Subject: Re: No Nukes? (was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: "Daniel J. Lavigne"
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:45:32 -0500
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
"Daniel J. Lavigne" wrote:
>>Either that or resign ourselves to future use
>>of all such weaponry. Training our children to
>>launch such weapons confirmed our existence as
>>fools who will do nothing to prevent such use.
>In fifty years the weapons have not been used,
>and you think that this proves that humans
>are fools? Whatever turns your crank, I guess.
(Daniel J. Lavigne) responds:
What about the 16 “Near use scenarios” since
Nagasaki Harold? Are you saying that you have
done something to try to prevent such use?
Or are you attempting to justify your support
of plans and preparations involving the will
and the capacity to murder hundreds of millions
of your fellow defenceless human beings?
Justify societal insanity? Justify plans and
preparations that you know are predicated on
a will and capacity to use weapons of mass
murder against citizens of undefended cities?
Justify plans and preparations that are
predicated on our children following through
on their instructions to launch humanity into
a barbarous anarchy?
If they are not so predicated Harold, why did
we build such weapons? Why did we develop such
plans? Why did we so waste the lives of our
children? Why did we waste those billions
of dollars in training them to push those
“Buttons” when ordered?
Could it be that the time has come to stop
lying to each other? To stop lying to our
children? To stop believing our own lies?
When will we do that Harold?
Our acceptance of the threats we pose to
humanity’s worthwhile continuance should
scream to all that we end this love affair
with violence, this irrational desire and
determination that, “if necessary, we
will destroy the rest of the world!”.
Some feel that we would murder just “the
other half” and then stop. When would
“they” stop Harold? Duty and sanity scream
that we force a resolution.
There is little time or choice left. A prior
post, which you may not have received when you
responded, outlines the dreary outlook and
conditions of our near future. You used the
word “binary”. That post will give you a
different application.
I understand your unstated hope that we’ll
muddle our way through and come to our
senses. That is a laudable and very human
reaction. But it helps no one.
For the past fifty years we have been quite
willing to commit mass murder without mercy.
There will be no “limited nuclear war”. Those
I term “bastards” would never let up until
dead or victorious, regardless of the cost
to you, yours or anyone else.
Our mutual cowardice Harold, mine ending in
1980, allowed the development of the status
quo. If we consider ourselves human we have
a duty, an unavoidable requirement prior to
the completion of our lives, to seek a
resolution of the matter.
My court battle, winning the right to
refuse to file income tax returns or pay
taxes to any society participating in the
insanity, was part of a plan that
humanity be made to see that ignoring
the status quo adds to the insanity.
Growing because of the very greed that
brought us to this point, the refusal
has now become self-perpetuating and
will bring about that which I realized
was necessary some 25 years ago.
Some participate because they know the
outcome of our race to the abyss. Why
should they support a society that cares
so little for the future? Why not keep a
few extra dollars that would otherwise be
wasted by bastards to feed and perpetuate
their sick lust for power?
Cowards, knowing the inevitable result of
the refusal, may quake and scream “Insanity!”.
So be it, they’ll have to build backbones
and buy ear plugs.
>>Bastards know this and treat our achievements
>>and aspirations as absolutely meaningless.
>I beg your pardon? What have you got against
>people born out of wedlock? And why do you
>single them out for some special knowledge,
>which you appear to share?
I do not understand the latter part of your
objection to the term “bastards”. Under old
usage, the term was used to denote someone of
uncertain parentage. Present society frowns on
the use of the word for that purpose. I share
that distaste.
My use of the term is guided by that which
you shall find upon reference to “Webster’s
Encyclopedic Dictionary Of The English Language”
to wit, “Not of the first or usual order of
character”. Those who would send the world to
a radioactive ash heap fit that crude
castigation.
A close French equivalent, “betard” referring
to an unruly and uncontrollable beast, is closely
associated with “petard” denoting a small
explosive or “an old fart”.
Your questioning and judicious juxtapositioning
of the term to a discussion regarding society’s
preparations to wage mass murder suggests that
your support for such preparations have left you
with reason to fear that there may be no answer
to our dilemma; that humanity, hung by its greed,
would rather writhe in the rot of its leavings,
than risk the personal costs of developing care,
concern and amity for all.
One closing thought Harold. Where you see the
word “we”, don’t think “American” or “British”
or “Chinese” or any such other. Think “we” as
in “We, human beings all!”.
To a safer, saner world. To the development
of reason, a new vision of duty and the
worldwide use of T2020-88.
Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder, Co-ordinator
International Humanity House
--
By What Guise
By what guise, by what face
Could humanity try to place
The view of love, the depth of truth
The peace of doves and anger's flute
On common ground?
Copyright. Jan. 4/97 Daniel J. Lavigne
Subject: Solar heating the S.A.V.E. house
From: nick@ufo.ee.vill.edu (Nick Pine)
Date: 17 Jan 1997 02:52:52 -0500
The 300-odd members of the environmental club Students Against Violating the
Earth (S.A.V.E) of Souderton Area High School (Southeast PA) are looking into
ways to solar heat the new environmental building they have constructed. It
was not designed to be 100% solar-heated, with the long axis north-south and
lots of windows with no thermal shutters inside them, and insulation inside
vs. outside the masonry walls. It might have been easier to solar heat if the
north masonry walls had exterior foam insulation like Dri-Vit with a stucco
finish, vs brick, with some plastic 55 gallon drums above the greenhouse.
The building will be used 24 hours a day, vs a daytime classroom.
They have now installed electric resistance baseboard heating, a fine solar
backup system with low initial cost, if rarely used, as in the New England
houses of Norman Saunders, PE, or Dr. Bill Freeborn's Harleysville, PA house
with an electric heating bill of about $58 per year.
Here's an approximate diagram from memory:
south-southwest
~ 12'
The building has about ------------
|tile floored| ~6'
50x16' of R3.3 windows, | greenhouse |
90x16' of R20 walls, and --------|......|--------
22x42' of R20 ceiling, | |
~8'| R3.3 all glass R3.3 |~8'
so the thermal conductance | |
might be approximately | |
240 for the windows, -- | cathedral ceiling | --
72 for the walls, and | |
46 for the ceiling, ie | |
358 Btu/hr-F total. | |
| |
Air infiltration might add another | |
22x42x16/55x0.5ACH = 134 to this, | |
making the total heat loss | |
coefficient 492 Btu/hr-F. | |
| R20 balcony |~34'
Over an average 30 F January day, |........... ..........|
the building might need about | ..... |
24hours(68-30)492 = 449K Btu | bedroom ^ kitchen |
to stay warm, about 132 kWh or | below | below |
3 gallons of oil. Or 560 ft^2 | | |
of south glazing... | | |
| fireman's pole |
------------------------
An average 1000 Btu/ft^2/day of sun ~22'
falling on 22'x16' = 352 ft^2 of 80% solar-transmitting south windows
could keep this house reasonably warm during an average January day, if
the heat could be stored. A PV-powered ceiling fan will help distribute
the heat. Circulating warm air from the ceiling under an insulated floor
slab might have helped here.
The building might have 3 heating zones, with the big space cooler at night,
and a cool bedroom and a cold kitchen, so the refrigerator does not have to
work hard. (My kitchen is 35 F this morning.) It has a concrete floor slab
which may tend to keep temperatures from changing quickly inside.
If the glass doors to the greenhouse were closed on a cloudy day, the thermal
conductance of the glass area would decrease from 240 to about 185 Btu/hr-F,
reducing the total thermal conductance from 492 to 437 Btu/hr-F. Covering 50%
of the remaining windows with R10 foamboard shutters in December and January
would reduce the glass loss to about 93+400ft^2/13.3=123 Btu/hr-F, reducing
that total thermal conductance to 374, while leaving 400 ft^2 of windows for
an average indoor solar intensity of about 10,000x80%x350ft^2/880ft^2 = 3100
footcandles at noon, 62 times more than a well-lit 50 fc classroom. Some
reflective light shelves under high windows might bounce the sun off the white
ceiling and diffuse it around the main area. Compact fluorescent lights with
individual switches or occupancy sensors could fill in lower-intensity areas.
This might be a nice project for a student with a light meter.
The south window shutters might be dark green on the outside, with an air gap
between window and shutter and an opening near the top to make those windows
seasonal air heaters, with something like half the former solar gain, since
they would have warmer air next to the window, but little loss at night or
on a cloudy day. (More efficient window shutter collectors might have a layer
of dark mesh dividing the air gap, and passively persuade room air to flow
down the cold side between the mesh and the window, and back up into the room
via the warmer side of the gap to the north of the mesh.)
These seasonal interior shutters with simple solar collection would reduce
the average net heat requirement to about 24x(68-30)374 - 0.5(350)0.8x1000
= 341K - 140K = 201K Btu per day. Limiting air infiltration to 0.5 ACH may
not be easy, even though about 15% of the walls are below ground. A blower
door test on a cold night with an army of students with scaffolds and smoke
sticks and caulking guns might accomplish this :-) Some of the daily heat
might come from students, at about 300 Btu/hour/student, eg 30x3x300 = 27K
Btu/day from a 3 hour class with 30 students, and some of that 201K Btu might
come from electrical energy consumption, eg 500kWhx3410/30=57K Btu/day, but
the building may be empty at times, and the students intend to be frugal with
electrical power, so it looks like this building, as modified, needs at least
201K/1000Btu/ft^2/day = 201 ft^2 of additional south glazing to stay warm on
an average January day, if it only uses the sun for heat, vs. wood, a heat
pump, etc. What works for January should work for the rest of the year.
Over 5 cloudy days, the modified building would need about 5x341K = 1.7
million Btu to stay warm, which might come from 1.7M/(120-80) = 43,000
pounds or about 700 cubic feet of warm water cooling from 120 F to 80 F
in some insulated plywood or ferrocement tanks lined with 10' wide EPDM
rubber roofing material, supporting 2 benches inside a nearby 30' wide by
32' long greenhouse to the west of the SAVE house with an equivalent winter
south glazing area of about 400 ft^2, using $2,000 worth of materials.
A 4' wide x 3' tall x 32' long tank would hold 384 cubic feet of water,
a total of 768 ft^3 for 2 of them.
This leaves 22' x 32' of floorspace in the middle of a half-cylindrical
greenhouse which might be used as a classroom, which could be fairly cold
at night, except for special occasions. The north tank might have a
transparent cover, and the north wall/roof of the greenhouse might be
reflective, to gather some concentrated sun, like this:
. ---
.
.
.
<- S . 12-15'
. y
(32' long) . | z
/ ......| /
/ .tank . /
x <............................f............. ---
About 640 ft^2 of 1" foil-faced foamboard might be slotted and bent and
screwed to the bottom of curved galvanized pipes on 4' centers to make a
reticulated 4.5:1 concentrating parabolic shape, with the reflective surface
inside the greenhouse, with a focus f at about x=2.68' (y^2 = 4fx). The same
sheathing might be used for the endwalls, reflective side in, or they might
be 1 or 2 layers of polycarbonate or polyethylene film.
The north tank might have a shallow drain-down pool made from a 4' wide piece
of EPDM rubber draped over vertical 2 x 4 edges with 5 3/16" x 46" x 76"
single-pane tempered sliding glass door replacement panels laid on top. A
low-power pump (e.g. Grainger's 100 watt 2P079 pump) might circulate about
12 gpm at about 1' head between the tank and the shallow pool when the sun
is shining. A lower power and possibly simpler alternative might have an
insulating cover under the glass that sinks a bit during the day.
Here's an approximate energy balance for the north tank:
Energy in = 12 x 32' x 1100 Btu/ft^2/day x .9 trans. x .8 reflectance
= 300 K Btu/day
Energy out = (T-32)(4'x32')/R1*6 hours/day, in January.
Energy in = Energy out ==> 768 T - 25K = 300K, ==> T = 428 degrees F :-)
The water might heat up 10 degrees F per day if it starts cold. With R20
insulation and 472 ft^2 of surface, ie a thermal resistance of R = 0.042
F-hr/Btu and C = 384x62 = 23808 Btu/F, the north tank would have a natural
time constant RC = 1000 hours or 42 days. If it were 130 F initially, with
no additional heat loss, it would cool to about 30+(130-30)exp(-24/1000)
= 127.6 F on a cloudy day. The tanks might supply space heating to a fan-coil
unit in the SAVE house using Magicaire's $150(?) all-copper 2'x2' SHW 2347
duct heat exchanger, which transfers 45K Btu/hour between 125 F water and
68 F air at 1400 cfm, ie about 800 Btu/hr-F, with a 0.1" H20 fan pressure
drop. The low pressure water might move between greenhouse and house via
two insulated hot water hoses laid in a short trench.
The tanks might serve as foundation, perhaps making this structure temporary
for building permit purposes, one that might sit on flat ground or a strong
flat roof of a city building, with no roof penetrations. The lower perimeter
edges should lie in a plane, especially if the greenhouse is covered with
clear flat polycarbonate glazing. The $35 galvanized pipe half-bows might be
bolted to vertical 2x4s that form one wall of the tank, instead of being
slipped into $10 ground stake pipes, which is the way these greenhouses are
usually constructed.
An alternative to this concentrating system might have a large dark vertical
mesh absorber running down the length of a half-cylindrical greenhouse, say
an $80 32' long x 12' tall piece of 60% solar-absorbing dark green shadecloth
with a $60 piece of 80% black shadecloth north of it and $20 worth of UV
polyethylene film on both sides 6" away from the absorber. The shadecloth
would absorb 92% of the sun, creating a light side and an 800 fc "dark side"
for the greenhouse. A fan-coil or two might push air east or west through a
polyethylene duct with holes near the top of this sandwich, making the air
flow horizontally from south to north through the mesh absorber and back, in
a closed loop. Some posts might keep the sandwich from ballooning and help
support a snow load while the greenhouse melts snow using stored solar heat.
A shallow reflecting pool to the south of the greenhouse might serve as a
skating rink and help keep weeds and lawnmowers away from the glazing and
increase the solar intensity by about 30% when frozen, in this non-parabolic
geometry. (Engineer Rudy Behrens of Aurora Farms at 1547 North Trooper Road,
Norristown, PA 19403 is building more magical Cassagrainian greenhouses for
year-round vegetable crops with arrays of fixed 8'x8' Mylar film/plywood
reflectors to concentrate winter sun into $5K canvas/steel 30' geodesic
Pacific Domes with their large vinyl bay windows facing north :-)
The air-heater sandwich might be built into the south wall/roof using an
extra layer of polyethylene film, if this were not a working greenhouse full
of plants needing full sun. Hanging the sandwich in the middle keeps it and
the greenhouse warmer than if it were built into the south wall and losing
heat directly from the higher sandwich temperature to the outside world.
As another alternative, the sandwich might have fin-tube pipe near the top
instead of fan-coil units, which would cost more but use less electrical
power. That would also be quieter, and might help support the roof.
So, what happens here? The sun shines into the greenhouse and gets absorbed
by 2 layers of poly film, with a solar transmittance of 0.92 each and a
combined R-value of 1.2. The sun keeps on shining into the sandwich, and
its single layer of poly film (or perhaps polycarbonate) transmits 92% of
the sun and absorbs or scatters 8%, which heats the greenhouse to an air
temperature Tg, and the greenhouse loses heat to the outdoors through the
south glazing, as well as the R5 north and endwalls. Meanwhile, the air
inside the sandwich has a warmer temperature Ts, and the sandwich loses
heat to the greenhouse through both US R0.8 poly sides, ie the waste heat
from the water heating process is heating the greenhouse air in a kind of
thermal cogeneration.
Two 800 Btu/hr-F heat fan-coil units (or 2 automobile radiators with efficient
12 volt fans) might be modeled with an analogous electrical DC steady-state
circuit that looks something like this:
glazing resistance end wall resistance
--------www--<-----------------www---------------->---- 30 F
| Rg = R1.2/750 ft^2 | Re = R5/700ft^2
| | north wall resistance
| small solar |---------www---------------->---- 30 F
| current source | Rn = R5/750ft^2
| ------ | Ts fan-coil
| | | | sandwich res. | resistance
30 F ------| ---> |-------------------www---<------->-www------ Tw
| | | Rs = R0.8/768ft^2 | 1/1600 |
------ Tg | |--> 201K
14'x32'x1000x1.3x0.08/6hr | | Btu/day
= 7.8K Btu/hr (2.6 kW) | |
| ------- tanks
large solar | for the
current source | ------- memories
------ | |
| | | |
30 F ------| ---> |-------------------------------- ---
| | -
------
14'x32'x1000x1.3x0.92^3/6hr
= 75.6K Btu/hr (22.1 kW)
which simplifies to
Ts Tw
Rt | fan-coil resistance |
Tt ----------www----------------------www----------------------> 33.5K
Rf = 1/1600 = 0.000625 F-hr/Btu | Btu/hr
-----
Tt = 161 F is the (Thevenin) equivalent temperature, -----
which is Ts above with the tanks disconnected. |
Rt = 0.00053 F-hr/Btu is the resistance from Ts to ---
ground with tanks disconnected, current sources -
opened up and voltage sources shorted, ie
Rg, Re, Rn and Rs in parallel.
Thus we can easily see (I hate these words :-), Tw = 161-33.5K(Rt+Rf) = 122 F.
It looks like we may be able to make the water at least 120 F this way. If it
turns out we can't, and the sandwich has studs on 4' centers, we can insulate
some of the dark side with foamboard or replace the 5 cent/ft^2 poly film on
the front with $1.25/ft^2 polycarbonate plastic, which comes in rolls 49" wide
x 50' long from Replex at (800) 726-5151 or commercial greenhouse suppliers
like Rimol Greenhouse Systems at (603) 425-6563, who sell this plastic film
for $250 per roll + $10 for UPS shipping.
Ts = Tw + 33.5KRf = 143 F, using this model, and Tg comes from another
Thevenin equivalent circuit:
Tg Ts
Rt | sandwich resistance |
Tt ----------www----------------------www----------------------> 143 F
Rs = R0.8/768ft^2 = 0.0010417
Tt = 38.5 F is Tg with the tanks disconnected, and
Rt = 0.001093 F-hr/Btu is the resistance from Tg to ground
with tanks disconnected and current sources opened up.
So the greenhouse temperature Tg = 38.5+(143-40)Rs/(Rt+Rs) = 96.4 F, so we
may want to vent the greenhouse during the winter to keep it cooler or waste
less solar heat by adding some insulation to the north side of the sandwich,
and allowing some warm air to flow out of the sandwich as needed to keep the
greenhouse at 68 F on a sunny day.
Domestic hot water for SAVE showers, hot tubs, etc, could be supplied via a
heat exchanger attached to the existing water heater in the house, in the
same circulation loop as the fan coil unit.
The fan-coil unit or baseboard radiators inside the SAVE house need to supply
about 201K/24 = 8400 Btu/hour on an average day, with a water temperature
difference of about 10 F, and a water flow rate of about 840 pounds per hour
or 2 gallons per minute. The building needs about (68-10)374 = 22K Btu/hr on
a very cold night, at the ASHRAE-recommended Philadelphia 99%-tile outdoor
dry bulb winter heating design temperature of 10 F. This might come from an
additional fan-coil unit and pump, with a water temperature difference of
14 F and a total water flow of about 4 gpm.
Nick
Nicholson L. Pine System design and consulting
Pine Associates, Ltd. (610) 489-0545
821 Collegeville Road Fax: (610) 489-7057
Collegeville, PA 19426 Email: nick@ece.vill.edu
Computer simulation and modeling. High performance, low cost, solar heating and
cogeneration system design. BSEE, MSEE. Senior Member, IEEE. Registered US
Patent Agent. Solar closet paper: http://leia.ursinus.edu/~physics/solar.html
Web site: http://www.ece.vill.edu/~nick
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power in Australia? Why not?
From: mikep@valhalla.comshare.com (Michael Pelletier)
Date: 16 Jan 1997 10:53:15 -0500
In article <5bkh86$n0@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
Kym Horsell wrote:
>In article ,
> John McCarthy wrote:
>>John Taylor is comparing his idea of how many people a nuclear
>>accident "could kill" with how many airplane accidents have killed.
>>If we ask how many an airplane accident could kill, then we can
>>postulate two 747s colliding over a stadium in which both the stands
>>and the field are crowded by an enormous Greenpeace rally. Tens of
>>thousands could die.
It could be the Michigan Stadium here in Ann Arbor, in which case it
would top 100,000. ;-)
>>If we ask how many people nuclear accidents have killed in several
>>thousand reactor years of operation, we come to numbers comparable to
>>or perhaps smaller than the number killed in comparable amounts of air
>>travel.
>>
>>Perhaps we should compare a billion dollars worth of nuclear plant
>>with a billion dollars worth of airplanes.
>>
>>Also the nuclear death toll depends strongly on whom you believe about
>>Chernobyl.
>
>I know Chernobyl was the headline-grabber last year, but you could
>(since we're apparently into "possibly" land here)
>consider a number linke 0.1% (or some such) of the world cancer
>deaths as possibly being linked to nuke testing (this particular
>"maybe" works out to 12500 deaths pa).
First of all, Kym, this thread is about commercial nuclear power
generation, not about nuclear weapons testing. If I didn't know
better, I'd think you were cynically trying to muddy the waters here.
But you wouldn't do that, now would you?
And second of all, there's people in Denver getting more radiation
exposure than I'm going to get on my upcoming Friday tour of the
Fermi II nuclear power plant, or for that matter the from living
most of my life about 45 miles away from it, so linking cancer
deaths to it has very little scientific credibility.
In order to postulate an effect, you usually have to postulate a
scientifically credible mechanism by which that effect could be
caused, unless of course you're only interested in bashing the
nuclear power industry, in which case plausability and facts hold
very little currency.
>For other, perhaps more subtle, "possible" influences of rad
>not-quite-poisoning, I note that a reports were circulating last week
>about a study on the workers at Sellarfield. Apparently it is now
>bordering on statistically significant that they have more male offspring
>than the average population (something like 109 per 100 female children,
>vs 105 per 100 for the overall Brit population).
The same thing's been said about workers in a certain part of the
Chrysler corporation, except it's girls and not boys. It's possible
that when you flip a coin, you'll get 50 heads in a row.
-Mike Pelletier.
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL MGT. CONFERENCE
From: smallmind
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 07:50:32 -0800
CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT
-----------------------
"TRANSFORMING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
INTO A CORE BUSINESS FUNCTION"
Presented by
VCEMS
The Vanderbilt Center for
Environmental Management Studies
Nashville, TN
APRIL 29-30, 1997
Full announcement and more information at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/VCEMS
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES:
"Transforming Environmental Management..." can help managers improve their
company's bottom line through implementation of a new business paradigm. At
the conclusion of the course, participants will know how to identify and
implement a corporate strategy that takes into account current and future
environmental constraints and opportunities. This course is designed to
inform executives of changes in corporate strategy, organizational culture,
and business practices necessary for their companies to achieve financial
success and environmental excellence. It will also promote a greater
understanding among department leaders who need to coordinate responsibilities
in order to implement successful environmental management policies.
WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
This course is recommended for current and future corporate decision makers,
including: chief financial officers, corporate strategic planners, plant and
product managers, sales and marketing executives, corporate attorneys, and
senior executives in environmental health and safety (EHS). Because decision
makers within a company often have widely differing stakeholder interests in
these issues, team registration is highly encouraged.
COURSE AGENDA
Presentations, case studies, panel discussions, attendee roundtables, and
role-playing exercises (conducted by Vanderbilt faculty and several business
& government officials) will cover program topics such as:
Understanding Environmental Challenges and Opportunities
- Developing a "process focus"
- Understanding & managing stakeholders
- Legal liability & regulatory trends
- Overcoming the "Green Wall" problem
Environmental Management & Quality Control
- Total quality management
- interface with ISO 9000 and ISO 14000
- Risk reduction management controls
Tools for Better Environmental Management
- Risk Assessment
- Valuing Environmental Risk
- Information Systems
- Pollution Prevention
Incorporating Environmental Issues into the Decision Making Process
- Accounting for Environmental Costs
- Product Design and Development
- Leadership and Corporate Culture
SEMINAR FEE, LOCATION AND REGISTRATION
"Transforming Environmental Management…" begins at 7:45 AM on Tuesday, April
29, 1997 and ends at 3:00 PM on Wednesday, April 30
The seminar will be held at the Vanderbilt Institute of Public Policy Studies,
1207 18th Avenue South, on the Vanderbilt University campus in Nashville, TN.
Fee: $950 per person, includes tuition, instructional materials, continental
breakfasts, and luncheons. Teams of 2 from the same company register at the
reduced rate of $800 each; three or more at $700 each.
To Register or receive a brochure:
Call Paige Macdonald at VCEMS (615)322-8004 or
email to vcems@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu or
register on-line at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/VCEMS
OTHER INFORMATION
This course carries continuing legal education (CLE) credit.
Course Sponsorship: VCEMS is pleased to acknowledge the following corporate
sponsors: Bridgestone/Firestone, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, and Willis
Corroon. In addition, the seminar is being offered in cooperation with the
National Association of Environmental Managers, Tennessee Association of
Business and Tennessee Environmental Council.
*****************
END
Subject: Re: B.I.F.'s & haz waste
From: tony tweedale
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:10:39 -0600
Sam McClintock wrote:
> According to the **federal regulations**, facilities operating as a BIF
> must have an automatic waste feed cutoff, must monitor for carbon
> monoxide and/or VOCs (if you do not agree to limits on CO, then you
> must monitor VOCs), they must characterize their waste to include
> levels of toxic metals and chlorine. They must have devices that
> record when and how much waste is being fed into the BIF system. These
> are the RULES and REGUATIONS. Unless you have a BETTER source, put up
> or shut up. :<)
i take it that the total silence to two separate request in the course of
this thread on the inherent unsuitability of ck¹s for burning hw as
acknowledgment that they basically suck, for this purpose (ie, david, you are
supposed to attack the issue, not the man--kleppinger, in this case. i mean,
*all* you did was call him a name. good grief that's weak! pick up the issue,
or keep quiet). here¹s more, summarized from a recent post to dioxin-list by
env. consulting & database systems, inc. (ecds).
first tho, ecds points out the bif hw regs are risk, not technology based,
meaning they do not have to demonstrate best available technology. I will
assume ck¹s trial run(s) for risk assesment based emission standards are
appropraitly controlled--i have certainly heard of no case where epa or a
state agency has gone in and measured a sufficient period of regular
operations, include. upsets and improper (proper for portland cement, tho)
operation to assure that the health based standard is set on realistic
emissions. I suppose, too, the r.a., in addition to its conservative
factors, has these critical data gaps: additive exposures from other sources,
effects on non-healthy or developing humans, non-cancer endpoints, missing
exposure pathways, and--perhaps most important--assuming safety factors will
always cover what we don¹t know about health effects. given what we are
just now finding out about endocrine disruption, the subtle effects of many
metals, including Pb, Se, etc, and many other health effects [just one
example: the effects of physical and chemical irritants to the immune system
that lead to respiratory dieseases and to neurogenic (see wlm. meggs¹ peer
reviewed (top flight ) work) effects], I am not fully confident of these
ra¹s..
back to the ck industry & their kiln design. criticize, if you can, not
kleppinger but his critique of the unsuitability of ck¹s for burning hw (how
& why oxygen, time, temp & turbulence are not optimized; how upsets are not
reacted to).
ecds: epa has apparantly ranked ck¹s as the 2nd largest source of pcdd/f.
ecds: high metal, low btu solid hw¹s are preferentially funneled to ck¹s.
the solvent recycling industry has also been severely decimated by ck¹s--do
you beleive incineration is economically and environmentally preferable
disposal to recycling used solvents?. ditto for used tires.
ecds: most important, this method of handling wastes (which reverses even
epa¹s prefered hiearchy of waste handling options) is also depressing the R&D;
necessary to bring to market alternative green waste management options,
including: molten metal, dechlorination, biological recovery and wet
oxidation technologies. this for an industry domminated by decades old wet
process ck¹s and their apcd.
a final reminder about ck¹s lax ash management and interim permit status.
ecds mentions too, a pending rule that will only govern ck emissions gas
*concentrations*, not mass emissions, and that hwi¹s are limited in their
mass emissions.
tony tweedale
Subject: Re: The Biodiversity Crisis (was: The Limits To Growth)
From: "Eric W. Smart"
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:09:08 -0700
Harold Brashears wrote:
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> >>
> >> Elliott Oti wrote:
> >>
> >> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >Sounds reasonable to me (no sarcasm intended, it really does).
> >> >If the "postulated" species don't exist we will find out soon
> >> >enough, the moment the first "expensively", "drastically" saved area
> >> >is investigated and found to contain no hitherto unknown species.
> >>
> >> You probably do, as long as you are sure that someone else is bearing
> >> the cost. I will be impressed by your devotion to the environment
> >> when you sell your computer, drop your net access and devote your time
> >> and effort to saving the rain forest.
> >>
> >> Until that time arrives, I will assume you are another one of those
> >> people who will do good, as long as someone else pays for it.
> >>
> >I do not have double-standards, and I do make personal efforts for the
> >environment. That's where I'll be this weekend.
>
> When I am talking to you Jim, I will put your name at the top of the
> post, like this time.
>
> >> >Sounds more reasonable than sitting at home/office, behind a comfy
> >> >terminal, ferociously battling loony tree-huggers on sci.env, and comparing
> >> >logged-out rainforest to missing supernova's.
> >>
> >> I don't think you should criticize Jim like that. I am sure that he
> >> knows by now that he should not have brought in that as an analogy.
> >>
> >If you see any problems in that analogy, I'd like to know. It simply
> >points out the absurdity of saying that no unknown species exist.
>
> I reread the whole thread, and saw no point at which I said that there
> are no unknown species. Why do you erect strawmen? When you run out
> of arguments, just admit it.
>
> "You want expensive, drastic action taken to alleviate a situation
> wherein you have postulated the existence of many species, then
> postulate their extinction."
>
> If the absurdity of that argument is not apparent, I am sorry.
>
> Regards, Harold
> --------
> Democratic Rep. Sam Gibbons said [income-tax deductions and] exemptions
> are the reason the public has lost confidence in the equity of the tax
> system, a deterioration, he acknowledged, that he and his colleagues on
> the Ways and Means Committee had helped perpetuate. "I probably screwed
> up the tax code more than anybody still in Congress, he said with a
> laugh."
> --Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1995
It sound like what you really want is for the earth to be restored to
what it was prior to homo sapien sapien. Diminishing biodiversity does
not mean an end to the word. It does mean a change in the biological
make-up of the world from is present today. Species exctinction is part
of evolution and is ultimately out of the hands of humans.
If you mean to say that you want to eliminate extinction directly
related to mans presence, then you must look at population growth
control. Until then, the expansion of humans into relatively
undeveloped areas will invariably change the biological and physical
characteristics of those areas.
eric smart
Subject: Re: 2004 - so what?
From: Edmond Wollmann
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:31:05 -0800
Peter Arnold wrote:
> aluf nikal wrote:
> > It is an established *historical* fact that Jesus existed.
> How about backing this up with a reference?
> Pete.
I have answered this once before, perhaps someone will pay attention if
I back it up with current academic reference. There IS enough evidence
to know that Jesus existed-there IS NOT ANY DIRECT evidence of when or
WHERE he was born. All arguments that follow therefore from ANY date are
commiting a slippery slope fallacious argument. The reason that the 25th
is cited is because it corresponded closely with all other historical
celebrations of the SOLSTICE and hence to make everyone happy they put
it all together close to one date. The new Teastament is a LITERARY
work-a story not historical fact "Gospel" means "good news" or story;
THE HISTORICAL JESUS David L. Barr, "New Testament Story", Wadsworth
Publishing, 1995.
A literary analysis of the gospels shows how Jesus was portrayed by
four different
authors in four different situations. They give us clear historical
information about
how Jesus was regarded in the last third of the first century.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But can the historian
also discover there the necessary evidence to reconstruct a
historical portrait of
Jesus? We must be clear that the goal of historical Jesus research
is a modern
reconstruction of Jesus, according to modern notions of evidence.
We simply have
no access to the actual Jesus of Nazareth-at least not till the
time ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
machine moves
out of science fiction.
Historical reconstruction should be attempted only after the kind
of literary
analysis we have already engaged in, for the historian must be
aware of the nature
and purpose of the sources. Our basic sources for a reconstruction
of the
historical Jesus are the four canonical gospels. Neither the
noncanonical gospels
nor the non-Christian writings that mention Jesus are of any
^^^^^^^^^^
significant help in
historical reconstruction. Yet because the gospels are documents of
faith, the question
of the historical Jesus has been understood as, Can we get behind
the gospels
to Jesus?
There was a time when historians understood their goal to be to
get back to the
earliest and best sources, on the assumption that the earlier a
source was the better.
This was one of the chief motivations of both source and form
criticism, but it
proved faulty; the earlier sources as well as the later ones were
documents of faith
and imagination. This discovery resulted in an eclipse of
historical-Jesus research,
many asserting that it was impossible to reconstruct the life of
Jesus. More recently,
a new quest has emerged, or perhaps we should say several new
quests, for
so far there is no unanimity on the goals, methods, or results of
such study. There
is only the general agreement that each incident and each saying
must be subjected
to historical analysis to determine, on the basis of certain
criteria, whether an
incident or saying is more, or less, likely to be historical.
Scholars differ in their basic approach to this problem. Some
assume that the
gospel incidents are basically historical unless one can prove
otherwise. Others
assume that, given the creativity of the early church, only
incidents or sayings that
can be proved to be historical are to be accepted. Most take a
middle position:
they begin with aspects that can be fairly conclusively established
and proceed
from this base to more or less probable material, trying to
establish a coherent
portrait of Jesus.
Conservative critics, who tend to regard the gospel material as
historical unless
it can be shown to be nonhistorical, have developed what we may
call negative
criteria. As a practical matter, these criteria relate to only a
small portion of the
Jesus material, since only a few scenes can be shown to be
nonhistorical. Three
negative criteria are often cited.
First, material should be judged to be nonhistorical if it
assumes a situation that
did not exist at the time of Jesus. Thus the instructions for
dealing with a wayward
brother, including bringing him before "the church"
(Matt.18:15-20), would not
seem to be historical, since there was no "church" in Jesus'
time....
Historical scholars are NOT qualified to discern history from documents
meant as metaphoric inspiration of FAITH. And since hardly anyone could
write in those days let alone be concerned about some carpenter with
self proclimations, no HISTORICAL record was made. Therefore the YEAR
number of any year is arbitrary and IRRELEVANT to any measuring AT ALL.
----
"Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the
objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart
from the order of events by which we measure it." "The Universe and Dr.
Einstein"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail wollmann@mail.sdsu.edu
