Newsgroup sci.environment 114601

Directory

Neil O'Hara wrote:
> 
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > Dear Richard Penny:
> > >From your below post I am in question as to the purpose of the Friends
> > of the River (F.O.R.). Is it F.O.R or F.O.R. Flood??
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [snip sensible comments on long-range flood planning from F.O.R.]
> 
> Mark, I take it from your remark that you subscribe to the "Built it,
> Dam it" philosophy?
> 
> Folsom reservoir handled the greatest inflow it has ever received during
> this event, with no significant problems downstream on the American.
> The existence of an Auburn Dam would have made _zero_ difference to the
> central valley floods.
> 
> F.O.R.'s approach makes a lot of sense to me.
> 
> Neil
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Niel:
I am looking at the floods near Sacramento from high ground.  Your above
comment seems to imply that you advocate letting nature do its thing
approach. Is that a correct assumption?
Since I am on high ground perhaps you should explain the F.O.R. approach
to someone who is living in a flooded house.  That would be a real test
to see if F.O.R. theories are in touch with reality.  Let all of us know
about your flooded converts.
Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!

ianl@curie.dialix.com.au (Ian Lowery) wrote:
>dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote:
>
>>The Earth is currently about 3 degrees cooler than it was 4000 years ago.
>
Even if this was the case, a steady 3 degree change over 1000s of
years can hardly be compared with a similar change over a couple of
hundred.  With the shorter span, there is little time for adjustment.
>
>>How do we know we're not in a cold anomoly and global warming isn't a
>>natural correction? 
The rate of change makes this seem unlikely.
>
>2) We now have accurate computer models which are able to model the
>way we got hear now, and from intial data, calculate current
>temperatures. From this we assume that the models are correct in
>predicting the future. 
No way.  We have some very sophisticated models which can perhaps
accuratly predict particular global cycles in isolation, but global
warming effects so many systems which are related that it is not
possible to develop a model which is sure to be accurate.  There are
too many factors and cycles which are not well understood.  To
quantify all possible interactions is a massively difficult task.
They can be used to give a suggestive indication of the future only. 
>The problem with previous models is that they were wildly inaccurate
>in predicting current temperatures from past data, ie., data going
>back about 200 years. The problem was that people were looking at the
>warming effect of carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of fossil
>fuels, without realising that there is also a cooling effect from
>sulphur compounds when they are burned (usually in coal).
Sure.  And there are hundreds of other effects which are now also
taken into account.  We do not know how well these effects have been
quantified or how many important factors still are unknown.  
 eg some obvious factors which are now considered (I am rather out of
date on this) is the lag in rising temps due to the thermal inertia of
the oceans.  The effect that increasing ocean temps might have on
dissolved CO2 levels (which may increase atmospheric CO2 as CO2
dissolves more at lower temp in water) creating a nasty feedback loop.
Increased temp increases water vapour in the air which increases heat
retention directly but reduces it as increased cloud cover.  etc.
To complicate matters further we should take into account other
environmental changes.  eg Ozone depletion, toxic pollutants etc may
reduce the productivity of photoplankton and reduce its potention to
process CO2.  The are many other egs.  
>When this was taken into account, the models proved accurate. Note
>that 1990 was the hottest year on record, and 1991, the second. The
>following year was expected to be even hotter, but Mt Pinatabu blew
>its lid, putting thousands of tons of sulphate and sulphide particles
>into the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight back into space, and cooling
>the planet.
Does anyone know what volume of Greenhouse gases are released from
such an eruption.  A vague recollection of high school science
suggests to me that this would not be insignificant.
>This effect was closely observed, and there has been much published on
>it. The warming curve has now returned to normal.
>
>The solution to global warming is simple. We need to get more sulphur
>compounds up there to reflect the sunlight. Then we can all enjoy a
>nice cool climate while the acid rain denudes us of the clothes we use
>to keep warm.
Now thats an idea.  Unfortunatly the acid rain would wipe out some
much biomass that I suspect the additional CO2 released to the
atmosphere would more than offset the sulfur addition!  
That is a guess and how is it possible to quantify such effects with
accuracy?  We might study such a possibility and find in our computer
model, a small error either way could force a feedback mechanism to
come into play which could lead to completely different results when
combined with the rest of the factors.
>>We can't arrogantly assume what we see now is "correct".
Damn right.
>We also cannot turn a blind eye to the best available evidence, which
>is the overwhelming bulk of scientific opinion, and the best
>predictive means we have in terms of modelling.
Also true.  There is plenty of evidence and common sense says that
they probably is a problem.  Considering the possible magnitude of the
phenomen and magnitude of corrective measures required to fix it, we
cannot just sit around and hope for the best.
Regards
-- 
Adam Oswald, PEng
**
Concorde Computers
Selling systems, components, peripherals Australia wide
**
Mt Gravatt, Brisbane, Qld 4122, AUSTRALIA
Tel (07) 3219 2600  Fax (07) 3216 8905
Home page http://www.concomp.com.au/

murray@unico.com.au (Murray Brandon) wrote:
>In article <32D6CB19.5F84@pipeline.com.au>,
>bwynn   wrote:
>>
>>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!
>>-- 
>
>I believe this is true (apart from the die bit!).
Certainly is.  Everything else stems from overpopulation.  On the
other hand, the increased production of more people may also
eventually lead to greater progress toward solutions but i think
perhaps this effect is not sufficient to counter the problems caused.
>Countries have an economic interest in keeping their populations
>expanding.  If you have an ever increasing population, you always
>have a lot of extra jobs available to cater for their housing needs
>etc.  So, pretty much every country has a population expansion
>programme to keep the economy growing artificially.
I don't agree with that.  Some families have an economic intrest to
have a large family, though I think even this is falling.  Governments
have to find the money to build infrastructure for massively growing
populations.  Its increasing GDP that nations assume is essential.
They are right in a sense, but unfortunatly they don't (and neither do
I) know how to measure growth properly. There must be a negative in
environmental and social damage considered which offsets economic
gains.
Most "developed" countries have growth under control and it will
eventually become negative.  The trick is to survive with minimal
damage till after the population peaks and comes back down.  We live
in critical times.  The next hundred years are probably the most
important of the last 30,000 for our species.
Regards
-- 
Adam Oswald, PEng
**
Concorde Computers
Selling systems, components, peripherals Australia wide
**
Mt Gravatt, Brisbane, Qld 4122, AUSTRALIA
Tel (07) 3219 2600  Fax (07) 3216 8905
Home page http://www.concomp.com.au/

ug837@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Karl F. Johanson) wrote:
{snip}
>Cost???? There are things more important than cost, oh like say human 
>lives. 
The "cost" (more properly, value) of a human life is, let's
see...
say, a generous average earning life expectancy of around 50
years, times an average (again, generous) earning capacity of
say, $50,000/yr = gee, only about $2,500,000.
Of course, a true cost-benefit analysis of  environmental
remediation (or other human-health-risk-based actions) should
take this into account.
>      Karl Johanson,  Victoria B.C. Canada
dewey@televar.com

> > : 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.
?!?!??
I'm sorry, but this to me seems extraordinarily naive. As nuclear
powerplants and so forth become increasingly common world-wide, more
and more nations will have the power to produce nuclear weapons.
Verification of production or lack thereof will become increasingly
complex, and might not be possible to do with certainty over the
short term.
This is not even mentioning biological weapons and neurotoxins, which
can in fact be manufactured in fairly effective secrecy.
The way I see it, sophisticated, idealistic notions of disarmament
and trust of other nations in the world wide community is just not
based on reality. Historically, world wide powers just can't be trusted.
IMHO, the real factor at work here -- the one that is pushing
industrialized nations in the communications age towards peace --
is inderdependence and tolerance due to understanding. Maybe my
eyes are just glazed over by hope, but I think that it is the 
light at the end of tunnel. In todays modern era, people are 
closer to eachother than ever, and understand eachother better
than ever.
As far as worrying about nuclear terrorism goes, if we were really
worried about that then maybe we shouldn't go making enemies in the
middle east? 
Prior to WWI, the US was fairly neutral in world affairs. Woe that 
those days are gone, if you ask me.
Joe.

In article <5ar8ch$fsi@valhalla.comshare.com>,
Mike Pelletier  wrote:
>In article <5a9uga$ia4@news.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr  wrote:
>>
>> It was refined, and of course it was not *in* a critical mass or it would 
>> no longer be there.  Forming it into the proper shape, and assembling 
>> same, is the only 'problem' one must solve.  But the main issue has to 
>> do with the cavalier way this stuff was handled at Rocky Flats. 
>
>I was under the impression that plutonium at its normal density could not
>be assembled into a critical mass, which is why they used the implosion
>design to increase the density of the plutonium core to force it to a
>higher, supercritical density.
>
>Is this incorrect?
  Yes, it is incorrect.  Of course, you can get a critical mass from
  plutonium at its normal density  (if you think, you will probably
  recall a homework problem in reactor physics in which you calculated
  the mass).  One cannot make a weapon with plutonium at its normal
  density, which is what you really meant to say, I think.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

concorde@powerup.com.au (Adam Oswald) writes:
>Most "developed" countries have growth under control and it will
>eventually become negative.  The trick is to survive with minimal
>damage till after the population peaks and comes back down.  We live
>in critical times.  The next hundred years are probably the most
>important of the last 30,000 for our species.
It's most refreshing to find someone else posting along these lines. 
Regrettably, just "surviving with minimal damage" does not resemble the
present situation. Global human population has doubled in the last 35
years; global species extinctions are proceeding at more than 1,000
times the rate of the last century; only 23% of humanity lives in
developed countries, and, of the rest, more than a billion are
illiterate and destitute; and more than 40% of global arable land has
been severely degraded in just the last 50 years. It is very difficult
to see how humanity can avoid a global dieback before 2100.
The one ray of hope seems be the chance that we will produce an
exponentiating technology before the cataclysm commences. Drexler &
Merkle's brand of molecular nanotechnology, if it can be implemented and
controlled within such a short timeframe, might solve all of these
difficulties. Other possibilities in this vein may present themselves too.
It seems to me to be something of a race.
If you're interested in all this I've got a web page that treats it in
some detail. 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.        |

In article <5b1g0q$428@news2.lakes.com>,
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com  wrote:
>eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>Dennis Nelson  wrote:
>
>>>How so, clean?  The only point that nuclearphiles can make about clean is
>>>that nuke power plants don't produce CO2.  
>
>>During normal operation they release a few grams of radioactive noble
>
>Which go on to decay into nuceotides that are known heath hazards.
>
>>gases and a few kgs of waste which is easily managed, compared to
>
>Considering how mnay times they have been accidently vented, its not
>all that easy to manage.
  And how many times is that?
>
>>thousands of tons of (radioactive) ash from coal fired plants, not to
>
>Well granite is radioactive to, you are being dishonest here as the
>coal ash is low level, about the same as background and present no
>hazard due to the radioactivity.
>
>>mention the volume of CO2 and SO2 from burning fossil fuels.  Hydro
>>floods large areas of land and kills millions of trees, and disturbs
>>the ecology of whole river systems, solar involves the use of cadmium
>>(heavy metal toxicity greater than Pu), and for efficiency demands the
>
>Another piece of disinformation Pu is still the most toxic element
>known.
   No, it isn't.
>
>>use of copper (ever seen a copper mine?) and for storage lead acid
>>batteries :-(, and wind power uses plastics (from oil - remember Exxon
>>Valdez)), and are noise and aesthetic polluters, and also use
>>batteries etc etc.
>
>You should have chosen better examples , shame on you. nukes use
>cadmium in the control rods, lead for shields,and a variety of rare
>metals due to the operating enviroment. As well as huge quanties of
>acid and flouride are required in the processing of the fuel.
>
>>>They don't mention that heating
>>>certain UCO3 ores to produce U metal releases CO2 into the atmosphere, nor
>>>do they mention that the massive amounts of concrete needed for nuke plants
>>>release even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
>
>>Nuclear doesn't use any more of this stuff than the alternatives.
>
>That is certainly debatable considering the short lifetime of a nuke
>compared to a coal fired plant or a hydro dam.
>
>>>Despite all that silence about the cons of nuke power, 
>
>>Silence?  All the information on any subject you want re nuclear power
>>is freely available if you bother to look, and there are many highly
>>educated individuals in this ng who would be willing to answer any
>>questions, if you could be bothered to ask.
>
>Perhaps he was refering to the silence of the national media, I doubt
>if you ever see a report on the national nnews detailing the hazards
>of nuclear engery, since 2 of the major networks are owned by corps.
>invovled with nuclear production.
 Do you watch the same networks that I watch?  It has been a while
 since a news special on nuclear energy has been produced, but
 ABC ran one back around 1983 called "The Fire Unleashed" which was
 technically very poor and very critical of things nuclear.  
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

    Hi,
I'm looking for the report of the 4th International Symposium on
Hazardous Waste Management which takes place in Atlanta in may 1987. 
More precisely, I need an article by BAES CF and MESMER RE whose the
title is "Solubility and stability of inorganic iodides and
carbonates". This report would be published in "ASTM special technical
publication (vol 1033) ".
Thanks for your help
Greg

----------
> From: {fullname} 
> Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation
> Subject: Balleally Tiphead
> Date: 12 January 1997 16:10
> 
> I represent a local group which is trying to stop a local county council
> getting permission to extend a 108-acre dump which is built on an estuary
> of worldwide recognition for bird wildlife.
> 
> I would be interested in hearing from anybody with suggestions or similar
> situations.
> 
> John Barrett
> Secretary
> Community Action Rogerstown Estuary (CARE)
> 

In article <853070094snz@transcontech.co.uk>
           peb@transcontech.co.uk "Paul E. Bennett" writes:
>> Nuclear Electric's Haversham reactor site had a fire accident today
>                     ^^^^^^^^^
>I think you mean Heysham in Lancashire UK. There are two reactors in each of 
>the Nuclear Reactor Buildings on this site (Heysham I and Heysham II).
I might have misspelled it..
>> and that reactor site is reportedly shut down. Although no radioactives
>> were lost (according to news claims), a thorough investigation has been
>> ordered. It goes once again to prove that accidents happen despite the best
>> will, care and attention in the world, and money spent on procedures...
>
>There is always the unexpected. However, such plants are well aware of the 
>risks involved in their industry and do everything they can to minimise 
>them. The investigation will determine whether this is one of those things 
>that will require a re-think on some of the procedures emplyed.
I'm not sure they are fully aware.. why did this happen in
the first place then?
>> I have now uploaded a new class of robotics technology to
>> 
>> http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/nuclear.htm
>> Mirror http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar/nuclear.htm
>> 
>> that can deal with any kind of disaster - even something 10 times more
>> complex than Chernobyl. (If you have latest Netscape / Explorer you can
>> see animations as well.)
>
>Then go clean Chernobyl up! :-)
Love to.. smoke me a kipper, I shall only be gone for little
while, but before I go, lend me a tenner!
>> The technology uses fractal robots to reach parts where no other robots
>> can reach, and it has built in self repair which means they can be used
>> in evolving accidents.
>
>What are these? 
What are evolving accidents? They are accidents that continue to evolve
from the second they occur. Chernobyl is still an evolving accident
after all these years. The reactor is still active; additionally, there
is a risk of a huge dust cloud escaping from reactor site due to various
reasons.
But the technology that I propose would deal with reactors eating its way
through the containment tank. By changing shape, it simply lays down lead
beds for the reactor melt to pour into... And if it escapes out of that,
then it lays down more of these around it and below that floor to contain
the leak.
In other words, it can deal with accidents as they evolve from the
second it results in damage.
I had a little chat with the IAEA and they reckon its gonna change
a few things - but they elect to be irresponsible and refusing
any kind of cooperation or help.
*-------------------| http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk |-------------------*
|  Joseph Michael                  *    Robodyne Cybernetics Ltd         |
|  Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk         |    23 Portland Rise, London N4 2PT  |
|  Tel 0836 703945 (Mobile)        :    Tel 0181-800 9914 Fax 9915       |
*-----:  MIRROR -> http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar  :-----*

"D. Braun"  wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997, Robert Hubby wrote:
>> D. Braun (dbraun@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>> : 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.  
How do you plan on dealing with nations who have their own nuclear
capability, or the resources to produce that capability in secret?
>> : Eventually, the Russian
>> : mafia or the like will find it more difficult to procure a bomb.  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.  
So, your foreign policy will insure that terrorists will not get
"pissed off" at the US?  The way you use it here, the word
"progressive" sounds like danegelt to me.  This "progressive" policy
has not worked in the past to my knowledge, have you an instance where
it did?
>> : Abandoning MADD would mean that we would actually
>> : have to negotiate and have political solutions worked out. 
You imply here that you think the US does not now have a policy where
it will "negotiate and have political solutions worked out".  Was this
your intent?  To imply that the US is using nuclear military threats
to force other countries to bow to the US will?  If you did not mean
that the US was using its nuclear capability to blackmail other
nations, what did you mean?
[edited]
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic 
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and 
being honest."
     - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.   
	"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47

"D. Braun"  wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
[edited]
>> 
>> How in the world do you "marginalize" a terrorist group with an atomic
>> bomb?  By appealing to other groups, this will remove the bomb?  Are
>> you depending on them feeling bad about their bomb, and surrendering
>> it, because you have appealed to other, nonviolent, groups?  You can
>> try that, but I hope the President does not.
>
>By leaving them out in the cold, they don't gain.  If they use it, they
>don't gain.  
You are simply repeating yourself, unless you want to say that
"marginalize" does not really mean the same thing as "leave them out
in the cold".  You still have not explained how this would be done.
>Meanwhile, counter-blackmail (not negotiation) would be in
>order.  As would covert action to destroy their capacity to deliver the
>weapon. Pay off their rivals to steel the warhead. Dirty tricks.  Whatever
>it takes. 
You have a truly remarkable faith in the CIA, which surprises me in
someone I would have thought would not favor any such increase in the
capacity for aggressive covert action.  You realize that to perform
these kind of functions, on the short time scale required, you would
need enormous capability in place around the world, watching and
waiting for such events?  I must admit It am a little surprised at
your apparent willingness to support such an expanded role for the
CIA.  I am afraid I do not share your certainty in the capabilities of
the US intelligence services that I would risk the immediate
possibility of the incineration of Seattle.
examine the situation for a minute.  A nation which has the capability
to produce a bomb (and you have no way of being certain), threatens to
blow up San Francisco if the US does not perform as the rogue nation
demands.  But you, as a US leader, have managed to persuade the US
government to get rid of all its nuclear military capacity.  
If you attack that rogue nation in any way, you lose San Francisco (or
Seattle, or Portland, or New York).  Even evacuation of these major
cities would result in the loss of countless lives through simple
panic alone.  It would even be likely that these leaders would have
their most fanatical supporters at the triggers, sworn to their
religious faith to press the triggers if the leader is killed.
>The point is, keeping a nuclear arsenal for defense against such
>groups makes no sense, and keeping an arsenal leads to proliferation.
"Makes no sense"?  I regret that, despite your wishes, your attempt
"marginalize" a rogue nation would not satisfy me that I was safe.  I
suspect that, if the US had no nuclear capability, it would set off a
hidden arms race among its enemies to develop such a capability.
>Disarmament puts the major powers in a stronger position to limit spread
>of nuke capability. 
I see.  You appear to expect that, in a confrontation with a aggressor
(such as Hitler, say), the superior moral force of our position will
persuade the dictator to back down.  Again, I must say I do not share
your faith in the goodwill of tyrants.
>Of course, if one believe that every country should
>get all the nukes they desire, in order to spread MADD to most countries,
>that is an entirely different objective. One I would not want our
>president, or Congress, to have.
Then why did you bring it up?  Nobody else did?  Is this what you
secretly want?  No, you couldn't be trying to erect a strawman, could
you?
>> >As we found with Om
>> >(spelling?) in Japan, one need not use nukes to spread terror; if they had
>> >been more successful, gas attacks could have killed 10s of thousands in
>> >the subways. 
>> 
>> This makes it OK to use an atomic bomb, because they could just as
>> well have used gas?  I am sorry, but the analogy escapes me.
>
>Putting words in my mouth, I see. I have been arguing all along that using
>nukes to combat terrorist, or countries using to use a few nukes for
>blackmail, is a ludicrous proposition.  Now I espouse it? 
Saying that a group "need not use nukes to spread terror", you have
certainly come close to equating the two.  If this is not your intent,
I apologize, and ask you to be clearer.
>> [edited]
>> >I have said on this thread that it will take time, and not be perfect or
>> >guaranteed.  It is still the best option to reduce the possibility of
>> >nukes being used.  
>> 
>> I am sorry again, but if it is not guaranteed, it will not ever work.
>
>Check you eyeglass prescription Harold.  I did not see guaranteed, I said
>"not...guaranteed."
I read it.  Get out your grammar.  If it is "not...guaranteed", I am
not going to be happy, because we are discussing nuclear weapons, not
gas attacks or landslides.  We are talking about a risk to millions of
Americans in major cities by dictators.  You seem to think this
acceptable.
>> No leader of any country, free or otherwise, will be the second to
>> last one to destroy his nuclear weapons.  Nor will they destroy theirs
>> if they think that someone else is hiding some.  Iraq showed how easy
>> it is to hide some missiles.
>
>so says you.
"So says you"?  This is a response?  You think Iraq did not hide
missiles?  If you have no response, just be quiet.
>> >Their time has passed, as one Pentagon veteran recently
>> >told the press. 
>> 
>> Oh great, you found a "Pentagon veteran" who is willing to bet his
>> life and everyone else's that he can accurately know who has weapons
>> and who has not.  You have much more faith in the US intelligence
>> agencies than I do.
>
>My point is that people from many sectors agree that disarmament makes
>sense.
Really?  Well, "people from many sectors agree the disarmament" is
very tricky, and not something you enter by saying, let's
"marginalize" those who don't agree, that'l sure fix them!
[repetition deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments
by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
   ---Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice, 1916 - 1939.

"D. Braun"  wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997, Robert Hubby wrote:
[edited]
>> And how, precisely, would disarmament prevent terrorists from using a
>> "Suitcase Bomb?" (Or the legitimate government of a fanatical country like
>> Iran, for that matter?)
>
>Read the other posts in the thread.  In short, by marginalizing terrorist
>groups or countries attempting nuclear blackmail, by showing them that
>they have nothing to gain (and lots to lose) by persuing that course.
>Also, by reducing the supply of materials and technology.
Right, you intend to "marginalize" a future dictator like a Hitler.
No doubt Hitler would have been extremely impressed with threats of
marginalizing.
The argument reminds me of school children shunning an outcast on a
school yard.  It is difficult to believe that this would affect a
future Hitler, except in a fashion we might not like.  Imagine Hitler
during WWII with nuclear weapons, and no fear that the Allies could
strike back.
Somehow, I am not persuaded that a future Hitler would be dissuaded by
such threats, were he armed with nuclear weapons.
Regards, Harold
------
"By September 1979, all important life in the sea was extinct. 
Large areas of coastline had to be evacuated...  A pretty grim 
scenario. Unfortunately were a long way into it already...based 
on projections of trends already appearing..."
   - Paul Ehrilich, Environmental Handbook, 1970, pp 174

Jim  wrote:
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>> 
>> Jim  wrote:
[edited]
>> >By the way, there are basically 2 values I can identify that we should
>> >serve:
>> >1. Quality of life-When a person is happy, that is good.
>> 
>> How do you judge "happy"?  It makes some people happy to use the
>> property of others without compensation.  Is this OK?  Do you use the
>> self appraisal of "happy", and let each person determine how happy
>> they are, compared to other's happy?  What is two people are made
>> happy by opposite results?
>> 
>> >2. Inherent values-This is the inherent value of life and nature.
>> 
>> How do you define this?  It appears here that you are saying that
>> there are some inherent values, which may trump your earlier "greater
>> good for the greater number" philosophy.  Is this your intent?  Are
>> there cases where you think that the majority opinion is incorrect?
>> Are you competent to figure these out?
>> 
>> >This is getting philosophical, and that is a matter of personal outlook,
>> >so I will leave these ideas for you to judge.
>> 
>> Sorry, I cannot judge, as it is incomplete.
>> 
>I decline to be drawn into a theoretical debate with make-believe
>charachters. My opinions on real-world affairs show how my philosophy
>works. 
It does not!  I was even nice enough to point out inconsistencies in
your "philosophy", and you are now attempting to wave them away.  
>I don't claim to have all the answers, and even if I did, it
>wouldn't solve real-world problems unless others agreed. 
I would disagree.  If you had "all the answers", I think there would
be no problem getting other to agree.  I do not think all the answers
exist, and I am sure you don't have them if they did.  I even pointed
this out.
>That is why (as
>I said earlier), that if we can agree on a few practical goals, use of
>logic and reasoning can allow us to find ways to meet those goals, even
>if we have differing motivations.
Unfortunately, the world is so complicated that your prescription is
not complete.  We will all do the best we are able, but some people
have different priorities, so there will always be disagreement.
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic 
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and 
being honest."
     - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.   
	"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> Don Dale  wrote:
> 
> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> [edited]
> 
> >> For this reason, premise one must be wrong, and technological advances
> >> do not necessarily lead to industrialization.
> 
> >Yet the weight of the evidence regarding Western technology and
> >industrialization suggests that premise one is true.  There is the
> >paradox.
> 
> It does not.  It means that technology alone is insufficient to
> generate an industrialized society.  It is obviously only one of the
> requirements.  Others of importance might be a world view which
> encompasses a cause effect relationship, property rights, maybe
> monothesism, and probably some we have never considered.
> 
> A paradox is always a failure to understand.
Facts cannot contradict other facts; one or the other (or perhaps both)
of any two seemingly contradictory facts must be false as a matter of
logic.  Yet there is no understanding, no usefulness, no knowledge in
facts as such.  It is the manner by which the human brain organizes
facts into patterns, systems, hypotheses, theories, relationships,
conjectures (etc) that defines knowledge and understanding.
To date, no scholar has been able to put forth a set of hypotheses
regarding the relationship between technology and economic development
that successfully accounts for the facts observed in the histories of
Europe and China.
Of course the Needham paradox is not a paradox in the logical sense, but
it is called a paradox because the facts that Needham discovered
contradicted what was at the time a set of hypotheses firmly rooted in
other facts and generally accepted as true.
Don

In article <32D818DD.1AEE@easynet.co.uk> savage@easynet.co.uk "sdef!" writes:
>> 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.
>
>
>Reminds me of "Blue Peter"
[.. later you said ..]
>  .. its worse than genetic engineering 
>Andy
I agree what they do in Blue Peter is worse than genetic engineering!!
As for refusing to save the planet... I think you is a piddling diddler.. :-)
.--------------------.                        .--------------------------.
|  Joe Michael        \______________________/  Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk  |
:                                            \__________________________/:
|  Futuristic  .  Shocking  .  Mind Blowing  .  Shape Changing Robots    |
:-------.                                                                :
|        \         http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/                       |
`---------+--------------------------------------------------------------'

APS's forum on Physics & Society has a series of
good, short articles on the liner-no threshold hypothesis
for radiation dose response, in its current issue newsletter.
Short summary is that followup studies of nuclear workers
with accurately measured doses in the 0.005 - 0.2 Sv range
do show a formal negative correlation between non-leukemia
cancers and dose at low dose; but, the data uncertainty is
consistent with the standard linear response theory.
Leukemia shows linear, and stronger dose relationship,
but statistics are worse. Overall cancer incidence at low exposure
is less than predicted from the linear response theory.
Articles include short discussion of theory and history,
including the distinction between absolute dose and incremental
dose response.
URL http://physics.wm.edu/~sher/phys_soc.html
Particular issue + articles are at 
URL http://physics.wm.edu/~sher/jan97.html

In article <32CCB440.1F9@erols.com>, Dennis Nelson   wrote:
>Mike Pelletier wrote:
>> 
>> In article <32CBF4C2.CDA@facstaff.wisc.edu>,
>>         Don Libby   wrote:
>> >An article in the _Wall Street Journal_ today announces that Connecticut
>> >state regulators are calling for the resignation of top executives at
>> >Northeast Utilities based on safety concerns that have forced the
>> >company to shutdown four of its nuclear reactors.  I cite this as an
>> >example of one of the major barriers to further progress in the
>> >development of nuclear power - the institutional framework.
>> >
>> >What kind of society is capable of developing institutions that would
>> >make nuclear power a sustainable economic activity?  That society might
>> >be so different from our own that we would not desire to make the
>> >necessary social changes:  would we wish to trade freedom for nuclear
>> >power if a police-state were the only viable institution capable of
>> >safely operating a nuclear industry?
>> 
>> Interesting question.  However, I think you should give credit
>> to the existing institutions.  There's been no deaths in the US
>
>Here is some more of that nuclear disinformation which is so hard for me
>to swallow and is so characteristic of the absolutism which pervades the
>pro-nuclear crowd.  How can you possibly know that there were "no deaths
>attributable to the nuclear aspects of nuclear power?"  And for that 
>matter, what on earth are the nuclear aspects of nuclear power?  I know
>of at least one death of a worker at TMI due to that meltdown.  I know of
>three people who died at INEL working on a Navy power reactor.  I also
>know of at least 6 people who died in criticality accidents while mixing
>solutions of partially enriched uranium.  I know of a couple of hundred
>uranium miners who have died of lung cancer from working in underground
>uranium mines.  Probably others, of whom I am not aware, died from handling
>and disposing of waste.  I think that it is much safer to say that a finite
>but indeterminate number of people have died due to the "nuclear aspects
>of nuclear power." 
>
   Citation for the death at TMI, please.
   What does the accident at SL-1 (INEL - Army reactor, not a Navy reactor)
   have to do with commercial nuclear power?
   
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

Jim  wrote:
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>> 
>> Jim  wrote:
>> 
[edited]
>> >>
>> >We know beyond a doubt that rainforests harbor many species that have
>> >very restricted ranges, only a few of which we have discovered. To say
>> >that they don't would be like saying that all the stars or galaxies
>> >discovered are the only ones that exist.
>> 
>> That is an interesting analogy, but I do not think that it is
>> appropriate here, unless you intend some drastic action as a result of
>> the paucity of stars or galaxies.
>> 
>Of course not. My point is that the existence of many unknown species is
>undeniable, as are the existence of many unknown galaxies.
I know what your point was, I am sorry I was not clear enough in
explaining mine.  You want expensive, drastic action taken to
alleviate a situation wherein you have postulated the existence of
many species, then postulate their extinction.
Until you have a similar recommendation with regard to some expensive,
drastic action in regard to postulated stars, the analogy is not
appropriate.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic 
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and 
being honest."
     - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.   
	"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47