Newsgroup sci.environment 114406

Directory

Ron Jeremy wrote:
> 
> Dennis Nelson (innrcrcl@erols.com) wrote:
> 
> : The idea of using Pu in a reactor core has been around for a long time but
> : it has had numerous problems.  The use of mixed oxides fuels of Pu, U and
> : perhaps Th has been tried with limited success.  Because of the different
> : neutron dynamics, these mixed oxide reactors must use liquid metals not
> : water for coolants.
> 
> 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.
> 
You will be surprised but I actually knew that.  Unfortunately, after a while
the Pu-239 is transmuted into Pu-240 and higher isotopes which are not fissionable
with thermal neutrons but are still neutron absorbers.  This parasitic loss of
neutrons eventually terminates the chain reaction and the reaction stops.  If 
a liquid metal coolant is used instead of water, the neutrons are not moderated
as much so faster neutrons can cause fission in some of the other isotopes not
normally fissionable under the conditions obtaining in a normally fueled LWR.
The faster the neutrons used in the reactor the closer it is to a bomb and the
harder it is to control.  The delayed neutrons in a normally fueled LWR create 
stability in reactor control because they are emitted on the order of seconds, 
not microseconds.  I don't know the neutron dynamics in a fast neutron, liquid
metal cooled reactor.  Can someone help me here?
Reactors which are fueled with mixed oxide fuels from the start have a different
neutron dynamic from ordinary LWRs.  I expect therefore that different fuel mixtures
would require different reactor designs.
> : 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!
> 
Sorry, I always get those two mixed up.  I know that they are both heavily
contaminated with stray radionuclides.  At least the Clinch River site isn't
just 60 miles upstream from our nation's capitol.
I believe that there was an IFBR in Clinch river however, which never worked
as promised.
> : 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.
> 
Sorry again.  I'm really going to have to get my facts straight with you guys.
I always did get those two mixed up, thanks for the correction.  I'm glad
it was Fermi I and not Fermi II that melted down.  Having the II melt down before
the I would indicate that the designers didn't learn anything from Unit I.
I have similar difficulty remembering if it was Chernobyl 3 or 4 that blew
radioactive debris all over the European lanscape.
I also can never remember whether it was TMI-1 or TMI-2 which melted down and
triggered the release of several hundred thousand gallons of emergency cooling 
water.  This emergency cooling water, which had been in intimate contact with
the melted core, was then pumped into the Susquehanna River, demonstrating a
real lack of environmental concern.
> : 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.
Hell,  Kerr-McGee owns the whole state of Oklahoma.
> 
> : Dennis "Don't Confuse Me With the Facts" Nelson
> 
> tooie
As if tootie could figure out what the facts are.  I have heard it said that
one man's trash is another man's treasure.  Perhaps facts follow this same
paradigm.
Dennis Nelson

Harold Brashears wrote:
> [...]  For this reason, premise one must be wrong, and 
> technological advances do not necessarily lead to 
> industrialization.
Don Dale wrote:
> Yet the weight of the evidence regarding Western technology 
> and industrialization suggests that premise one is true.  
> There is the paradox.
Technology only generates wealth to the degree that it is 
directed by markets.  No markets, no prices.  No prices, no
information to use in directing resources efficiently towards 
production.
-thant
-- 
"I'm someone who has a deep emotional attachment 
to 'Starsky and Hutch.' " -- Bill Clinton, 1996

In article <32D100FF.F8E@princeton.edu>,
   Don Dale  wrote:
>Michael Turton wrote:
>> 
>Don:
>Clue: Needham began publishing on Chinese technology in 1946 -- at least
>that's the earliest reference I can find.
>
	Clue: Needham began publishing way, way before '46.  I suggest you 
look at his work in embryology and chemistry, for example.  The bulk of 
_Science and Civilization in China_, to which I was referring, did not come 
out until the '70s and '80s.  
>
>I suggest that the nest time you insult a poster regarding erroneous
>dates of publication, you get your own dates straight.
>
>Don
	Guess your remark looks rather silly, now, doesn't it.
Mike

Robert Parson wrote:
> 
> 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 look forward to reading the article.   But it might be worthwhile
pointing out that in the 50s, we start having accurate measurements of
CO_2 levels, and after not too long it did become clear that whatever
the theory needed to explain it, significant increase in CO_2 was an
observed fact.   This of course was extended backwards by measurement of
concentrations in ice core bubbles.    
>  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
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

Doug Bashford (bashford@psnw.com) wrote:
: 
:   Yep,  tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy) wrote on 6 Jan 1997 22:58:27 GMT 
: >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).  I 
: 
: This is a subject that barely interests me, so  I only have vague
: impressions to work with.  So please consider my statements to be
: questions.  I believe your error is equivocating total costs with
: mechanical operating expenses.  Specifically, you ignore long-term
: disposal and insurance costs.  
How do we (the commercial nuclear industry) ignore decomissioning and 
long term waste storage?  The cost of the electricity includes both.  
: I'm familiar with a local hydro-plant
: that was shot down for CBA at what could be called "a few $/MW-hr",
: what price of delivery (to the grid) are you claiming for a modern
: American plant?  
From the annual report of a commercial nuclear power producer; the 
average total cost of power over the past 6 years was about 
4.5 cents/kwhr.  That's inclusive of *all* costs.  Total cost data is not 
as frequently found as production costs, but I'd be suprised if even the 
highest price nuke was double that figure.  
: >  Although the 
: >political/social climate in the US make new plants prohibitive, many 
: 
: It does?  How?  (I see it as the lack of technology to deliver
: a product we want.) 
Exactly what do "we" want?  Cost?  In many places people are paying a 
premium for "green" sources of power.  Safety?  The US commercial 
nuclear power industry has a safety record that would be the envy of 
nearly all other industries.  
: My argument is economic.  Cost Benefit Analysis.  It's easy to see
: how it might fail in the US, while pass in China.  Agree?   
I'm interested in the details of your CBA or you basing that on "Well, 
none are being built".  Yes, Asia is looking for large (1000+ MW chunks) 
of baseload power while the US generally does not need that at this 
time.  Are you stating that because the nuclear option is not an 
attractive way to add capacity at this time in the US that the 
technology is flawed in some sort of fundamental way?
: >The current insurance pool currently stands at 9+ billion dollars.  The 
: 
: That will buy one American plant? (Diablo Canyon?)  
Although some of the more recent plants had inflated costs for various 
reasons, the current price tag for a 1300 MW rx is about 3 billion.  
: I've heard the cost of deconstructing a hot dead plant is far greater 
: than even the huge cost of construction.  This is a main reason nobody 
: wants one.  
The most current estimates are in the range of 300 - 500 million dollars 
which as I stated before is included in the cost of the power.
: I understand that some "pro-nukers" think covering them up
: for 20,000+ years is a solution?    Laughing!   Anytime you guys
Unfortunately your naivete is growing wearisome.  The technology has been 
proved by the decomissioning of over 70 reactors, including some larger 
commercial plants.  The 20,000+ years is nonsense.  Hasn't your monther 
taught you not to believe everything you read on Usenet ;-)
: I check into a debate about once a year to see if the nuke-boys
: are listening to us, or still trying to cram their ideas down our
: throats.  What do we want?  That's easy: A worst case scenario 
: similar to other power plants.  No long-term costs after plant
: shut-down.  It's been over a year, I'll keep my eyes open.
So the worst case scenario in over 2000 reactor years of operation in the 
US has been... and the effects were....   Your inability to comprehend 
the cost of power limits your ability to argue coherently.  What does it 
matter if the production costs of solar or wind are 10 cents/kwhr with 
minimal "long term" costs or the production costs of nuclear are 5 
cents/kwhr with "long term" costs of another 5 cents/kwhr?
: >You want to believe it's safe and cost competitive but provide no 
: >substative reasons why not.
: 
: "Not safe nor cost competitive" I presume you mean.  My reasoning
: is that PG&E; almost went belly-up because of Diablo Canyon. Raised our
: rates for years to pay for it.  You, OTOH, have not provided any
: reason why nobody in the USA wants to build any more.  You have
: ignored my argument:
: >: 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?  
I never tried to answer your "arguement", sorry.  I explained above why 
plants are not being built in the US.
: My argument is simple: if nukes were good, they would be built.
: Simple economics.  
Again, they are being built (elsewhere) so they must be good.
: >but the fact that no new plants are currently being built in 
: >the US proves that they're neither safe nor cost cpmpetitive, specious 
: >reasoning at best.  If you'd like me to reply to some of your other 
: >comments, let me know.>Cheers,>tooie
: 
: No, just answer that one for now.  If they don't pass a CBA,
: all else is irrelevant, cause they won't be built in America.
: Blame "misconceptions so common amongst "environmentalists"".
: Blame the "political/social climate".  
: The nice thing about finger-pointing is; it always points away.
: The bad thing about finger-pointing is; it gets nothing done.
I would certaintly build gas turbines if they were the best things to 
build at the time.  Since natural gas prices are expected to remain in 
check through the 15 years, I don't expect any new nuclear orders fo rthe 
forseeable future.  
Here's a hypothetical question.  If you could replace the coal plants in 
the US with nuclear, would you?
tooie

bwynn  writes:
...
>steady climb in overnight temp for the last 50 years.  This has been
>attributed to the Greenhouse effect - which is really nothing to do with
>the Ozone layer.  
>The ozone depletion is causing increaed skin cancer - not global
>warming. ....
Both, according to the theory.  The heat energy that would have been
absorbed in the stratosphere, as UV photons interacted with ozone
molecules, is predicted to be released lower in the atmosphere or
on the surface of the Earth to the extent the ozone layer is removed.
That, as I recall, predicts both an upper-level cooling (note the
potential for more ozone loss with lower temperature, positive feedback)
and a lower-atmosphere or surface warming; and thus more powerful heat
engine (temperature difference) driving the weather.
There's been at least one observation in the past few months, in the
news, suggesting that this effect is showing up.

On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
> Jim  wrote:
> 
> [edited]
> 
> >The great majority of extinctions are of species not yet known to man.
> >Great numbers are going extinct before they are ever discovered, so you
> >can't know "what extinctions are actually occuring", but can make
> >numerical projections based on knowledge of rainforest biology.
> 
> That is an interesting technique.  You hypothesize some species, then
> hypothesize that we must be killing them, then count them as part of a
> mass extinction.  That is insufficient data for me.
> 
> Regards, Harold
You do it to me every time, Harold--
Where are the species which once inhabited the Atlantic rainforest in
Brazil? (Now down to less than 10%; greater than 90% has been converted to
farm/pasture land).  Where are the species which once inhabited the dry
tropical forest in Mexico? (similarly destroyed). Where are the species
which once inhabited the tall-grass prairie in the midwest, and the
central valley wetlands and grasslands (California)? Both of these
ecosystems have been reduced to the single digits by farmland conversion
and development. Hint: massive species extinctions have occurred in these
areas, according to current scientific theory. Refute the theory by
showing that massive species extinctions do not occur when ecosystems are
detroyed to this extent, if you can. 
Usually, "destruction" is a no-no for an ecologist,
when speaking of disturbance; however, when disturbance as significant as
conversion to a few non-native plant species occurs, and is kept that way
for 100 years over large areas, one can say that the original ecosystem
has been destroyed. There is no possibility of recovery, because we don't
allow recovery to occur, and many of the native species are locally
extinct as well as absolutely extinct. 
That adequate taxonomic records were not present to document all the
extinctions which occurred does not in any way reduce the liklihood that
they in fact did occur.  As I have said before, Erwin's work both predicts
world biodiversity (species number) as well as extinctions due to habitat
conversion of tropical moist forest. I haven't seen work which refutes
it. Work which has been posted, with the objective of supporting the claim
that there is no anthropogenic extinction crisis of asteroid-impact
proportions, has not included the more "minor" species.  
These were not readily collected and identified by researchers
over the last 200 years, up to the last 20 years or so, when interest in
insects, epiphytes, and fungi, in forest canopies, forest floor, and soil
has increased. That taxonomists mostly overlooked these areas of
diversity---representing the bulk of the world's species--is accepted by
taxonomists today.  It is also accepted among ecologists and biologists
that to ignore them is hardly trivial.  
If one wants to name an animal after oneself, one simply needs to collect
some batches of canopy arthropods, and new species will be found--as has
recently been done by sampling just a few old-growth sitka spruce trees
inthe Carmanah valley in British Columbia. In addition, the
arthropod fauna in old-growth canopiews has been found to be quite
different from that in second-growth, both in B.C. and in Oregon. Who
cares? Well, many forest scientists take a keen interest, because of
the basic functional relationships among these organisms and forest
cycles. One may also add that profound differences in fauna are found
in such studies, even though the ecosystem has not been impacted as 
in the other examples above. Profound changes can be subtle. One need not
go to Amazonia to stumble on some neat stuff. However, achieving
immortality via "discovering" a 3 mm collembolan is frowned on these days
as vulgar grandstanding. 
		Dave Braun  

>I didn't think I would jump into this thread, but...since all calendar
>systems (as far as I know) are by design artificial, wouldn't the real
>significance of "the millenium" lie in our cultural expectations, etc.,
>rather than in a precisely-timed (but presumably artificial) moment, so
>that whether or not it really "is" or "isn't" the start of the millenium,
>the collective mental switch will be thrown as soon as we start writing
>those 2's in front of all the dates?  
>Or did I miss the original point of the debate altogether?
NO, you basically figured out the absurdity of this thread on your
very first posting! (Something that the majority of its participants
are still trying to do). The problem is that they wouldn't know common
sense if it came up and bit them in the ass!! It doesn't take a rocket
scientist or a Harvard mathematician to figure this one out. They
haven't realized that there is no "ritght" answer. Time is a
"consensus" phenomenon. It can't be measured by any man-made date.
Thank god I don't have to convince you of that. But, the rest of these
bozos are beyond hope!
"Is it tomorrow, or just the end of time?" -Jimmi Hendrix

Rodolfo V. Moreno wrote:
> 
> http://www.bluecrow.com/fuel2000
> rmoreno@asterix.helix.net
I can find nothing about salt water electrolytes
on this page. Where is it?
-- 
CUL8ER
Stupid is Forever.
Ignorance can be Fixed.
Duane C. Johnson
Ziggy
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
Solar Heliostats
1825 Florence St.
White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
(612)635-5065 w
(612)426-4766 h
redrok@pclink.com
dcj2@PO8.RV.unisys.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/

Hey!  I just found out about a great new non-profit that is trying to do
more than just protect the prairie.  Unlike some un-named orgs, who want
to protect our environment but are so suspicious of everyone they won't
ever let anyone on the land they're protecting, this org wants to protect
some land but use it to help people learn about why it needs protecting. 
Sounds like what the Forest Service used to do when it used to actually
get money from Congress.  Anyway, this place has an interesting goal and
philosophy.  They also have a great, and sometimes hilarious, homepage. 
Check it out and let me know if you know of other orgs that are similar.
http://members.aol.com/bisonrange/index.html
North American Buffalo Range
PO Box 11661
Olympia, WA  98508
(Olympia, WA  ?????)

>Needham paradox: if technology leads to industrialization, why didn't
>China industrialize?
Just another idea:  China and Japan and the East generally did not 
industrialize because their written language did not accomodate it.
Only the West had phonetic writing that could easily expand and 
communicate the new technical ideas.
Note that China and Japan have created phonetic writing in the 
last hundred years - of necessity.
Any merit to this idea?
Mason A. Clark  masonc@ix.netcom.com

bwynn  writes:
>The ozone depletion is causing increaed skin cancer - not global
>warming.  The biggest environmental disaster in the world today is
>overpopulation.  Humans cause tremendous amounts pf pollution per head. 
>The earth cannot sustain the current population.  Noone is going to do
>anything about it - so we are all going to DIE!
That doesn't seem certain. There is a fair chance that we will develop an 
exponentiating technology, probably Drexlerian nanotechnology, within the
next century. If this can be done then global environmental problems can
be readily repaired - so we are all going to LIVE!
But I certainly grant that this isn't certain either. For a look at the
possibilities both ways, try http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/uw.html
-- 
| mailto:pete@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |         Give away what you don't need.        |

On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:11:42 -0800, "D. Braun"
 wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:24:33 -0800, "D. Braun"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:59:47 -0800, "D. Braun"
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> >off-topic newsgroups snipped
>> >> >
>> >> >subject line changed to a more appropriate one
>> >> >
>> >> >On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Ross C. K. Rock wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> John McCarthy wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > We got by without use of nuclear arms for 50 years now.  Can those who
>> >> >> > want to abolish all nuclear arms offer evidence that their success
>> >> >> > would make the world safer.  Wouldn't their world put a premium on a
>> >> >> > rush to recreate nuclear arms and achieve world domination?
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>> >> >> > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>> >> >> > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The reason why mutually assured destruction (MAD) works is because
>> >> >> it is the only peace treaty which does not rely upon honesty.
>> >> >> It relies upon the unequivicable statement, "if you violate this
>> >> >> 'treaty' of MAD, you will, without question, die."  No other
>> >> >> form of 'treaty' works as well.
>> >> >
>> >> >Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
>> >> >is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
>> >> >nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
>> >> >disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
>> >> >disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
>> >> >"friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
>> >> >continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
>> >> >nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
>> >> >phased fashion, would seem to be the answer. And a less hypocritical
>> >> >foreign policy as well, in regard to human rights, would go a long way in
>> >> >reducing terrorism.
>> >> >
>> >> >		Dave Braun
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> -- 
>> >> >> o--------------------------------------------------------o
>> >> >>   Ross C. K. Rock
>> >> >>   Reactor Safety and Operational Analysis Dept.
>> >> >>   Ontario Hydro, Toronto, CANADA
>> >> >>                                     ross.rock@hydro.on.ca
>> >> >>                            http://www.inforamp.net/~rrock
>> >> >> o--------------------------------------------------------o
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> How does disarmament effect this? Stop the spread of nuclear weapons
>> >> and disarmament don't seem to have anything in common. We are reducing
>> >> our weapons in a deal with the Russians. That seems to be a good idea,
>> >> but it doesn't have anything to do with stopping other countries from
>> >> building a bomb. In fact, it may encourage them.
>> >> 
>> >> Sam 
>> >
>> >I thought the connection was apparent.  Disarmament means no more weapons
>> >production, and destruction/recycling in energy plants of the
>> >delivery vehicles/plutonium, or other scenarios.  Eventually, the Russian
>> >mafia or the like will find it more difficult to procure a bomb. 
>> 
>> The countries that built bombs, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel
>> and those that tried (are trying) , North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Japan(?)
>> did so without materials or help from us or the Russians. I don't see
>> that anything that we do, or not do, will have any effect on others
>> that wish to build nuclear weapons.
>
>Think about how international diplomacy is practiced. There are many
>levers available: MFN trading partner status, loans, grants, technology
>sharing, AND military pressure--either of a country directly, or its
>enemies within or outside. This is nothing new. 
>
>> 
>>  The
>> >second part of my post is important, too; a more progressive foreign
>> >policy would tend not to produce terrorist pissed off at the US, for real
>> >or perceived insults.  Abandoning MADD would mean that we would actually
>> >have to negotiate and have political solutions worked out. 
>> 
>> What it would mean is more work for the Army. Some aims can not be
>> negotiated (those that want to push Israel into the sea, for example).
>
>True. Negotiating with extremists dosen't work. Through diplomacy, these
>elements can be isolated. There is no perfect solution. What WOULD the US
>do if Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or the recent band of Japanese wackos that
>gassed a subway set off a tactical nuke in a US city? Nuke their parent
>countries? I don't think so.
>
>> 
>> It certainly
>> >would not be an over-night process. Once the major powers agree to disarm,
>> >international sanctions could be brought against those countries that
>> >persist in having nuke weapons programs. 
>> >
>> 
>> Before or after they use them on us?
>
>Still in the cold-war mind-set, I see.
>
>> 
>> >Any comment on my hypothetical? How useful are our nukes if they have few
>> >usuable scenarios today? Do you think MADD works in my scenario?  
>> >Who does it work against then? I suppose the Chinese-- however, I would
>> >think that an argument for phased reduction would go a long way with that
>> >capital-starved country, so that resources could be spent elsewhere.
>> >Disarmament may well take 30 years, but the sooner we have it as a
>> >stated goal, the better. At least one US cold-warrior (one of the
>> >ex Pentagon brass) has come out and said that it shold be our goal.
>> >
>> 
>> What works is the idea that we will kick the shit out of you if you
>> piss us off. That was the great value of Desert Storm.
>
>And we didn't use nukes.
>
>> 
>> >I would even settle for a token "MADD" policy after disarmament-- say, one
>> >nuke under each country's capital---with the "red button" in the other
>> >major powers' control. Why not? It would be simple, cheap, and
>> >instantaneous. Easy to detonate---you could set them off via
>> >the internet with the proper codes. 
>> >
>> >Of course, disarmament would require international peace and cooporation
>> >more than we have now.  That is an end in itself.
>> 
>> The _only_ way you will have world peace is if some big bad mother is
>> sitting on it. I don't want the U.S. to do it and I sure don't want
>> anybody else to.
>
>Well,that is your opinion. The world is becoming multi-lateral, through
>trade and greater access to information, whether we like it or not. These
>trends will eventually diffuse power, beyond what one country can control. 
>Literacy, and the ability to rapidly communicate to millions,  has a
>direct, positive correlation with democracy. The more
>countries that are democracies, the more peace we will have.
>
>		Dave Braun
>
You did not mention the subject of this discussion, which is: How does
the US and the former USSR disarming effect other countries's desire
to become nuclear powers? I maintain that it either has no effect or
it encourages them. You have not shown where I am wrong.
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)

SLEEPY FOOT #6
A networking and discussion zine of natural medicine, environmentalism,
individualism, martial arts and tao.
	Hello and welcome to Sleepy Foot after a very long hiatus and a
stretch of Taostew.  I'm reverting to Sleepy Foot because Adriana
convinced me that it's a better name.  Taostew became a "per-zine" (as
Factsheet Five calls it) - a public diary of my boring comings and goings.
 I'm changing the direction back, almost to what it was in the good ole
days of Noisy Concept.  It will be  more of a discussion zine, focusing on
letters and essays from readers.  It will be "a networking and discussion
zine of natural medicine, environmentalism, individualism, martial arts
and tao."  These topics may seem completely unrelated to each other, but
to me they all go together.  I hesitate to add "tao" at the end there,
since yin/yangs and Pooh have become so trendy.  "The tao that can be
talked about is not the eternal tao" so I'll take a minute to talk about
it.  The "tao" in one sense is a word used to describe the logical
mechanism of the universe and the "laws of nature."  Anyone who attempts
to understand this intricate system of reality soon becomes awed and
confused by the overwhelming hugeness and simplicity of the universe.  Out
of this dichotomy inevitably comes a deep respect for the natural world. 
Nature becomes less of an enemy to be conquered and more of a wonderland
to be explored.  By nature humans are individuals, each with our own
talents, beliefs, preferences, desires and lifestyles.  So individualism
may be the most important aspect of taoism.  Natural medicine and martial
arts are traditional expressions of taoism - natural medicine to improve
human life, and martial arts to cultivate the self and defend
individualism.  In a world in need of responsible action, environmentalism
is maybe ultimately the most important aspect of taoism.  Where many
environmentalists and Green Party members fail is in their disregard for
individual rights in favor of environmental regulation, opening a door for
misuse of environmental laws.  For example, the United Nations and United
States government have a plan to close a huge amount of public land,
including most of the National Forests, to all humans.  On the surface
this looks like an innocent attempt to preserve the habitats of endangered
species, but the fact is, human use doesn't do any serious or permanent
damage to the National Forests.  With all the fires during this year's
drought, the propaganda machine will have us believe people are burning
down a majority of the forests, but the area destroyed by forest fires is
a small percentage of the total and not enough justification to prohibit
humans from all public lands.  President Clinton recently signed an order
recommending protection of lands held sacred to Native Americans.  This
seems like a nice plan to respect sacred sites, but in practice any use of
these lands, even by Native Americans, requires a "special use" permit. 
Applications for such permits are routinely denied.  This is a preliminary
step toward first over-regulating the National Forests, then removing
humans completely from public lands.
	Sleepy Foot is not meant to be a zine to discuss taoism.  Taoism
is a philosophy and an attitude, but it usually makes for pretty boring
discussion.  Who cares what some self-proclaimed "sage" has to say about
dogmatizing the tao?
	In other news, I got married in December and my wife Adriana will
be helping out with the editing duties, so watch out for a new voice in
the zine and a new point-of-view.
	I'm especially looking for relevant letters and essays, but I'm
actually willing to consider anything at all - articles, artwork, stories,
maybe even poems.  There is now a focus, but the guidelines aren't as
strict as they sound.  In the future I'll try to figure out a way to put
out an on-line version via the internet.  For now we're accepting text
submissions at sleepfoot@aol.com.  I have a natural aversion to the
internet for some reason, but it might save some paper if people stop
making hard copies of everything.
	I think it's important to utilize our relatively uncontested
freedom of speech.  It's not so important what is said, but just that a
channel of communication is kept open.
-Mike Thain, June 1996
LETTERS
Dear Mike,
	We do need a multi-party system.  The Democrats and Republicans
promise campaign reform or term limits, but don't deliver.  Radical
parties supporting the least conservative Democrats on liberal issues
hasn't worked either.  The only way to get a Third Party rolling is to get
Third Party candidates elected in local elections, in more radical parts
of the country - in places like New Mexico, in fact, where the Green Party
is gaining some mainstream visibility.  The goal is indeed proportional
representation, as is done in Europe.  If this were done in a single
state, like New Mexico, it might catch on state by state, and eventually
nationally.  Because of the non-parliamentary nature of the US
Constitution, the president might best be elected in a three step process:
 1. multi-party primaries, 2. a multi-party election, 3. a run-off
election between the two top candidates.  Ideally, the federal government
would control the military, the monetary system, NASA, and would also set
national standards for individual and civil rights and liberties,
education, health care, and the environment.  Taxation would mostly be on
the state level, in order to insure that the needs of cities and rural
areas, industrial workers and farm workers (and even intellectual workers)
were met.  If national standards were not met, the federal government
would send in the military to kick the state government's ass.  But
otherwise, decentralization would be practiced.
Sincerely,
Elliot
North Merrick, New York
Dear Mike,
	... It sounds like you had quite an experience on your trip.  I
really enjoyed reading about it.  It sounded like a "test".  I think if
you and your girlfriend made it through that, marriage should be a breeze.
 I wish you both the very best.
	The Green Party article was interesting.  I heard there was a
"Green Party" and that Ralph Nader was running on the ticket in California
(for what I don't know, President maybe) and that it is backed by
Marxist-Socialists.  I thought you were an anarchist?
In Liberty,
Uncle Junky
Waverly, New York
[Uncle Junky, So far I don't agree with Capitalists, Socialists,
Communists, Fascists, or even Anarchists.  They all have their quirks.  It
seems the leaders of any political movement have personal agendas and not
much common sense.  Even anarchism is overrated.  Everything is anarchy,
so anarchism is just the apathy to allow gangsters to operate within the
anarchy.  But I worry about the effect of humanity on the global ecosystem
and I think it's time to take responsibility.  All other political
squabbles are small in comparison.  -Mike]
WHO DO THEY REALLY FEAR?
	There is a plan proposed by Greens and the United Nations, known
as Agenda 21, to lead the world toward organic farming, "sustainable
development" and population control, endangered species preservation and
habitat continuity, balancing the world's human population at 9 billion by
the year 2050 and building wildlife "corridors" between protected lands
such as National Forests, in an attempt to safely connect animals to
others of their species.  The Christian right wing radicals attack this
plan, not for its proposed violations of basic human rights, but for the
fact that it allows a worldview which respects nature, and thus appears to
be "Pagan."  These radicals seem to believe that Christian dogma takes
priority over common sense, freedom, environmental intelligence, and even
ultimate preservation of the human species.
	Humans have reached a state of technology and organization never
before known.  We've developed our brains to the point where our bodies
are unnecessary for survival.  We've built a civilization where most
individuals survive to reproduce.  This great civilization requires
resources and creates pollution.  We blindly destroy natural areas,
endangered species, air and water.  The human population is now on course
to double every thirty years.  This growth is a pattern of success, but
all animal species who achieve so much success come to a point where they
use up their resources and the balance is tipped too far, and their
population drops dramatically.  Whether it comes from disease, starvation,
or an infestation of predators doesn't matter, the result is always the
same.  A blind humanity cannot stave off such a leveling.  We will charge
full speed into it.  It is obvious that we need to take responsibility for
the civilization we have created.  We come from nature and should try once
again to be a part of nature, instead of waging constant war against the
world.
	The Christian contempt for the natural world has its roots in
Medieval Europe, where monotheistic power conquered  the old Pagan
societies with military force.  Pagans, as nature-worshippers, were
considered Satan-worshippers in a scheme designed to lend righteousness to
the crusaders.  This feeling evolved naturally along with Christian
dualism of good and evil and man's desire to conquer and control nature. 
Nature became to the "enlightened"  white man an "evil" force to be dealt
with by the armies of God.
	There is a source of propaganda in far-right Christian circles
known as the "Luciferian Doctrine," claiming that Satan controls the
Earth, while God controls Heaven.  This is used to explain why Satan has
so much power on Earth, and why God can't control Satan's domain.  This is
all merely Western paranoid dualism used to manipulate people into
pro-Imperialist, anti-environmental action.  The Pagans need to be
dominated and destroyed to clear a path for the pavement of Christianity.
	The image of the modern devil, with horns and legs of a goat, is a
direct copy of the common image of the Greek god Pan.  The word "pan"
means "everything," and Pan was the god of nature.  Curiously, he was the
only Greek God who was killed in legends.  Using Pan's picture to
represent the embodiment of evil reflects the attitude that nature is
evil, and that God's people should rape and pillage the evil nature,
paving everything to provide a civilized sanctuary for His people.  This
attitude toward nature is unique to Western theology, and directly
opposite to Pagan nature-worship.  Jesus never said to destroy the world,
but it is such an old unofficial Church doctrine that nobody questions the
holiness of such an attitude.  The relatively new idea of a Luciferian
Doctrine is just another form of justification for power-hungry Christians
to separate and destroy everyone and everything else in their path.
	All non-Christian religions must be vanquished.  This attitude is
most prevalent here in America, the New World, the same place white men
flocked to hundreds of years ago to profess "Freedom of Religion" while
establishing Puritanism and burning witches.
PLUGS
THE EMPTY VESSEL is a two year old quarterly taoist magazine with many
articles and reprints by prominent practitioners of Chinese medicine,
qigong, tai chi, and general taoism.  This is a slick, expensive magazine
with full color glossy cover and the whole mainstream-style package right
down to the $5 cover price.  But inside, the material is substantial and
pertinent to practitioners at any level, including reprints from such
well-known writers as Daniel Reid and Ni Hua-Ching.  They manage to live
up to taoist ideals, even within the confines of a slick mainstream
package.  Subscriptions are $16 for four issues and well worth the price
for anyone interested in any taoist modality.  Send $16 to:  Abode of the
Eternal Tao, 4852 West Amazon, Eugene OR 97405.
RESPECT FOR LIFE is a new charity organization designed to help eliminate
the need for abortions, one man at a time.  Their activities include
paying for vasectomies for men who can't afford it, increasing the
availability of contraceptives, and "promoting increased respect for human
life."  Their message is sincere and valuable, appealing to both
"pro-choice" and "pro-life" individuals.  Write to:  Respect For Life,
4326 Woodstock Blvd. #419, Portland OR 97206-6799.
VENICE SHORELINE CHRIS is the singer of the Canadian ska band KING
APPARATUS.  The band broke up and Chris has been busy making solo ska
songs.  The songs are a little raw, but they sound like something straight
out of Jamaica's Studio One in the 60's.  And even with such a rootsy
feel, every song is original and unique.  It is becoming harder to find
original ska music anymore, as so many new bands come out with a bubblegum
brainlessness sounding just like the Toasters (such as the Slackers, one
of Moon's other new acts).  VENICE SHORELINE CHRIS is a rare find.  For
more information contact Moon Ska, PO Box 1412, Cooper Station, New York
NY 10276.
ZINE REVIEWS
ECURB
$1.00? - Bruce, 923 St. Paul St. Apt. C-1, Balt. MD 21202
This is always one of my favorite zines - Bruce's outlet for many personal
thoughts about his life.  In a recent issue he goes into detail about his
move from Southern California to Baltimore and his thoughts about his new
home.
JOINT CONSENSUS 
c/o It's a Beautiful Day, 3916 Broadway, K.C. MO 64111
A very nice hemp legalization paper focusing on the local scene in Kansas
City, Missouri.
AUTO-FREE TIMES #7
PO Box 4347, Arcata CA 95518
A crucial zine, nicely laid out on newsprint with a variety of articles. 
They are vehemently anti-automobile, but constructively pro-railroad. 
There are several articles about railroads and street-cars, and lots of
environmental info.  Railroads are vastly underrated in this country
because the auto industry has such a stranglehold on the available
information and opinion.  In Romania, even though the post-revolution
government is bankrupt and can't finish projects or hire public workers to
pick up trash, they are able to support an efficient railroad system that
will take you anywhere in the country for as little as 50 cents and rarely
over five dollars.  Other East European countries have similar railroad
systems.  Public transportation is so necessary in an overpopulated world.
 In Albuquerque the bus system is a joke.  I live right downtown and I
would have to walk more than two miles just to catch a bus, and wait a
long time and take several transfers to actually get anywhere.  Everyone
here has a car by necessity and few know how to operate them, so the
insurance companies collect huge premiums.  It's a destructive and ugly
system, and it's nearly universal in this country.  It is so good to see a
zine attack the problem from all creative viewpoints.  This zine is
published by the Alliance for a Paving Moratorium, which is supposedly a
bona-fide non-profit charity.
QIGONG FRIENDS NETWORK  vol. 1, #1-2
$2.50 - HC 71, 125 Radar Base Rd., Burns OR 97720
A nice little newsletter published by a couple of qigong instructors who
would like to network with qigong practitioners all over.  These first two
issues include thoughts about qigong and various styles such as Essence,
Soaring Crane, and Wild Goose.
REAL!
$2.50 - Erin Waye, 108 N. Meadow St., Ithaca NY 14860
In a recent issue Erin tells all about her chaotic life, her mother on
drugs and other tough issues.  She puts out a really sincere and readable
zine, holding nothing back as too personal for discussion.
YELLO SUBMARINE #12
$2.50 - Uncle Junky, PO Box 81, Elmira NY 14902
As usual, all the anti-government, pro-Constitution, knee-jerk
reactionary, conspiracy theory, paranoid rabble-rousing propaganda and
finger pointing you will ever want to read.
"ROSWELL'S PARADISE"
by Adriana Thain
	Grandma thinks she has supernatural powers these days.  I would
too, if I was taking all the medicine she was.   She gets along with all
kinds of different creatures.  The other day she found a cockroach in the
kitchen.  "Roswell, Roswell," she called my name repeatedly and with
urgency in her voice.  I was in the bathroom.  I quickly put down my book,
flushed, and went to see what the problem was.  I asked her if she was
O.K.  "Roswell, look at what I found!" she proclaimed, all flustered and
excited, holding out her closed hand.  She opened up her palm and showed
me.  The cockroach sat there in her hand.  "You know what I think?"  she
asked.   Grandma, you need help, I thought, a wee bit perplexed.  She
looked down at the cockroach with reverence and awe.  "I think this is a
sign from Jesus,"  she said.  She kept that cockroach for a week in a jar
and fed it every day, mostly peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches, which
Lucy (that's what the cockroach told Grandma her name was) really seemed
to like.  One day I  finally got fed up and let Lucy go free out on the
patio.  Grandma knew I did it.   She just moped around the house like a
phantom, and she would tell everybody that came over about Lucy, her
friend who stayed over for a week, who loved her peanut-butter and jelly
sandwiches.  Luckily, everybody just assumed she was talking about a
person.   Strange as she was, Grandma was all my sister Ronda and I had,
and we tried hard to protect her.   Ronda was six years younger than I
was, but she was pretty smart for  being a first grader.    Every time a
social worker came over, she knew just how to steal their  attention away
from Grandma by reciting poetry, or singing a little song for them.  We
were quite a team, the three of us.   When I was sixteen and I gave birth
to a baby, I  told  Grandma the baby was my little brother, Joe.  "You
remember Joe, Grandma."  She would just look strangely at the baby, and
then start telling him the story about Lucy.  And when Ronda got caught
shoplifting at the mall when she was twelve, Grandma thought the police
officers were friends of Ronda's escorting her home.  She even made
lemonade for the officers, and told them they were nice boys and should
come over and play more often.   It was soon after that incident that
Grandma finally got taken away.  She didn't fight, she smiled at social
worker Becky who told her to pack her bags.  She thought she was going on
her honeymoon with Fred, my dead grandfather.  Ronda and I visited her a
few weeks later, and we brought her a present.   She just sat there with a
smile on her face and looked at the jar, nodding her head and smiling at
Lucy II.  We both knew she was gone.
EDITOR'S UPDATE
As of July 1996, my student loan money from IICM is 7 months late.  Every
week they give a different excuse for why they haven't been able to get my
money.  I've been working part time and just scraping along waiting for
those checks to come.  I have huge debts and the finance charges on five
maxed credit cards totals over $200 per month.  I was counting on that
money and now I'm totally fed up with that school so we're leaving this
ugly desert city of Albuquerque and going back to Ohio.  Adriana and I
plan to go to Ohio State to finish our Bachelor's degrees and possibly go
to medical school together if everything works out.  IICM is a good school
and acupuncture is a good field, but IICM has too many incompetent boobs
in their administration who know nothing about how to run a school.
INDIVIDUALISM THE GANDHI WAY
by Louis Fischer
	The faster machines move the faster man lives and the bigger the
tribute in nervous tension he pays to the machine.  Culture, leisure,
indeed living, become so interlinked with machines that man himself may be
innerly impoverished.  The individual is somewhat in the position of the
savage who makes an idol and then serves it.  To Gandhi, mechanization or
any other form of progress was not an end in itself; he judged material
advances by their moral and spiritual effect on human beings.  The
individual was his central concern.  And he judged individuals not by what
they had but by what they were, not by property but personality, not by
outer fortune but inner riches.  His was the individualism of worth, not
of wealth.  Industrialization made men rich, but did it make them men?  As
the greatest individual of the twentieth century, if not of twenty
centuries, certainly the most fervent defender of individualism in our
era, Gandhi wondered how much rugged materialism could contribute to the
stature of individuals.  he dreamt of a prosperous India which, however,
did not feed its people into a machine that cut them down to standardized,
conforming pygmies.  Observing the world, he identified industrialization
with materialism and feared both as menaces to man's growth.  His belief
in and defense of the individual naturally made him anti-Communist, yet he
saw Communism as the end product of a process which corrodes non-Communist
countries too, and the attitude, therefore, which made him an opponent of
the Soviet system also induced him to criticize Western civilization;
between the two he saw a difference of degree rather than of kind. 
"Bolshevism," Gandhi affirmed, "is the necessary result of modern
materialistic civilization.  Its insensate worship of matter has given
rise to a school which has been brought up to look upon materialistic
advancement as the goal of life and which has lost touch with the final
things in life....  I prophesy that if we disobey the law of the final
supremacy of spirit over matter, of liberty and love over brute force, in
a few years' time we shall have Bolshevism rampant in this land  which was
once so holy."  This referred to India but might have  been said of any
country.  The West, perhaps, is so frightened of Bolshevism, or Stalinism,
or Sovietism, because it feels the germ of the same disease within itself.
	Gandhi has the answer and antidote to Stalinism:  a big, brave,
spirit-over-matter individual who could resist invasions of his freedom
because he put principles above possessions.  The prescription would
defeat Communism and cure democracy.
	In all Gandhi's speeches, writings, fasts, political acts, in all
his struggles with Marshal Smuts in South Africa and with the British and
his own people in India, he was coping with the one issue  which confronts
every person on the planet:  How can the modern individual maintain his
inner peace and outer security, how can he remain honest, free, and
himself in the face of the assaults being made upon him by the power of
mighty governments, the power of mighty economic organizations, the power
of evil that resides in cruel majorities and militant minorities, and the
power now extractable from the atom?  Most people stand in awe of these
agglomerations of power, admit their inability to fight them, and submit. 
The result, in all countries, is a shrinking man.  This opens the door to
totalitarianism and threatens democracy, for without an individual who is
ready and able to defend himself against the inroads of power, freedom is
doomed.
	Power was the chief preoccupation of Lenin and Stalin. 
Distrusting the individual, who must therefore be watched and crushed,
they founded a movement and state on the leadership principle:  an "elite"
party, dominated by one man, leads the obedient "masses."  Hence the
dehumanized dictatorship.  Gandhi's chief preoccupation was with  the
individual, whom he trained in assertion of self and will not only against
British state but against any state.  "Gandhi has straightened our back
and stiffened our spines," Nehru said.  Power cannot ride on an upright
back.
	The individual's strength of spirit must at least keep pace with
the expansion of bureaucratic, economic, and scientific power, otherwise
he will be beaten into a robot slave.  On the outcome of the race between
man and power depends the future of modern civilization.
	Gandhi devoted much of his life to studies in nutrition; he sought
vitamins for the body and foods that make men big.  His menu for the
growth of individuals was fearlessness.  Prophet of nonviolence, he
nevertheless declared that "where there is a choice between cowardice and
violence, I would choose violence," for cowardice reduces a man's
self-respect and hence his stature.  Gandhi himself had no fear; it is
this more than any other quality which accounts for his growth from the
ordinary person he was in his twenties and early thirties to the mountain
of a man he ultimately became.  he did not fear governments, jails,  death
- it would unite him with God - illness - he could conquer it - hunger,
unpopularity, criticism, or rejection.
	Gandhi's individualism fed on courage.  Nonviolence, he said,
requires much more courage than violence.  No coward would sit still on
the ground as galloping police horses advanced upon him or lie in the path
of an automobile or stand without moving as baton-swinging policemen laid
about them.  This was active resistance of the brave.  Gandhi applied a
technique of combat which turned the traditional docility of the Hindu
into heroism.  The method stemmed from his faith in common clay.  He
equated the last with himself and himself with the last.  "The ideals that
regulate my life," he wrote, "are presented for the acceptance of mankind
in general....  I have not the shadow of a doubt that any man or woman can
achieve what I have if he or she would make the same effort and cultivate
the same hope and faith.  I am but a poor struggling soul yearning to be
wholly good....  I know that I have still before me a difficult path to
traverse."  He recognized human weaknesses in himself and others and did
not expect perfection in anybody, but he did believe in the individual's
corrigibility and endless capacity to climb.  Refusing to concentrate on
the bad in people, he often changed them by regarding them not as what
they were but as though they were what they wished to be, as though the
good in them was all of them.  Such creative optimism sometimes added
inches or cubits to the heights of his associates, and even the casual
visitor felt its potential benefits.
[The above excerpt was taken without permission from Louis Fischer's
Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World, an excellent biography of
Gandhi's life.]
Sleepy Foot
c/o Mike Thain
417 1/2 E. 15th Ave.
Columbus OH 43201 USA
sleepfoot@aol.com

In article , KHEPHER*EN*MU  writes:
> I didn't think I would jump into this thread, but...since all calendar
> systems (as far as I know) are by design artificial, wouldn't the real
> significance of "the millenium" lie in our cultural expectations, etc.,
> rather than in a precisely-timed (but presumably artificial) moment, so
> that whether or not it really "is" or "isn't" the start of the millenium,
> the collective mental switch will be thrown as soon as we start writing
> those 2's in front of all the dates?
Exactly.  See my .sig.
> Or did I miss the original point of the debate altogether?
There is no point to this "debate."  It is simply excessive Usenet Mental
Masturbation (tm), as those who silently follow the "debate" as it drones
on throughout the last decade of the millennium well know.  I have seen the
future of Usenet, and can assure you that the entire "debate" will have been
completely forgotten by the morning of 1 January 2001, as the collective
memory of Usenet rapidly approaches zero and, finally, completely vanishes,
thus signifying the end of time and space as we know it.  Back to lurking!
--
James Harvey  harvey@iupui.edu  Disclaimer: My opinions; I don't speak for IU.
(1)  The year 2000 is a leap year.
(2)  It is also the last year of the second millennium CE.
(3)  Nevertheless, you'd be a fool to miss the big party on 31 December 1999!

In article <32d56a14.2438889@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
   masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 14:46:24 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold 
Brashears)
>wrote:
>
(big cut)
>> Why do you feel the need then to defend Jay?
>> 
>Because of the paucity of sense among his attackers.
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
Now this is flame bait, if I ever saw it.  Most people who "attack" Jay 
probably do so because some of his comments are so outrageous!

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 01:53:07 GMT, masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A.
Clark) wrote:
>Note that China and Japan have created phonetic writing in the 
>last hundred years - of necessity.
Hardly a decade seems to go by without the Chinese coming up with a
new syllabary, the latest being the bo-po-mo -- totally alien to
Chinese speaking staff at my local library.  Still, syllabic writing
has been around for a long long time: on the Mainland Sanskrit has
never been further away than your nearest Buddhist temple, so every
village and hamlet has had at least a monk with a command of syllabic
writing.
In Japan I believe (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that the
Man-Yo-gana of roughly 3,000 years ago were syllabic.  (One survives
in common use today: the slightly crooked "no" in the Naninani-no-Yu
of every bathhouse's name is the Man-Yo form.)
Even if I'm wrong about just how syllabic Man-Yo-gana were, the
on-yomi, literally "sound reading," of Chinese characters has been in
use in Japan since the Nara Jidai, roughly a thousand years, as a way
of copying down sounds.
                                                         -dlj.

Robert Parson wrote:
> 
> 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
There are two other factors in addition to the increase of gasses such as CO2, CH4,
etc. atmosphere which potentially affect the average temperature of the earth's 
surface.  These are changes in the earth's reflectivity or albedo and the dumping
of waste heat in to the environment.  Chances are the increase in CO2 could be 
compensated for by painting all the blacktop roads, roofs and parking lots white.
A more difficult problem is how does one deal with the increased heat load on 
the planet caused by increased energy usage in general, and this includes nuke
plants.  All that energy is ultimately converted to waste heat and reemitted out
into space as IR radiation.  It's not enough to just prevent blocking its egress,
one must in the end stop increasing its production.
Dennis Nelson

Project Atlantis uploaded to
http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/atlantis.htm
Mirror http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar/atlantis.htm
How to create continents on oceans and then use that as natural havens
for dying soon to be extinct species of animals & a world's natural
breeding ground for all the fish everyone can eat..
Feedback appreciated.
.--------------------.                        .--------------------------.
|  Joe Michael        \______________________/  Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk  |
:                                            \__________________________/:
|  Futuristic  .  Shocking  .  Mind Blowing  .  Shape Changing Robots    |
:-------.                                                                :
|        \         http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/                       |
`---------+--------------------------------------------------------------'

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In this post I didn't argue about the start of the new millennium.
> Instead I wanted to point out that your earlier statement:
(You're replying to someone else, here.)
> # 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 !!!!
Right you are.  My funny.  I meant "start of third millennium," but I had a
whole lot of typos.
-- 
                             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"

JMH  wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->> 
->> JMH  wrote:
->> 
->> ->> breakfast, can I?  To serve the same purpose, I need to buy something
->> ->> which is at least similar.
->> 
->> ->Of course not! But you can substitute among the numerous types
->> ->of cereals, even within the various sub-groups--sweet, "healthy"
->> ->simple, fiberous...
->> 
->> The whole market had seen regular increases.  So people apparently
->> were moving to non-cereal breakfasts.
->I certainly acccept the possibility of non-cereal substitution,
->but doesn't that just weaken your argument that cereal demand is
->not really price sensitive?
At some point, price considerations do take over.  We saw it happen
recently.  That point is probably responsive to greater economic
conditions.
->> ->> Notice which ones are more reasonably priced?  Notice which ones are
->> ->> aimed at a more adult (presumably less subject to promotion) market?
->> ->> Notice which ones are a relatively recent addition to the variety?
->> 
->> ->Care to elaborate here. From my casual observations  quite a  few
->> ->adult oriented cereals cost at least as much as those oriented towards
->> ->children.
->> 
->> Let me do a little field observation.  For the most part I am
->> operating from memory here.
->I didn't mean to imply I had do more than reflect on
->past shopping where I wasn't specificly considering this
->discussion. (I haven't bough cereal in a couple of months.)
Oof!  I haven't priced cereal myself for quite awhile. $6.00/lb!  I
noticed that the more different brands of a variety there were, the
more reasonable the price, though.  And if there was a generic, the
price was even lower.  Two possible explanations: generics tend to be
the cereals with the lower cost of production, or competition lowers
prices.
I still consider it likely that there is a defacto cartel among the
cereal makers, and that they keep their struggles for market share in
the realm of promotion.  They probably aren't outright colluding, they
are just maintaining their prices in relation to each other.
->Have you ever seen the Micky D lunch crowd? It's not a large percentage
->16 and under. I already conceded the influence children will exert on
->their parents, but clearly this is limited by the household budget.
->(Or maybe my childhood experiences were very idosyncratic.) Presumably
->the parents are more mature and not irrationally influenced by
->(non-price based) promotion.
->> ->> Despite the drop, did we see a price war?  No, everyone dropped their
->> ->> prices by about the same amount, and stuck there.
->> 
->> ->Let's see. One big manufacturer announces a price reduction and
->> ->others soon follow suit. Why isn't that a  price war. There isn't
->> ->a requirement that all the producers force the price to zero! Or
->> ->any other asurdly low figure.
->> 
->> Because there wasn't a cascade of price reductions, they all simply
->> followed the lead of Post (?).
->But why does a price war *have* to proceed incrementally? Why can't
->the first-move player assume the largest gain results from a blitzkrig
->type approach taking prices near their lowest level. ALternatively,
->why does the process have to continue rapidly, why isn't this something
->of a first round situation?
It would be interesting to track the price of cereal against the price
of grains.  If they track well, that would indicate that profits are
at the margin, with little to spare.  If they don't respond, that
would indicate that prices are high enough to absorb the greater
costs.
Unfortunately, that's a lot of work for a little bull session like
this...
->> I'm not making a moral judgement here, I've just been pointing out a
->> good example of a non-Smithian market which is not produced by
->> government restriction.
->I didn't mean to imply you were making a moral judgement, only that
->you had already decided--and perhaps with good reason--that cereal 
->markets were somehow insensitive to an invisible hand process.
You're right, I had the though quite a while ago, based on the
articles I read about the price cut, plus things I learned in Econ
101, plus a few random bits from who knows where.
->It's far from clear to me through our discussions that the cereal
->markets are not fully consistent with Smith's invisible hand metaphor.
->After all Smith didn't make any overly clear statements regarding
->what the "invisible hand level" of prices might be. Smithian markets,
->i.e. a beneficial invisible hand at work, simply requires that producers
->compete against one another to the advantage of consumers.
->What you seem to be arguing is that they are not good examples of
->neoclassical perfectly competitive markets. That's undobtedly true,
->but then that's an easy target to hit; most market fail that test.
->(But even here the waters are a bit muddy; more below, see: costs.)
That's exactly it, I was shooting down jw's argument that the Market
is God, and that the Market will take care of everything if only those
Dastardly Government Bureaucrats would step out of the way.
I don't expect to persuade him, of course, but it is entertaining to
argue, and maybe I can point out his BS to someone who otherwise would
be persuaded.
->I don't really disagree here, but I wanted to reiterate my
->point. The number of accidents or mistakes occurring will be
->a function of the underlying incentive structure. It's not clear 
->that government oversight embodies the best incentive structure.
I look at government oversight as being simply delegating the
responsibility to experts.  The process of setting standards needs to
be open, to prevent abuse, as does the enforcement of those standards.
->I'm also willing to entertain the thought that switching costs
->are present--I suspect that it will take some time for the new 
->incentives to become fully effective while the absense of the
->old incentive system will allow some undesirable behavior. The benefit
->of switching systems, however, is a different issue than the comparitive 
->systems discussion. 
I just don't think that market forces would be adequate in the case
of, for instance, air safety, which is a subject which spun off of
this discussion.
Example:  Market forces have driven the installation of anti-lock
brakes on cars, but now it seems that they are actually more dangerous
than standard brakes.
But then, airbags are a mandated item, and they aren't exactly the
shining light of regulatory success.  Their effectiveness when
passengers are seatbelted is miniscule, and now they've been shown to
be dangerous to smaller people.  My impression was that they were
rammed therough by the kind of safety nazis that the libertarians
deplore.  However, one partial falilure doesn't invalidate the
process, it just points out that it needs to be refined.
->> ->As a little aside, did you know that the FDA even uses Underwriters
->> ->Laberatories? Consumer reports can be as effective as government oversight.
->> ->The question I'd ask is what's the incentive structure for the government
->> ->and its personnel to do their job? Is the incentive structre a strong one,
->> ->a weak one, an OK one? What aspects make it better than some form of
->> ->competitively provided private oversight? ...
->> 
->> Good questions.  I think that in the '70s there was a strong effort to
->> increase accountability in government, but that it was rolled back
->> rather heavily in the last decade.  The current administration doesn't
->> seem too committed to open processes, either.
->> 
->> Gore's Reinventing Government project has answering some of those
->> questions as a goal.  I don't know how successful it has been.
->If Reinventing HUD is any indication, it's not that successful.
A lot of what I'm hearing about HUD came out of Kemp's attempts to put
it into a free market mode.  Seems that it was a little too easy to
abuse.  It was right along the lines of Gore's ideas, though, and may
have been somewhat inspirational.  Just shows you have to set systems
up so the profit lies in being honest.

Sam Hall wrote:
> Would you please post the details of a space propulsion system that is
> not a reaction engine (one that does not expend mass). Somehow I think
> NASA would be _very_ interested.
> 
No details, some crude examples:
1. Solar sails
2. Big laser kicking butt into outer space
3. Electromagnetic rail gun
and some less practical
4. Worm holes
5. placing a particle of negative mass somewhere in the neighbourhood
  (any system containing 1 -ve mass particle and 1 +ve mass particle or more 
   will accelerate non-stop with no energy expenditure) 
6. Supermassive black holes
not to mention dreamier possibilities
7. Selective shielding of gravitons
8. Doing funny stuff with space between departure point and destination,
   like compressing it.
9. "Beam me up, Scotty"-type teleportation: person->information->photons->
   information->same person a light year further.
Finally, I'm no NASA watcher, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong,
but NASA seems to me to be neither innovative, nor particularly efficient.
I don't think the future of humanity's spacefaring efforts will have
anything to do with NASA or its ilk ( ESA etc).
Elliott

31-12-96
revised 1-1-97
Notes on the structure of reality - article 3
(first draft)
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (c) G. Forbat 1996
It may now be convenient to extend and qualify some of the main 
concepts derived from the theory. In the previous essays I described 
a process of material formation which provides the basis for the 
observed material reality. The process operates through a building 
procedure which involves a relationship between the physical 
magnitudes of structures, that is, the volume they occupy, and the 
rapidity of their internal cycles. Moreover, the process is universal, 
ranging over an infinity of scale tranformations from the most 
miniscule sizes to the most gigantic imaginable, in fact infinite in 
both directions. 
But it is not a single dimensional process involving only scale. What 
is peculiar about the sequence is that the smaller structures of
the micro world are highly dynamic due to an extremely rapid internal 
cycle operating to hold it together, and the smaller the structure, 
the more dynamic it is. Dynamics refers to the rapidity of the 
cyclical pulse. As particles break down to the cyclical funtion of a 
number of smaller components, those components will have a 
significantly more rapid internal cyclical rate than those of the 
larger structure they contribute to forming. The atomic structure, 
for instance, comes into being due to the cyclical function of the 
electron in relation to the nucleus. The composition of the electron 
has not yet been penetrated, but the possibilities are few. Either it 
is composed of a very large number of tiny parts, or maybe fewer but 
of a much higher dynamicity. The nucleus, on the other hand, is known 
to break down to combinations of smaller, but much more dynamic parts
known as 'quarks'. Quarks themselves must reduce to even smaller 
components, with cyclical rates of increasingly more rapidity. The
many qualities of quarks testify to a variance of configurations. 
The quantum proportions testify to this very nature. With the 
process of reduction infinite, so with it is the increase in 
dynamicity. 
We are fortunate enough to be able to observe two vastly different 
aspect of the material process. The micro scales of phenomena present 
an integrated view of average behaviour over many billions of cycles. 
Imagine how the solar system would look if billions of planetary 
cycles were pressed into a single second. Theoretically at least, it 
would be possible to simulate the effect by taking a long term video 
of the solar system in motion over many billions of years, and then 
replaying the tape over a matter of seconds. Undoubtedly we could 
make computer image simulations of it much more easily. 
Then there is the almost static view of the process presented 
by the structures of the large scale in their 'real time' cyclical 
movements. Our viewpoint of stellar formations is fashioned from the 
workings of the atomic structure, and compared to the speed and 
capacity of the functioning of our instruments and sensing apparatus, 
the stellar structures are both extremely large and so slowly evolving 
as to be almost static. But now, let's venture to reconstruct in its 
broadest principles the consequences of this infinite sequence of 
structuring, not only to determine the status of our own viewpoint 
within it, but to attempt to discover general principles that may be 
directly affecting us and we are not yet aware of. Firstly, going up 
or down in scale, the specific attributes of structure types that 
occur depend on the interactive possibilities afforded on each  
particular scale. Solar systems of one type or another, whether 
binary or planetary are the almost exclusive forms that may be found 
at the scale of the direct interaction between the most massive 
atomic conglomerations. At this scale of consideration the universe 
can be seen to be interspersed with stellar and planetary matter in 
mutual interaction as solar systems. But we know that solar systems, 
in turn, almost exclusively congregate in the larger massive 
formations of galaxies, occuring in a small number of types. Galaxies 
themseves form clusters with unique characteristics types of their own. 
On the galactic scale of consideration the universe can be seen as 
interspersed almost exclusively by galactic formations. Certainly they 
are the only long term stable forms to be found at this scale. 
In fact we can apply this principle at any level of magnitude. Thus
the universe is interspersed by atoms at the atomic scale of 
consideration but with planetary/stellar matter on a larger scale.
So then, as the process builds to infinity, with each structure type 
occuring in forms and attributes appropriate to interaction and 
formation possibilities at that scale. Each transformation produces 
unique structure types, and there is certainly no likelyhood of the 
same structure type occuring at different levels either in the micro 
and macro scales. 
Both the reduction and its reverse process of expansion runs to infinity,
with the roots of each or any structure traceable in infinite steps
toward smaller scales. But this does not work in the reverse toward the
macro. The reason is that not all structures continue to build outward 
forever. Large sections of it terminate at a certain level, as in the 
case of the structures that intersperse in our seemingly empty spatial  
regions. My findings are that these regions are far from empty. 
The entire spatiality in fact contains a fine invisible mist of matter, 
structured at its highest level to an interactive fabric to form 
a micro infrastructure which sets the framework for the workings of 
our atomic based matterial environment. But only those elements
which participate in further building processes to form the atomic 
base can get through to build outward to form structures on larger 
scales. The rest, indeed a very large portion of micro material,
is lost to further structuring. In this infinite chain of 
expansions it should be expected that terminal stages are reached 
from time to time. Nevertheless, what remains after each of these 
mass terminations is still adequete to reconstruct other equally 
thickly populated levels of structures on much larger scales.    
So what is the status of our material system amid this infinity of 
transformation levels ? On the micro end we observe the process through
a very high integration, but on the macro end it tends toward static. 
With the two directions reflecting merely different aspects of a 
single process, our observational access results from the circumstances 
of our evolution as sensing beings and our relation to the material 
interaction that brought it about. We are a direct product of our 
micro infrastructure and the atomic base. The question remains 
whether ours is the only material environment possible or whether
there may be others ? Perhaps other configurational circumstances can 
exist among an infinity of types which produces alternative material 
bases. 
We need firstly to examine the general circumstances which must be 
present for a material environment. Obviously the most evident 
is the versatility of our atomic structure. It is extremely stable 
and durabile with, stability, regularity, as well as variability in
chemical combination. It is truly like a wonder particle which goes on 
to create a tremendously varied and interactive world of material  
activity. Surely it would be fairly rare to find a scale level of 
structuring where such a useful type of particle is found. 
Nevertheless it stands to reason that in a infinite chain of 
transformations other similarly efficient structure types are bound 
to occur. some may indeed be even more flexible than the atom, or 
perhaps somewhat less so,  but still able to generate a causal 
evolution in its conglomerate forms to create an alternative material 
environment rivalling ours. Of course on the micro scales a funtional
world would evolve extremely rapidly compared to ours, and on the macro 
scales the events would take on gigantic proportions, evolving very 
slowly by our way of looking at it. 
G. Forbat
to be continued in the next article                      

In article <$JlMDHA6AZ1yEwOd@gates.demon.co.uk>, gates
 wrote:
> 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.
If (a big if) all nations observe observe the strictures of the Montreal
Protocol and annexes, the global decline in ozone is predicted to bottom
out in 5-10 years and get back to 1980s levels in fifty years. The rate of
increase of a few substances which deplete ozone  is decling and this is a
good sign.
  With
> the plans to date the only fly in this balm is population growth in what
> is usually called the third world. 
Population growth and increased, western style consumption certainly are
problems, but  I think there is no lack of other. Just considering the
effects on stratospheric ozone, industrial emmissions of long lived ozone
depleting substances continue and the complicated effects of satellite
launches and the inexhorable expantion of  sub and supersonic civil air
travel  have not even been defined.
I think I'll leave  the rest.
Best wishes, Jim Scanlon
 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.
--