier only
counted police overtime in his reports, forgetting to include all the
on-duty time he used the police for," states Chaifetz. "A thousand
hours of police time was wasted. Imagine if those officers had spent
that time going after rapists or murderers? Instead of helping to stop
violence, these officers were used to promote it."
Another example of tax payer money being wasted is the more than
$20,000 from salaries of County employees who, instead of doing their
county jobs, were used for the hunt. This includes the Road Supervisor
in the Division of Public Works. Are Union County's roads in such good
condition that the Road Supervisor can waste nine weeks helping in the
killing of tame deer?
NJARA is a community based, non-profit, educational organization
working toward a more peaceful, nonviolent coexistence with our
earthly companions, both human and nonhuman. Through our programs of
promoting responsible science, ethical consumerism and
environmentalism, NJARA advocates change that greatly enhances the
quality of life for animals and people and protects the earth.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OPEN PUBLIC MEETING - AUTO EMISSIONS TEST
Date: 09 Jan 1997
From: Richard Domanski
*** Open Public Meeting ***
This info. pertains to Well Maintained Vehicles four years of age &
older.
New Jersey's New Auto Emissions Test has a Built-in Failure Rate of
30% ! Waivers will be issued to your Well maintained Vehicle if it has
Not Passed Inspection, BUT what they Did Not TELL YOU was the Amount
of Waivers Given by our State. The Amount is ONLY 3% For the ENTIRE
Motoring Public of New Jersey.
So Why Does the Well Maintained Vehicles (Inocent) SUFFER to this
BURDEN?
Find Out At:
The Somerset County Bridgewater Library
( On the corner of North Bridge & Vogt Drive )
Bridgewater, New Jersey
Date: Monday, Feburary 3, 1997
Time: 8:00 p.m.
For more information, call: (201) 881-8838
Can you Afford to Lose your Rights of Owning & Operating Your Well
Maintained Vehicle?
Audio/Video Presentations of Our Legislatures Telling US the Dangers
Involved with this New Auto Emissions Test. See & hear it yourself.
Brought to you by The Central Jersey Volkswagen Club In Conjunction
with the Classic Vehicle Advocate Group.
Need more convincing, try our Web Site.
http://www2.cybernex.net/~advocate
email at: advocate@cybernex.net
This New Auto Emissions Test should have Targeted the Real Gross
Polluters, But it's Not, so the INOCENT Will SUFFER to this BURDEN.
See & hear the facts yourself.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BUTTERFLIES PRESS RELEASE
Date: 09 Jan 97
From: "GRAdmin"
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY RELEASES NEW BUTTERFLY VIDEOS
The National Audubon Society is pleased to announce a first: the
release of two new Audubon butterfly videos from MasterVision, Inc.
Audubon Society's Butterflies for Beginners and Audubon Society's
Butterfly Gardening are available immediately.
Audubon Society's Butterflies for Beginners is a perfect introduction
to these colorful and beautiful insects. Thirty- three of the most
common and wide-ranging species fly before the viewer in exquisite
close-ups, along with identification tips and range maps that make
butterflying fun and easy. Sections on the butterfly's biology and
life-cycle, and helpful tips on raising butterflies from caterpillars,
make this video a must- have resource for children. The
Adopt-a-Watershed organization has selected Audubon Society's
Butterflies for Beginners for use in its elementary education programs
nationwide. Running time is 64 minutes; suggested retail price $19.95.
Audubon Society's Butterfly Gardening is the essential video guide to
raising the garden plants, shrubs, flowers and herbs that best attract
butterflies. A butterfly garden is a pleasurable way to create and
preserve habitat for these beautiful, delicate creatures and help them
survive. Twenty- five of the most readily available plants that
attract butterflies are featured, with stunning footage, cultivation
tips and a helpful list of likely butterfly visitors.
More than 60 butterfly species are shown, in flight, full-body and
close-up, and identification information is featured so that gardeners
can better appreciate the butterflies their gardens attract. Sections
on designing a butterfly garden and raising butterflies make this a
valuable and beautiful backyard resource that can be enjoyed all year
long.
Please note: While Audubon Society's Butterfly Gardening was
initially to run 64 minutes (the first printing of packaging and
promotional materials list this as the running time), there was so
much beautiful footage of flowers and butterflies the producers felt
it necessary to lengthen the tape. The actual running time is now 91
minutes. It's suggested retail price remains $24.95.
Other Nature and Gardening Videos from Audubon and MasterVision:
For nature lovers and the environmentally concerned, the newly
released butterfly videos from the Audubon Society are the perfect
complement to MasterVision's tremendously successful five-volume
series, Audubon Society's Video Guide to Birds of North America. This
popular, comprehensive guide features close-up, live-action footage of
each of the 505 bird species native to North America, along with bird
calls, range maps and informative narration. They are invaluable to
any natural history enthusiast's library, and a great way for kids to
learn about birds and the natural world around them.
The New York Times said of Audubon Society's Video Guide to Birds of
North America: "What do these tapes offer that Mr. Peterson's famous
field- guide books don't? Plenty. A skillful mix that will delight and
inform." The suggested retail price for each volume is $29.95. Also
available is a lovely new five-volume money-saving gift set with a
suggested retail price of $139.95.
Available at Borders and better video and bookstores, or call
1-800-876-0091.
MEDIA CONTACTS:
John Bianchi National Audubon Society 212/979-3026
Richard Stadin MasterVision 212/879-0448
Posted by:
________________________________________________
| |
| Steve Daigneault, sdaigneault@audubon.org |
| Grassroots Communications Specialist |
| National Audubon Society |
| 1901 Pennsylvania Ave., #1100 |
| Washington, DC 20006 |
| ph (202)861-2242 fx (202)861-4290 |
| |
| Visit us on the World Wide Web! |
| http://www.audubon.org/audubon |
|______________________________________________|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SUBSCRIBE TO STUDENT ANIMAL ACTIVISM LISTSERVER
Date: 9 Jan 1997
From: Student Abolitionist League
How To Subscribe To New Student Animal Activism Listserver
A new listserv for student/youth animal rights activists is being
launched through the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC).
This is an excellent venue for national discussion of campus
organizing strategy, student campaigns, campus days of action, getting
animal rights into the classroom, etc. The list is intended for young
people and for students of all ages (elementary to post-grad) and
levels. Below are the instructions on how to subscribe to the Student
Environmental Action Coalition's new national email listserv for
student animal rights activists:
There is now a SEACnet list for the discussion of Animal Rights.
SEAC+ANIMALRIGHTS is open for business.
To subscribe send a letter to:
listproc@ecosys.drdr.virginia.edu
with the message:
subscribe SEAC+ANIMALRIGHTS your name
Example: subscribe SEAC+ANIMALRIGHTS Jane Vegan
Either leave the subject line blank or make it Add Me.
If you have any questions or problems, feel free to write me.
Shay
jsm8f@ecosys.drdr.virginia.edu
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* G A R D E N S T A T E E N V I R O N E T *
* Tel 201-586-4128 MAILBOX@GSENET.ORG Fax 201-627-8616 *
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
* EcoNet Conference: env.nj *
* WWW Site: http://www.gsenet.org *
* BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400 *
* Listserver: majordomo@igc.org subscribe gsenet-L *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=END=
Subject: phytopathological risks and chances of plant species in flower bulb field margins
From: tamis@rulcml.leidenuniv.nl (Wil Tamis)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 13:17:23 GMT
Phytopathological risks and chances of crops and plant species in the
unsprayed and uncropped edge along flower bulb fields in the Netherlands
(Dutch version on the next page)
The Centre of Environmental Science of the Leiden University (CML)
investigates, in corporation with the Bulb Research Centre at Lisse, the
construction and management of the unsprayed and uncropped edges along flower
bulb fields in the Netherlands, which lie mainly on moist, sandy soils.
In 1995 the government and the flower bulb branch have signed an agreement on
the implementation of the environmental policy in the flower bulb branch. Some
arrangements of this agreement concerns measures to reduce the environmental
burden of pesticides. Five different sets of measures focus on the reduction
of drift of pesticides towards surfaces waters with 90%. Important of these
drift reducing measure sets are the construction and management of an
unsprayed and uncropped edge along the flower bulb fields of 1-1.5 metres and
some technical measures to reduce pesticide drift.
The research focuses on the construction and management of the unsprayed and
uncropped edges along flower bulb fields. These unsprayed and uncropped edges
have to meet three conditions:
- construction and management of the unsprayed edges must be compatible with
farm management
- if possible the vegetation in the unsprayed edges contribute additionally to
the drift reduction
- if possible the enhancement of natural values of the unsprayed edges.
A first step in the research was the selection of potential plant species for
the unsprayed and uncropped edges:
- Festuca rubra Red fescue
- Alopecurus pratensis Meadow foxtail
- Anthoxantum odoratum Sweet vernal grass
- Poa pratensis Smooth meadow grass
- Arrhenatherum elatius False oat grass
- Allium schoenoprasum Chives
- Lupinus luteus Yellow lupin
- Lupinus polyphyllos Garden lupin
- Artemisia campestris subspec. maritima Dune wormwood
- Rutea graveolens Rue
In the growing of flower bulbs a large number of pests and diseases occur.
From the first condition it is clear that the unsprayed and uncropped edges
must not be a source of pests and diseases, which spread to the fields. The
main pests and diseases under consideration are:
- eelworms/nematodes in particular Pratylenchus penetrans and species of the
genera Trichodorus and Paratrichodorus (risks of spreading TRV, Tobravirus,
Tobacco Rattle Virus)
- Rhizoctonia solani
- aphids in particular Macrosiphum euphorbiae and Rhopalosiphum padi (risks of
spreading viruses)
- slugs (probably Arion and Deroceras)
QUESTIONS:
1. In what contribute above mentioned plant species to the spread (or control)
of above mentioned pests and diseases?
2. Which pest and diseases occur by Chives, Allium schoenoprasum, because of
its close taxonomic alliance of this species and the flower bulb species?
Please send your reaction to W.L.M. Tamis, CML, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands or preferably by e-mail: tamis@rulcml.leidenuniv.nl
Plantenziektenkundige risico's en kansen van gewassen en planten in de spuit-
en teeltvrije zones in de bollenteelt
Het Centrum voor Milieukunde van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (CML) voert in
samenwerking met het Laboratorium voor BloembollenOnderzoek te Lisse (LBO) een
onderzoek uit met als doel het opstellen van een advies voor de aanleg en
beheer van spuit- en teeltvrije zones in de bollenteelt.
In 1995 hebben overheid en bloembollensector de Overeenkomst Uitvoering
Milieubeleid Bloembollensector ondertekend. Hierin zijn onder andere afspraken
gemaakt over maatregelen om milieubelasting door bestrijdingsmiddelen terug te
dringen. In dit kader zijn vijf verschillende beheerspaketten afgesproken die
allen tot doel hebben de drift van bestrijdingsmiddelen naar het
oppervlaktewater terug te dringen met 90%. Bij de beheerspaketten gaat het
steeds om een spuit-, mest- en teeltvrije zone van 1 tot 1,5 meter breed
(vanaf de insteek) in combinatie met een reeks van technische driftreducerende
maatregelen.
Bij het opstellen van het voorlopig advies gelden drie voorwaarden:
- de spuit- en teeltvrije zones moeten goed inpasbaar zijn in de
bedrijfsvoering;
- de spuit- en teeltvrije zone dienen zo mogelijk bij te dragen aan een extra
reductie;
- zo mogelijk een verhoging van natuurwaarden.
Een eerste stap in het onderzoek was de keuze van vegetaties en/of gewassen
die in de spuit- en teeltvrije zone zouden kunnen worden toegepast. De
volgende plantensoorten lijken geschikte kandidaten voor toepassing in de
spuit- en teeltvrije zone in de bollenteelt:
- Festuca rubra Rood zwenkgras
- Alopecurus pratensis Grote vossenstaart
- Anthoxanthum odoratum Reukgras
- Poa pratensis Veldbeemdgras
- Arrhenatherum elatius Glanshaver
- Allium schoenoprasum Bieslook
- Lupinus luteus Gele lupine
- Lupinus polyphyllos Lupine
- Artemisia campestris subspec. maritima Duinaveruit
- Rutea graveolens Wijnruit
In de bollenteelt komen een groot aantal ziekten en plagen voor. Men wil
voorkomen dat vanuit de spuit- en teeltvrije zone deze ziekten en plagen zich
naar de bollenakker verspreiden. Het gaat hierbij met name om:
- aaltjes/nematoden in het bijzonder Pratylenchus penetrans soorten van de
geslachten Trichodorus en Paratrichodorus (verspreiders van de TRV,
ratelvirus)
- de schimmel Rhizoctonia solani
- bladluizen met name Macrosiphum euphorbiae en Rhodalosiphum padi (in verband
met risico's van verspreiding van virusziektes)
- slakken
VRAAG:
1. Graag zouden wij van bovengenoemde plantesoorten willen weten in hoeverre
ze bijdragen aan de verspreiding of evt. de bestrijding van de bovengenoemde
ziekten en plagen.
2. In het bijzonder zijn wij ge�nteresseerd in alle ziekten en plagen die bij
Bieslook voorkomen, in verband met de grote taxonomische verwantschap tussen
deze soort en de bloembolsoorten.
Uw reactie gaarne toesturen naar: W.L.M. Tamis, CML, Postbus 9518 RA, 2300 RA
Leiden, tel. 071-5275644 b.g.g. 5615 fax 5611; Uw reactie bij voorkeur per
e-mail: tamis@rulcml.leidenuniv.nl
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: mdv@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 11:10:20 -0500
In article <5b47ns$m9@alpine.psnw.com>,
Doug Bashford wrote:
>
>>>> 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?
>
I will not accept your silly challenge because I dispute the premise
of this entire rant. From what I have seen the USA is #1 in "quality
of life" (which you have not adequately defined I may add). Here is
a question - if quality of life is so bad here why do we have such a problem
with illegal immigration? What other nation has so many people trying so
hard to get in? Why aren't there rickety rafts heading for Europe filled
with desparate people? They all want to come HERE pal! I don't judge
"quality of life" by your guage of how many socialistic programs and
government freebies are handed out. Why is it that when people from Europe
come here they spend so much time SHOPPING? It's because nowhere else
can you get as much 'stuff' as you can here - oh but there is a catch -
ya gotta WORK for it. But if you want to be a lazy bastard and look for
short hours and vacations as your "quality of life" then bye-bye. I am
surprised you have not left yet Bashford. You think so highly of Europe -
why are you still here?
P.S. Adding infant mortality into a formula for quality of life for a
nation where 1.6 million almost-infants are aborted every year is
REALLY silly.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
mdv@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:52:16 -0800
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> I don't know how you count, but I would count like this:
>
> 1st year AD 1 (you agreed on this one!)
> 2nd year AD 2
> ...............................
> 999th year AD 999
> 1000th year AD 1000
> 1001th year AD 1001
> ...............................
> 1999th year AD 1999
> 2000th year AD 2000
> 2001th year AD 2001
> ...............................
> et cetera
You're insulting my counting skills? It's simply a matter between
cardinals and ordinals.
If you take AD 1 as the first year, the rest falls out of place. The first
year of the first millennium is AD 1, the second AD 2, and so forth. The
thousandth year -- that is, the final year -- of the first millennium is AD
1000, yes. However, the first year of the _second_ millennium is AD 1001,
the second year AD 1002, and so on.
Thus the second millennium begins in AD 2001.
Your table above is exactly correct. Your interpretation of it was wrong;
by your reckoning, the first millennium only has 999 years (AD 1 through AD
999), whereas subsequent millennia have 1000 years. This is quite simply
wrong. You can't argue your preferred origin point on this one -- a
millennium is a thousand years, period. If the first year is AD 1, then
the beginning of the second millennium is 2001.
--
Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
&tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
"You must surely know if man made heaven | Then man made hell"
Subject: The Guide to a Sustainable Future
From: greendisk@igc.org
Date: 10 Jan 1997 06:07:52
From: The Green Disk Journal
THE GUIDE TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE ....
... a special edition from the editor's of The Green Disk: a
journal of contemporary environmental issues. Included are four
sections outlining the transformation of design, energy systems,
agriculture, and materials flow necessary for a positive future:
o Ecological Building and Design
o Organic and Sustainable Agriculture
o Wood Conservation and Alternative Fibers
o Renewable and Clean Energy
This 1400 page volume is a comprehensive guide to the
organizations, agencies, projects, campaigns and companies that
are the vanguard on the path to sustainability. Each of the four
sections contains extensive background articles, news, and
resource listings. Included are:
o 232 full text reports and articles, and over 1700 references.
o 563 Web sites, listservs, CD-roms, and database listings.
o Listings of 552 books, reports, videos, and other resources.
o 377 contacts for information, products, and networking.
THE GUIDE TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE is published on disk in
Macintosh and IBM editions, and includes a user interface for
reading and keyword searching. The disks, manual, and packaging
are all made of 100% recycled content.
The Green Disk has been featured by Mother Jones, E,
Alternatives, Earth Island Journal, Wild Earth, The Green Money
Journal, Information Today, The Green Business Letter, National
Public Radio, and many others.
THE GUIDE TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE is $35 postpaid, US or
International. Payment is by VISA/MC or a US bank check. Make
sure to indicate preference for the Macintosh or IBM edition.
Visit our Web site at http://www.igc.org/greendisk for more
information and to order online. Phone/fax toll-free
1-888-GRN-DISK. Email , or write to The Green
Disk, POB 32224, Washington, DC 20007.
-- Please forward this message where appropriate. --
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:00:43 GMT
Yep, eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Tue, 07
Jan 1997 13:03:29 GMT about:
Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
>B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>>eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>>AS my earlier post last year noted, these two linked articles ( one on health
>>effects of UV, the other on the UV-B/Ozone levels over New Zealand )
>>demonstrate that decreased ozone levels will increase the risk of
>>adverse health effects for some populations.
>From what I could see, the articles in question demonstrated that
>increased UV-B exposure in NZ (for reasons other than ozone depletion)
>resulted in a measured increase in health problems. It did not bridge
>the important link re proving a correlation between ozone depletion
>and increased UV-B exposure.
So what? Hamilton has provided evidence that:
1) ozone depletion causes increased surface UV-B
2) increased UV-B exposure causes cancer
3) CFCs strongly contribute to ozone depletion.
No bridge is need be built, it already exists.
In the end, I think you provided no rebuttals. (It's hard
to keep track with you.) I'm rather sure that if you did,
none that were reasonable, you certainly provided few that
could stand to my arguments.
In any case, you wisely avoided my logic and focused on
my style.
You want to talk about grasping at straws? How about this:
"Increased surface UV-B does not correlate with
increased human exposure."
Is that your argument? But then, you always avoid broad-based
questions don't you? You seem to prefer hiding in the minutia.
That boat don't float.
>>The references provided were
>>1. " Ozone depletion and UV radiation: A health risk for New
>>Zealanders?" R.McKenzie ( The New Zealand Public Health Report.
>>October 1996 p75-77 ) plots the Annual Mean Ozone measured over
>>southern New Zealand for the years 1971-1995.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>Including a period of high volcanic activity (specifically Mt
>Pinatubo) which resulted in increased UV-B due to sulphate aerosol
>action at mid-latitudes.
So? Eruption, -- deflection. You have a problem with that?
If so, what?
>>inverse correlation between ozone and UVR" [ the 1994 WMO report
>>is indicated as the source of that data ]. ^^^^
>Again includes corrupted data.
Bullshit. Scientists could not have designed an experiment
as tidy as Mt Pinatubo. Pinatubo caused deflections, NOT
corruption. If not for Pinatubo, you arm-chair postulators
would still be arguing a half dozen other red herrings that
Pinatubo laid to rest. It injected a known amount of of chlorine,
and the deflection acted as predicted.
Tons of interesting "bloody glove" yada yada yada deleted. The meat:
>>I've just given you references to a range of other papers that
>>show that increasing UV will have adverse health effects, and
>>that the expected inverse correlation between UV radaition
>>and mean ozone levels exists.
Bingo!
>And I respond:
>From "A Challenge to Scientific Judgement"
>by Frederick Seitz.
>"There is much uncertainty concerning the long-range, average change
>in UV-B radiation, which produces erythema, at the surface of the
>earth. This level can be influenced by many factors, including the
>level of ozone in the atmosphere. Measurements[1] made in Toronto
>between 1989 and 1993 were interpreted to show that there has been a
>significant rise in such radiation in a five year period, which the
>investigators ascribe to a comparable decrease in ozone level.
>Considerable doubt [2] has been cast on this conclusion, however,
>since it is greatly influenced by the measurements during the last
>year in which there was a strong influence of unusual volcanic
>activity that began in 1991."
>1. Kerr, J.B. and C.T. McElroy, 'Science' 262, 1032 (1993)
At the time, I talked to Kerr raising this very question.
It was a big stink at the time.
A lot of stuff about the fancy new Canadian UV meters, but he
denied supporting your conclusion, and in fact, suggested
the opposite. He and McElroy is da head dudes.
Kerr has plenty of stuff out there. Read it, not what
some hick claims he said.
So we have da meat. You dispute it with false conclusions.
Build a bridge. What is a logical person to think about
your arguments?
>2.Waters, J.W., et al, Nature 362, 597 (1993). DeMuer, D. and
>H.DeBacker, J. Geophys. Res 97, 5921 (1992)
Read them to. A little question. I'm sure you just forgot.
>From "A Challenge to Scientific Judgement"
>by Frederick Seitz.
Where did you find that?
>>This is my last post in this thread.
Will your followup be: "Ozone hole=cost of doing business"?
>Cheerio, it has been educational.
>...Greig
Ya, and phun too. It's been quite some time since
an anti-environmentalists could keep me awake thru
an entire post on this issue. I think you raised some
excellent points. Your error was bogging down in the
details, and your failure to see the bridges. That is:
I think a syllogism has too much status for a redundancy.
But you may disagree with that. If so, consider building
your bridge making skills.
All the meat you need is on this page. Twice. Here is
the second time:
1) ozone depletion causes increased surface UV-B
2) increased UV-B exposure causes cancer
3) CFCs strongly contribute to ozone depletion.
I believe you do not dispute this.
The only possible defense that I see is (loosely):
"Increased surface UV-B does not correlate with
increased human exposure."
That cannot be falsified, therefore is an unscientific
statement. A non sequitur. Plus it is silly.
You never did explain the motivation for this science
conspiracy of yours? Or? was it that you are just so
much smarter than all the scientists? Or is that you're
not crazy, everybody else is? I believe that covers all
the possibilities, does it not? Did I leave anything out?
- We desire to increase per capita 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
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:09:29 -0800
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Starting it at 1 AD is just as arbitrary.
Sure, but that's how it is defined.
> 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.
Now you're advocating changing the origin point so that you can make the
point which you originally intended. That's just nonsense.
> And -- more importantly -- very few, or nobody, would celebrate this
> new milennium with you. If you instead say that the new milennium
> starts at 1 Jan 2000, then you'll have company with a vast majority
> of the world's population when celebrating this.
Who cares? The point is not to get the most people to come to your party;
the point is to understand whether or not it is technically correct to
celebrate the new millennium on 1999 Dec 31. And it is not.
> 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.
That convention is not compatible with the Gregorian definition of the
calendar's origin point being AD 1.
> Isn't this what science really is about: adapting your mathematical
> models to reality, instead if claiming that your model, when it
> disagrees with observations, is THE reality ???
You keep talking about observations, but there are none here. This is the
definition of a calendrical system; it's mathematics, not science.
There is no "reality" to map the model to. Any origin point is arbitrary;
it doesn't matter which day you pick. However, and this is the point you
seem to keep missing, _the way it is defined now_, the Gregorian calendar
begins at AD 1, which necessarily means that the new millennium starst in
2001, not 2000. This is trivial mathematics, only requiring the ability to
understand the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers.
If you're arguing that the system should be changed, that's one thing.
However, you're not -- you're saying that indeed the millennium does start
in 2000, which a fifteen-second examination shows to be incorrect.
--
Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
&tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
"You must surely know if man made heaven | Then man made hell"
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: hagerp@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 14:11:24 -0500
Mark Friesel writes:
>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.
I have, twice. Here goes number 3. The big government research
labs that you mentioned have indeed cut staff and funding SINCE
THE END OF THE COLD WAR! If you really like SDI, the X-ray
laser, nuclear weapons, and consider those expenditures a benefit
then I mistake your politics.
>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've been given the references. Read them and come back.
Why are you so fixated on the DoE? What percentage of the federal
budget is the DoE? When you have an answer, report back.
>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.
Oh, you think ratcheting up nuclear weapons research is a good idea?
What exactly are you arguing?
>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.
I didn't forget Arpanet -- the net, BTW has been privatized as I
assume you are aware, to the great benefit of citizens.
>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 are arguing against a fantasy person of your own creation.
I have never been a Republican and have never defended their
fiscal irresponsibility or political mendacity. I'm a libertarian
and ex-Democrat.
>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?
This is tiresome. The relevance is that it provides one of the
pieces of evidence that you want that the federal government
continues to grow and continues to spend more. You said you'd
be "surprised" if this were so. Not likely if you never bother
to challenge your misconceptions by a look at the facts.
[...]
>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.
OK, we're in part talking past one another. What you consider
secondary, I consider primary.
>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.
My point. Bite the bullet and raise taxes or move in the direction
of private solutions.
>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?
Of course they've lied to the public. Just as the Democrats routinely
lie to the public. A lot of people seem to have been gulled by these
sham fights into missing the big picture. Wise up, the Reps and
Dems are functionally a couple of criminal gangs squabbling over
how to divide up the territory.
--
paul hager hagerp@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
