Newsgroup sci.environment 114996

Directory

Friend,
All of these issues you raise have been discussed back and forth in these 
ngs by Jayne, I, and others. You're not saying anything new here. The 
specific discussion between Jayne and I is about something else.
I would simply like her to reveal her biases in this discussion, and she's 
already doing this nicely in another thread she started in reply.
The real question is, What about compassion towards the suffering poor and
towards Nature that is being destroyed in our time. My point is that
Jayne, and her beloved Vatican, lack this compassion as they try to
discourage the poor and suffering masses living in overpopulated countries
from using contraception. Simple. 
Regards,
Yuri.
E. McDermott (mcdermot@ica.net) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >a) Do you think increasing global population presents dangers to the
: >survival of Nature and wilderness on our planet?
: >b) Do you think that the Vatican's policy of opposing the use of
: >contraceptives in poor Catholic countries contributes to poverty and the
: >destruction of Nature in these countries?
: >c) Do you think poverty and suffering in poor countries around the world
: >can be alleviated -- realistically -- without a wide use of
: >contraceptives?
: The answers are so simple and straight forward that I'm always amazed
: by this conflict.
: To begin with, large families are a characteristics of societies where
: child labour is needed for the familiy survival, usually ones where
: there's a high infant mortality. As we solve point three, the
: overpopulation will recede.
: Poor Catholic countries? Like Uganda, India, Burma, Sir Lanka. I don't
: know that there's an forced relationship between poverty and religion.
: I'd say you could find a closer fit between native language and
: religion. 
: As for population, and Christianity causing poverty, I would suggest
: you look closer to Europe. War creates poverty. It did in Vietnam,
: Madagascar, Afghanistan, Angola. Let's eliminate war.
: By the way, from you positions, I will assume that you also believe
: that artificial insemination, fertility drugs, sperm banks, freezing
: embroyos and that whole host of population enhancing techniques should
: also be banned. Doesn't it worry you that this puts you in the
: position of supporting the Catholic Church?
-- 
Yuri Kuchinsky          | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient 
Toronto ... the Earth	| and the most modern serpents."  F. Nietzsche
-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------

Alex J. Sagady wrote:
> 
> David Gossman wrote:
> >Dr.
> > K and the AFRTT group you are referring to prefer to "cherry-pick" to
> > "prove" a point.  Check the raw data from the tests, thats what I do.
> > PS Why don't you contact Dr K's coauthor on that report - he may have a
> > very interesting story.
> >
> 
> One man's "cherry-picking" is another man's "technology transfer,"
> "pollution prevention" and "strict compliance with the Maximum
> Achievable Control Technology provisions of the Clean Air Act."
> 
> Mm,Mm,Mm  those cherries are starting to taste better already
I like your thought, MACT being cherry-picking. What does that make
LAER,
intensive research to produce a better cherry?  
Just a couple of random thoughts.  The feds are in a development cycle,
at this
momemt the BIF rules are more stringent than those for incinerators,
don't
assume that this will be the same in a couple of years when the new
incinerator
regs are out.
FYI, the Bif rules come more from the RCRA side of EPA than the air,
although
there is more than a little overlap.
The posters who keeps posting in only lowercase would sort of be right,
if he was
posting two years in the past.  And I thought my server lag was bad.  
As a regulator and chemical engineer, I feel bad about the BIF rules. 
For most
people they are a excessive burdern, but we all know the culprits that
were running
the sham kilns and sham activities that caused the rules to get
created.  I
remember there was one source that used an energy recovery provision of
RCRA
to burn lead acid batteries, lot of fuel value in those plastic casing.  
Hopefully, some of the problems in BIF will be corrected with the
incinerator
regulations.  I've just got through reading the FR on part CC for air
emission from
waste tanks, and I must say that the fed did alot better job of
coordination with
air, addressing concerns, and adding continuity to the regulation. 
Maybe this
Al Gore guy is doing some good.  Of course, when it comes to permiting,
I still don't
know what to do with a RCRA reg and an air permit; but we'll try to work
it out.

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:00:43 -0800 EXECUTIVE FUNDING GROUP Ltd, said ...
>
>Offshore Trust
Welcome to the world of responsible Canadian citizens.  Welcome to those
who scream about taxes being too high, so they will take their money out
of the system, and put it somewhere where it isn't taxed, but they will continue
to use the roads, the sewers, the schools, the court system, and so on - they
just don't want to pay for it.  
Corporate welfare pimps - Theft from the Canadian taxpayer - Theft of services
by these trust fund holders and their families - if you go and live in Belize fine.
But as long as you live in Canada, as long as you drive on the roads, use the
toilets, the water supply, the police and fire services, the hospitals, the schools,
as long as your mother or father needs a nursing home, collects CPP, or your
kids attend university or you attended university - quit being such cheating shysters
and pay your bloody taxes, just like the people who don't have enough money to buy
themselves into being thieves.

In article <5bmvd8$1al@padre.unico.com.au>,
	Murray Brandon  wrote:
>Not if every household took care of their own power requirements.
>Households can "borrow" from the national grid if they really need to,
>and add surplus power to the grid at other times.  The technology is
>there today to do it, and battery systems are cheaper and more reliable
>than they were ten years ago.  It would take a huge load off power stations,
>leaving plenty for your aluminium smelters etc, and you could close the
>rest of the power plants down and re-employ the people in renewable
>energy type jobs.
But at what cost?  In an issue of Home Power, a person in California found
out that it was going to cost about $250,000 to have utility power run 
across two miles to piece of land he owned, due to ordinances requiring
underground cabling.
Instead, he spent about $15,000 on a sun-tracking solar panel, a wind
charger, an inverter, a charge-limiter, and a pile of batteries, along
with a propane refrigirator and stove, and some clever household switching
mechanisms to limit current draw.  And he now has all the power he can use,
and is thinking about using the excess current to hydrolize his wind-pumped
well water to make hydrogen to use for heating and cooking, instead of
having propane delivered.
Point 1 - he's in a very sunny part of California, lots of people,
	including me, are in cloudy parts of the midwest.
Point 2 - he paid $15,000 because it was vastly cheaper than going
	on the grid.  I could spend that much and MAYBE have all the power
	I need -- I live in Ann Arbor, City of Trees -- but why should I
	when I'm only paying $30-$50 a month for all the power I need?
Certainly if the ephemeral benefits, such as warm-fuzzies from the thought
of using renewable energy, and the hobby-like fun of putting it all
together and making it work outweighed the costs and the trouble and the
ding my house would take in resellability, I'd go ahead and do it.
But as I said, I've got better things to spend my money on, and so do
most people with utility-provided power.
And at what cost to the utilities?  Suddenly everyone's making their
own power, and only spending a dollar a month with their local Edison
utility, and yet they still expect the same level of line maintenance
and infrastructure investment from the utility?  Right.
>You didn't mention geo-thermal and wind generation.  Some of those
>modern windmills are quite beautiful designs and are very productive
>if you have the right location.
Point3 - If you have the right location.  That goes for geo-thermal
	too, and it's not particularly suited for home use, I should
	think...  ;-)
	-Mike Pelletier.

Earlier this spring an article in the New York Times Magazine, "Recycling
is Garbage", a well written, witty attack on attitudes toward recycling in
New York City, by John Tierney provoked a vigorous discussion in this
forum.
Immediately after the article appeared, the Mayor of New York City,
Rudolph Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, vigorously criticized New
York State's recycling law and effectively defied the law with which the
city was not in compliance.
The city was to have achieved a goal of recycling 25 % of the refuse it
collected, but had only achieved 14% and was in the process of sliding
back to 13 %. (It was never clear if recycling referred to the 14,000
metric tons/day the city collected or the 26,000 tons/day the city
produced)
I have posted references to a number of article mostly from the New York
Times, but a few from the Staten Island Advance alluding to the City's
renewed committment to recycling. My interpretation of this is that the
city needs to prolong the life of the Fresh Kills Sanitary Landfill in
Staten Island, the biggest dump in the history of the world. The city has
no place else to dump its refuse and the dump is highly unpopular, even
with the Republicans who live near it. 
In today's New York Times (January 17, 1997) there is a very short notice
(7 lines), "City Loses on Recycling" which notes that the New York State
Supreme Court ruled the City violated its own recycling laws.
There is no indication of what penalties might be considered appropriate
for openly and wantonly violating the law. The mayor has, apparently shown
no recognition that he has committed an offence, nor has shown a sincere
desire to correct his illegal behavior.
 If a citizen of Staten Island (who live near the stinking dump),  the
smallest Borogh of the five which comprise New York City, does not recycle
household refuse properly, the Sanitation Police cite such offenders who
then pay large fines.
Jim Scanlon
-- 

Gene Geary  wrote:
> You stated in the usegroup that "tax refusal 
>is now legal".  I am very interested in any 
>information pertaining to this.
> 
> Thanks.  Gene Geary
taxfree@planeteer.com responds:
Conditional decision T2020-88 of The Federal 
Court Of Canada was sought and secured so as 
to offer individuals a means by which they 
could lawfully refuse to support any society 
so lost to cowardice and the insanity of greed 
as to participate in plans and preparations 
predicated on the will and capacity to allow 
the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass 
murder against millions of fellow defenceless 
human beings.
((Please note that it was sought as a principled
response to our dilemma. Do not attempt to use it 
as a lawful means of total tax avoidance simply to
avoid supporting societal necessities. Any court
will immediately see through any such attempt. 
Do understand that in the aftermath of our choice 
between total use or total dismantling of those 
weapons and mindsets that now render all hopes 
futile, assuming we make a choice for survival,
we will all have to, and should then willingly 
do so, support all agreed upon measures to ensure 
our common wellbeing and growth as true sentients.)) 
Search T2020-88, and associated material such 
as "The Affidavit" The Motion", "The Article", 
"The Statement Of Claim" and "The Speech". 
Indeed, search "taxfree@planeteer.com" and read 
all that is required to convey to you that your 
existence as a human being, if it is meaningful 
to you, requires that you participate in this 
growing refusal. 
Please note that use of the decision is lawful 
in Canada. Should you be the citizen of another 
country you must rely on your own courage to assert 
and act upon your unassailable right and concurrent 
and unavoidable duty to refuse to support societal 
insanity. 
Remember this. The very idea of "Law" was 
originally designed to help us live in 
relative harmony with each other. 
The process, worldwide, has been subverted by 
those willing to use whatever means necessary 
to secure that which they desire most. Power.
The only available counter to such insanity is 
the determination of those who know, with every 
fiber of their being, that we must halt and 
reverse the progress of that insanity before 
it destroys everything we have ever accomplished.
Courts, for the most part, are the same the 
world over; challenged on a point of principle 
and possible conflict of interest, they will 
offer the process the necessary focus and 
honesty. I wish you well.  Sincerely,
Daniel J. Lavigne
Founder, Co-ordinator
International Humanity House
-- 
SPIRIT'S MISSILES
Do they exist,
These forces on which we rely,
Those great unknowns
For which we have murdered . .
And prayed?
Do they laugh at our ways?
Or cry?
Copyright. 1989 Daniel J. Lavigne

Some new web pages for your reference:
DENSE CHLORINATED SOLVENTS AND OTHER DNAPLS IN GROUNDWATER
Reference and text edited by James Pankow and John Cherry 
Published by Waterloo Press, 1996.
  http://www.ese.ogi.edu/ese_docs/dnapl.html
AQUATIC CHEMICAL CONCEPTS
Text by James F. Pankow
Lewis Publishers, 1991
  http://www.ese.ogi.edu/ese_docs/aquatic.html
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS OF GASOLINE OXYGENATES
Tentative Program and Registration Info for the Symposium
American Chemical Society National Meeting, San Franciso, 13-17 April
  http://www.ese.ogi.edu/ese_docs/tratnyek/mtbe.html

I didn't say the calculations were wrong (or that I didn't support the main
message)--only that Cohen didn't expect everything he said to be taken
seriously--at least by the scientific community (e.g. 'build thousands of
nuclear power plants.)  I was present for a planning meeting back in the
early 70's when Dr. Cohen specifically called for physicists (mostly
nuclear physicists--but not nuclear energy people) to challenge and rebut
some of the anti-nuke types of that era.  Realizing that the rhetoric of
that latter group was more likely to grab the public's attention than the
dry 'scientific' reports of the researchers, he called for using the same
tactics and techniques as the detractors.  This led him into things such as
his later symposium referred to in my note, and offers to eat plutonium
etc.  I'm not criticizing, only pointing out that his crusade was to
counter the anti-nuke zealots using their own medicine.  Viewed from the
outside, some would then view Cohen as a kook if not aware his 'kookiness'
was very practiced and deliberate.
RWT
John McCarthy  wrote in article 
> Rick Tarara can't believe that actual calculations of the effects of
> various policies are so far from what he has come to believe.
> 
> Does he have an argument that Cohen was mistaken in any of his
> calculations?

Magnus Redin wrote:
> 
> Don Libby  writes:
> snip
> > My "hypothesis" is that nuclear accidents may be more likely under
> > free enterprise than under public administration, as evidenced by
> > the case of Northeast Utilities with which I started the thread. The
> > US Justice Department is probing allegations that the company
> > withheld or provided fraudulent information to the Nuclear
> > Regulatory Commission.
> 
> Freedom for business does not need to imply lack of responsibility.
> 
> It would be tragic if the US business culture indeed is incapable of
> handling such responsibilities and thus force you to use power
> production technology that harms your and our environment. If it is
> that bad I would propose that you build future nuclear powerplants so
> that they can be built and maintained by substandard personell and
> business practices. I use to propose that the passive safety PIUS
> design would be suitable for industrializing thirld world countries
> with a shortage of skilled personell and a less developed security
> culture. Perhaps such technology is what USA needs if you are correct.
> 
This is the essential crux - can the whole industry, from 
plant design, construction, and operation through 
de-commissioning, and the whole fuel cycle from mining 
through transportation, reprocessing, and waste storage - be 
made "idiot-proof"?  Do engineers factor into risk 
assessments drunken construction workers, transporation 
hijacking, "black market" cash transactions off the books, 
fraud, ineptitude and mediocrity in all its forms?  You can 
design passive safety into a reactor, but can you design it 
into an industry?
The industry has been making an honest effort to reform 
itself with "safety in-depth", which attempts to foster a 
culture of continuous quality improvement.  But how long 
before a well-disciplined and publicly responsible 
organization lapses into "business as usual"?  Take the 
antics at Astra Pharmaceuticals for example.
> > However, I continue to hold open the question of whether nuclear
> > power is more likely to succeed under a more highly regulated
> > publicly owned system or a less regulated privately owned system (or
> > the "null" - the success of nuclear power is independent of
> > institutional structures).
> 
> I think it is very important with the ethical standards held by those
> working inside an organization, public or private. Any organization
> relies on those forming it and can hardly be better then them. I also
> think it is important with an openness to public scrutiny, that
> anybody can check and see what is going on.
Yes open records and "sunshine" laws are necessary safeguards 
against corruption, yet corruption will no doubt defeat all 
efforts at its elimination.  I think the best we can do is to 
acknowledge that accidents will happen, try to minimize their 
frequency and severity, and hope that the risk is 
"acceptable" given the alternatives.  
Quite a high mountain of safety reports and guidelines has 
been written by the NRC and the IAEA, yet incidents persist. 
Despite layer upon layer of safety review and oversight, an 
incident occured in Wisconsin last year where the seal popped 
open on a temporary above-ground dry storage cask - 
apparently due to gasses formed by an unanticipated chemical 
reaction.  
> 
> > McCarthy suggests that progress is sustainable (and more so if it is
> > nuclear powered progress). I am meerly raising an hypothetical
> > counter-argument for the sake of discussion: that the social
> > insititutions necessary to safely operate nuclear power may be less
> > sustainable than the physical plant - civilizations appear to have
> > shorter half-lives than plutonium.
> 
> You have a very strong point since our civilization de facto approves
> of acid rain, massive greenhouse emissions, ash deposits and
> unnecessery mines. I would prefer that we moved to better technologies
> and I find it reasonable that the waste will be well taken care of
> since each nuclear powerplant can pay for its own waste handling
> including long term storage that imposes less danger on the future
> then the wastes from other large scale power sources. The time span
> for each plant is about 40-80 years with todays technology and even if
> society changes it is producing a very valuble commodity, electrical
> power wich can buy all the needed services during most circumstances.
> 
Putting nuclear risks in perspective by comparison with the 
risks of competing alternatives is eminently reasonable.  Mad 
bobmers can make powerful explosives out of diesel oil, oil 
spills can and do have devesating biological impacts, natural 
gas pipelines can explode in populated areas, coal miners can 
get lung disease, etc.  
Balancing the long-run risks of circulating large quantites 
of actinides through the global economy versus circulating 
large quantities of green house gasses through the global 
atmosphere is an excellent challenge to keep post-cold war 
strategists busy for years.
> Regards,
> --
> --
> Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
> Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
> Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600
-dl

Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> 
> tony tweedale  wrote:
> 
> >ecds: epa has apparantly ranked ck1s as the 2nd largest source of pcdd/f.
> 
> Not according to Thomas and Spiro ( ES&T; v.30 n.2 p.83A (1996) )
> 
> They show the EPA ranked Cement Kilns and Boilers as 3rd
> ( 400 g TEQ/yr - eyeballed of an unmarked log plot so likely to be
> slightly out ), way behind medical waste incineration ( 5,000 g TEQ/yr )
> and municipal waste incineration ( 3,000 g TEQ/yr). Perhaps a later
> EPA report exists.
don't believe so, until epa sends its revised report back to its science 
advisory board this (northern) spring, the public wont know.  in anycase ck's 
rank above hwi's in both estimates.  good point about the error ranges!
> Thomas and Spiro rank them as fifth ( 100 g TEQ/yr ) behind copper
> smelting ( 200 g TEQ/yr ) and Forest Fires ( 300 g TEQ/yr ) and medical
> waste incineration ( 800 g TEQ/yr ) and municipal waste incineration
> ( 3000 g TEQ/yr. ). Taking into account the error bars they could be
> between first and tenth :-).
> 
>           Bruce Hamilton

-- 
Dav id Gossman
President
Gossman Consulting, Inc.
http://gcisolutions.com
Greg Chaudion  wrote in article <32E2495B.4575@spam.com>...
> Alex J. Sagady wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > One man's "cherry-picking" is another man's "technology transfer,"
> > "pollution prevention" and "strict compliance with the Maximum
> > Achievable Control Technology provisions of the Clean Air Act."
> > 
> > Mm,Mm,Mm  those cherries are starting to taste better already
> 
> I like your thought, MACT being cherry-picking. What does that make
> LAER,
> intensive research to produce a better cherry?  
Perhaps you are both providing a telling statement regarding the scientific
integrity of those who promote and write new regulations.  It seems to me
the goal of such can only be to increase the size and power of government
since no net environmental improvement results and there are many times
negative impacts. On the other hand maybe I just can't take a joke.
> 
> Just a couple of random thoughts.  The feds are in a development cycle,
> at this
> momemt the BIF rules are more stringent than those for incinerators,
> don't
> assume that this will be the same in a couple of years when the new
> incinerator
> regs are out.
True enough, although if you believe they'll be designed to improve human
health and safety and out and in force in two years I've got a bridge to
sell. BTW EPA tried to pass BIF like incinerator regs about 1 year after
BIF came out.  OMB rejected them because EPA could show no benefit as a
result of the additional regulation.
> 
> FYI, the Bif rules come more from the RCRA side of EPA than the air,
> although
> there is more than a little overlap.
> 
> The posters who keeps posting in only lowercase would sort of be right,
> if he was
> posting two years in the past.  And I thought my server lag was bad.  
Try 5-6 years.  And let's not forget that the majority of cement plants
were operating under strict emission limits, AWFCOs, and test burns via
state air permitting prior to that.  That of course is one of the items
that Dr K's writeup neglects to mention.
> 
> As a regulator and chemical engineer, I feel bad about the BIF rules. 
> For most
> people they are a excessive burdern, but we all know the culprits that
> were running
> the sham kilns and sham activities that caused the rules to get
> created.  I
> remember there was one source that used an energy recovery provision of
> RCRA
> to burn lead acid batteries, lot of fuel value in those plastic casing.  
Actually I recall hearing about some test burns of just the casings after
the lead and acid had been removed.  In that form the casing does have a
lot of energy but residue levels of lead were still to high to make it a
going proposition.  Wonder what happens to those casings now.  There were
definitely some sham operations.  One was a cat litter kiln in Nebraska (I
think).  Many of these operations were associated with cement kilns because
they are both "kilns".  Many of the companies in the cement kiln waste fuel
bussiness really wanted regs prior to the BIF regs.  Problem was that EPA
never really understood how cement kilns operated so that they could draw
up regs that would work.  The proposed HWC MACT regs have also again missed
the boat.
> 
> Hopefully, some of the problems in BIF will be corrected with the
> incinerator
> regulations.  I've just got through reading the FR on part CC for air
> emission from
> waste tanks, and I must say that the fed did alot better job of
> coordination with
> air, addressing concerns, and adding continuity to the regulation. 
If you've just read them you missed the party.  They started out so vague
and poorly worded no one could tell what they meant. EPA actually started
putting our guidance which contradicted other EPA rules.  As an example
stage 1 vapor control used in nonattainment areas for gas stations and
transfer tanks/trucks would have been a violation as some in EPA
interpreted the original rules.  EPA had to repeatedly delay implementation
in order to put together revisions and better guidance.  If you like what
you now see give the credit to industry comments and complaints, not Al
Gore.
> Maybe this
> Al Gore guy is doing some good.  Of course, when it comes to permiting,
> I still don't
> know what to do with a RCRA reg and an air permit; but we'll try to work
> it out.
> 

Chris van Loben Sels  wrote in article
<32DE8AE0.1F36@nrdc.org>...
> EPA's proposal to tighten ambient air standards
> represents a major step for clean air -- and a major
> scientific and policy undertaking.  Not surprisingly,
> the final outcome already appears to hang more on
> politics than science, as some in Congress are
> threatening to block the proposal.
> 
> So, since it's coming down to politics, our voices
> count more than ever. . . so email, fax, or even leave
> a message on EPA's toll-free number!
> 
> For more info., take a look at NRDC's page, with
> an e-mail form and links to NRDC and others' pages on
> the merits of the issue.  The address:
> 
> http://www.nrdc.org/field/aiepaact.html
> 
If this proposal had been based on science it would not have been proposed
as it is in the first place.  It started out politics from the very start. 
For example EPA believes that all very fine particles have the same
toxicity no matter what the chemical compostition.  The government can do
more to reduce PM10 emissions in many locations by spending money paving
and cleaning roads than by forcing industry to reduce what are by
comparison nearly nonexistant particulate emissions from point sources with
multimillion dollar investments that actually increase energy consumption.
David Gossman
President
Gossman Consulting, Inc.
http://gcisolutions.com

daddio-1@ix.netcom.com(Gary S. Turk) writes: > In <32E194CA.7AEB@mindspring.com> Emanuel Roth 
> >Society as a whole needs an escape from their urban lifestyle.  It is
agreed
> >Reply To: wroth@woodward.edu for your opinion.
> 
>     There are those who are so defiant and adamant about just such a
> thing that they would keep you from setting foot on that land you
> desire to escape to.  They are "one with nature" and other nonsensical
> pop-psych culture words.  If you are truly talking about using these
But, I can not walk for long distances due to a minor disibility and as such
the wilderness is closed to me (riding puts a different kind of stress on 
the knee than walking) as the wilderness areas and trails in my area are
all closed to all vehicles.  I have grown tired of the eliteism of the young
and healthy.
BTW I do not need to reply to anyone FOR my opinion, but I may reply WITH
my opinion.

David Gossman wrote:
>
> Perhaps you are both providing a telling statement regarding the scientific
> integrity of those who promote and write new regulations.  It seems to me
> the goal of such can only be to increase the size and power of government
> since no net environmental improvement results and there are many times
> negative impacts. On the other hand maybe I just can't take a joke.
In my humble opinion, EPA does have a sound basis for most of it
requirements, what they don't have is the capital and the political
capital to withstand the industrial onslaught of those that its
trying to regulate.  Case in point, the oil refinery macts.  No, I
fought too hard and too long on some good environmental actions that
are neutered by the industrial lawyers.  No, this proven environmental
benefit is more of a smoke screen than a valid point.
> > FYI, the Bif rules come more from the RCRA side of EPA than the air,
> > although
> > there is more than a little overlap.
> >
> > The posters who keeps posting in only lowercase would sort of be right,
> > if he was
> > posting two years in the past.  And I thought my server lag was bad.
> Try 5-6 years.  And let's not forget that the majority of cement plants
> were operating under strict emission limits, AWFCOs, and test burns via
> state air permitting prior to that.  That of course is one of the items
> that Dr K's writeup neglects to mention.
Well, in my state and alot of others, the rallying cry is jobs at any
cost,
screw the environment.  We were not allowed to be more stringent than
the
feds, we certainly did not have test burns at cement kilns.  And we
wern't
the only ones.  
> >
> > As a regulator and chemical engineer, I feel bad about the BIF rules.
> > For most
> > people they are a excessive burdern, but we all know the culprits that
> > were running
> > the sham kilns and sham activities that caused the rules to get
> > created.  I
> > remember there was one source that used an energy recovery provision of
> > RCRA
> > to burn lead acid batteries, lot of fuel value in those plastic casing.
> Actually I recall hearing about some test burns of just the casings after
> the lead and acid had been removed.  In that form the casing does have a
> lot of energy but residue levels of lead were still to high to make it a
> going proposition.  Wonder what happens to those casings now.  There were
> definitely some sham operations.  One was a cat litter kiln in Nebraska (I
> think).  Many of these operations were associated with cement kilns because
> they are both "kilns".  Many of the companies in the cement kiln waste fuel
> bussiness really wanted regs prior to the BIF regs.  Problem was that EPA
> never really understood how cement kilns operated so that they could draw
> up regs that would work.  The proposed HWC MACT regs have also again missed
> the boat.
No, the EPA sham recycler case that I am remembering was in '87 or '88. 
The
recycling device was a whole battery before seperation.  We've had
sources that
have burned the shells after separation, if you've got the right
controls on it
can be permited.  Not that the community likes it,
The EPA understands cement kilns, prehaps its industry that dosn't
understand
how the regs have be abused by certain bad actors.
Oh, aren't those HWC MACT and MedWaste MACT a trip.  The only thing
worse than
having a source try to comply is having a source that wants to construct
a source in downtown CampXXXXXX which slips through the cracks of the
regs.
The public don't like incinerators.  
> If you've just read them you missed the party.  They started out so vague
> and poorly worded no one could tell what they meant. EPA actually started
> putting our guidance which contradicted other EPA rules.  As an example
> stage 1 vapor control used in nonattainment areas for gas stations and
> transfer tanks/trucks would have been a violation as some in EPA
> interpreted the original rules.  EPA had to repeatedly delay implementation
> in order to put together revisions and better guidance.  If you like what
> you now see give the credit to industry comments and complaints, not Al
> Gore.
Just have gotten into them.  Used to do waste when I was an inhouse 
contractor for the fed, but have just done air for the state.  The 
fed is like any large business, the right and left don't coordinate
worth a damn.  If I had alot of spare time, which I don't with title
V application on my desk, I look at the
comments on CC.  My experience is that the industrial side used to be so
hostile that compromise was out of the question.  Stupid way to run a
government.
If industry gave good comments, and the fed had enough sense to use the
good
and through away the bad, then the process is working like it should.
Why would stage I controls be a violation?

Yuri,
I'd like to add my name to the list of readers who have complained about
your apparent lack of willingness to present the research that supports
your claims.  
By the way, you're not helping your case with rude responses and name
calling.  It seems clear that Jayne is intellegent (i.e., not a "robot")
and civil and has made several interesting points that you continually
fail to address.
Jayne wrote:
> : I don't read all your posts, but I have read a significant number. I
> : have never seen you present research and evidence to support your
> : claims.
You resonded:
> Why I don't present research? Because it would be a waste of time to 
> present research to convince a robot such as you.
Jayne resonded:
>You have never tried presenting research to me, so you don't know how
>I would react. You are assuming that I am a robot. This is called
>prejudice. I suspect that really this is just an excuse. Perhaps there
>isn't any research. Or perhaps there is some but you are afraid that I
>will be able to demonstrate the flaws in it.
You responded:
> Most of the things I
> say are self-evident and are understood as such by most people in these 
> ngs. Nobody except you complains about me not presenting research. 
Well, including, Jayne, John Lauzon, Jeff Skinner... that makes four
us.  
Jayne wrote:
>I have seen many posts, including those by non-Catholics, disagreeing
>with the points you make. I don't know why people don't ask you for
>evidence. Perhaps its because they realize that there isn't any. I'm
>not asking you for it because I think it really exists. I'm asking for
>it to point out its absence. 
I too, would like to call your bluff, Yuri.
Yuri wrote:
> really not worth the time, Jayne. You're a pathetic propagandist of a 
> known falsehood. You have no supporters. Who cares about you?
Yuri, shame on you.  This is a newsgroup set up to discuss religious
issues.  I tend to doubt your desire to "discuss" if all you do is call
intelligent people who disagree with you "pathetic", "propagandists",
and "another kook screaming into the void" and continue to post your
unsubstantiated claims.  If there is merit to your claims, post it.  I'd
be more than happy to consider whatever you say if its courteous and
substantiated.  If your goal is not to "discuss" issues, maybe you
should find another forum to vent your frustrations against the Catholic
Church.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>In article <01bc058c$be8cf380$ebe2aec7@pro> "Rick Tarara"  writes:
> > 
> > Cohen's writings and 'stunts' about nuclear matters have always been
> > 'tongue in cheek' and in direct response to the more wild claims and
> > statistical manipulations of the anti-nuke press.  I once heard a symposium
> > he gave where he showed conclusively that building thousands of nuclear
> > power plants would SAVE lives even with a couple 'worse case' accidents. 
> > The life saver?--mining all that Uranium would severely reduce the Radon
> > exposure of most people.  What to do with the waste and mining
> > tailings?--"Throw it in the oceans--its going to end up there eventually
> > anyway  ;-)" {emoticon added}
>Rick Tarara can't believe that actual calculations of the effects of
>various policies are so far from what he has come to believe.
>Does he have an argument that Cohen was mistaken in any of his
>calculations?
Does he need to??  In order for the mining of all that Uranium to
severely, or even noticeably, reduce the Radon exposure of MOST
people, one would have to assume that the mining activities associated
with these hypothetical power plants would extract a significant
portion of the Uranium which is located near populated areas.  Even if
we were to assume that the best Uranium mining areas are in populated
areas, it seems unlikely that we would allow it to be mined enough to
remove the bulk of the uranium, because that would be fairly
disruptive to our cities and towns.  It is simply not credible to
believe that the cheapest sources of Uranium would have any real
effect on the radon exposure of most people.
If you accept that the claims are as Rick Tarara relayed them, Cohen
is a nut.  I have encountered many tenured crackpots in my life so
far, and have seen one case where a person serves as department head
even though his close financial ties to industry render his opinion
about many things related to his field completely untrustworthy.
Unbiased professionalism is not a prerequisite for any academic
position you have stated that Cohen has held.
Craig
____________________________________________________
Craig Mohn
mohn@are.berkeley.edu

970119
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            * POSITION AVAILABLE: DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
            * SAVE THE TONGASS... AGAIN!
            * JOIN UP, THE ACTIVIST CALENDAR OF THE AQUARIAN WEEKLY
            * TURTLE PHOTO CONTEST
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
POSITION AVAILABLE: DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Morris Parks and Land Conservancy
44 Market St.
Morristown NJ 07960
201-292-2572
 Morris Parks and Land Conservancy has an immediate opening for a
part-time Development Director to join our team working to protect
Morris County's beautiful open space lands. The Development Director
will report to the Executive Director and will be responsible for
overseeing all aspects of the Conservancy's fundraising and outreach
programs, including: membership recruitment and development, direct
mail outreach to existing and new corporate donors, developing
foundation grant proposals, coordinating our special events and
implementing our Partners for Parks program with corporate volunteers.
 Morris Parks and Land Conservancy is a non-profit land conservation
organization founded in 1981 to protect open space in Morris County,
New Jersey. Ongoing projects include the construction of a 50 mile
hiking trail, assisting municipalities in developing new Open Space
Trust Funds and purchasing critical open spaces throughout the county.
The Conservancy's office is located in Morristown, New Jersey and has
a current staff of three.
Required Skills:
Fundraising Experience
Excellent writing skills
Interest in conservation
Strong computer skills
Motivated self-starter
Responsibilities:
Develop a marketing plan
Direct mail and membership development
Partners for Parks
Grant writing
Corporate Outreach
Special Events
Develop Communications Materials
Compensation:
20-24 hours per week
Flexible work schedule
Ability to do some work from home
Two weeks paid vacation
To arrange an interview, please send a resume to David Epstein,
Executive Director.
Partners for a Greener Morris County
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SAVE THE TONGASS... AGAIN!
Date: 18 Jan 1997
From: "Dennis W. Schvejda" 
==========================
Save the Tongass... Again!
==========================
During the 104th Congress, the NJ Chapter gave Dave Katz & the Alaska 
Rainforest Coalition a big NJ welcome as they toured our state with a 
slide presentation about efforts to save the Tongass.
Not only did we generate hundreds of postcards & letters, Dave & I 
were also successful in convincing the editor of the Star-Ledger to 
run a lead editorial.
We worked with the NJ Congressional delegation... every one supported 
measures to protect the Tongass.  I worked with Bill Bradley's staff 
during the closing days of the 104th when it seemed Alaska's 
delegation would be able to "pull a fast one" and pass legislation 
locking in a below-cost, taxpayer subsidized, sweetheart deal for  
Louisiana Pacific Lumber Company.  Bradley said in no uncertain terms 
that this was unacceptable & he indicated a certain filibuster if the 
legislation reached the Senate floor.  Not only was the deal stopped, 
but LP left the Tongass altogether.  
Now this.
Please read the following and send a short message to Gore asking him 
to "Save the Tongass!" 
Thanks,
Dennis Schvejda
Conservation Chair NJ Chapter Sierra Club
dschvejda@igc.apc.org
*************************  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
*************************
ISSUE: The US Forest Service is about to adopt a management plan for
the Tongass National Forest that will lock in high levels of
clearcutting despite the end of the 50-year pulp mill contracts. This
plan ignores recent scientific studies showing that clearcut logging
and related road building have had detrimental affects on the forest
and associated fish and wildlife species.
ACTION: Send an email message to Vice President Al Gore     (and CC
President Clinton).
MAIN MESSAGE: The Forest Service's proposed Tongass Land Management
Plan is unacceptable. An intervention from the White House is required
to prevent the Forest Service from approving a plan that puts large
pristine portions of the Tongass at risk from high levels of clearcut
logging that destroy wildlife habitat and fish spawning grounds.
DEADLINE: As soon as possible, and no later than Wednesday, January
22, 1997.
              ******************************************
*** THE ISSUE ***
Stretching 500 miles along the Alaska panhandle, the 17 million acre
Tongass National Forest is the largest intact temperate rainforest in
the world. This coastal forest is a 100 mile wide lush strip
encompassing the hundreds of rain-soaked islands, majestic mountains,
sparkling glaciers, and deep fjords of the "inside passage" of
southeast Alaska. The Tongass is the largest US national forest, and
its magnificent stands of old-growth Sitka spruce, western hemlock,
western red cedar, and Alaska cedar provide essential habitat for
myriad species, including the world's largest nesting concentrations
of bald eagles, grizzly bears, black-tailed deer, and anadromous
salmonids. The Tongass contains some of the most productive salmonid
runs left in North America.
Recent scientific assessments of the Tongass show that road building
and clear-cut logging have had detrimental affects on the forest and
associated fish and wildlife species. Federal, state, and university
scientists collaborated to publish the conditions, trends, and risks
associated with harvesting of old growth spruce-hemlock forests in
coastal Alaska. Forest Service scientists led in the development of
the documents, which were peer reviewed, with oversight from an
independent professional organization to assure credibility.
Continued clearcutting in the area -- one million acres have been
logged since 1954, with another 1.7 million in jeopardy -- threatens
the future of this country's last great old growth forest.
Unfortunately, the old growth trees that are so prized by the timber
industry also provide the most valuable habitat for fish and wildlife,
and most of the richest, highest volume old growth habitat has already
been logged. The Alaska portion of the Tongass, combined with the
British Columbia coastline, contains up to 1/2 of the world's
remaining temperate rainforest. Scientists consider the Tongass to be
a globally outstanding forest region, and unsustainable logging in
this region, then, threatens an entire eco-region, as well as a world
class habitat.
For years, the 50-year contracts of two pulp companies were blamed for
high logging levels in the Tongass. Both companies have now ended or
announced an end to pulp mill operations, and so local industry demand
for clearcutting on the Tongass is at least temporarily reduced. This
is thus an extraordinary opportunity to protect the remainder of the
Tongass from the unsustainable clearcutting of the past. The Forest
Service, however, is about to adopt a new management plan that makes
only modest reforms -- ignoring important scientific advice and
maintaining high levels of clearcut logging. If this plan is adopted,
a new industry will likely emerge to take the pulp companies' place.
This will generate additional "jobs-versus-the-environment" conflicts
and guarantee intense pressure against future reforms.
(See "Supplemental Information" at the end of this action alert for
more detailed information.)
*** THE ACTION ***
-- SEND AN EMAIL MESSAGE TO VICE PRESIDENT GORE:
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
-- AND CC PRESIDENT CLINTON:
president@whitehouse.gov
Strong, immediate administration action is required to effect the
necessary changes in the Forest Service plan, and Gore is the highest
level policymaker most likely to intervene. Gore has a demonstrated
understanding of and commitment to this issue; in fact, he mentioned
the Tongass specifically in his election debate with Jack Kemp. Gore
is the best person in the administration to pursue an executive
directive to the Forest Service.
-- TIMING: Your message should be sent AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
The Forest Service has not yet finalized its Tongass Land Management
Plan, but the decision is expected soon. There is still time to change
the plan; once the decision is finalized, however, the opportunity is
lost. Unfortunately, we do not know precisely when the Forest Service
will finalize its decision -- it could be tomorrow or next month. Our
allies tell us, however, that they expect the final decision to be
sooner rather than later, and Gore must have some time to act.
-- MAIN MESSAGE:
THE FOREST SERVICE'S PROPOSED TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IS
UNACCEPTABLE. AN EXECUTIVE INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE
FOREST SERVICE FROM APPROVING A PLAN THAT PUTS LARGE PRISTINE PORTIONS
OF THE TONGASS AT RISK FROM HIGH LEVELS OF CLEARCUT LOGGING THAT
DESTROY WILDLIFE HABITAT AND FISH SPAWNING GROUNDS.
*** SUPPORTING MESSAGES ***
-- All largely pristine portions -- especially high volume old growth
portions -- of the Tongass should be put off limits to logging and
road-building, and a rapid transition should be initiated away from
short-rotation, large-scale clearcuts as the dominant logging method.
-- Numerous scientific assessments, reviews, and panels have warned
about logging's threats to Tongass fish and wildlife populations. Yet
the Forest Service's proposed management plan maintains high levels of
clearcut logging, effectively ignoring important scientific advice. In
particular, wildlife protection in the proposed plan is insufficient
to maintain well-distributed, viable populations of old
growth-associated species .
-- This is the last best opportunity to save the Tongass. With the
pulp contracts terminated or abandoned, the demand for Tongass timber
is way down. These changed circumstances should lead to a reevaluation
of timber harvest in the Tongass, but the Forest Service's proposed
management plan is "business as usual."
-- The time has come to stop opening up pristine valleys of the
Tongass to logging, thus degrading them for all other users and
threatening Alaska's extraordinary fish and wildlife resources.
-- The US government should signal its commitment to permanently
protecting a globally significant resource -- Alaska's coastal
rainforest. Because the Alaska portion of the Tongass, combined with
the British Columbia coastline, contains up to 1/2 of the world's
remaining temperate rainforest, scientists consider the Tongass to be
a globally outstanding forest region. The Tongass is public land, and
the administration should preserve this vast old growth forest for
generations to come.
*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***
-- The scientific assessments of the Tongass evaluated wildlife
viability, fish habitat and cave resources, alternative methods to
timber harvesting, and social and economic effects. Some key findings
include : landslides are dominant disturbance processes and are
adversely influenced by some types of timber harvest; providing
sufficient high-volume old growth improves the likelihood that a broad
range of old growth-associated wildlife species will continue to
persist across the Tongass; and that productivity of the forest's
fisheries resources is dependent on protecting spawning and rearing
habitat, assuring that temperature and sediment levels are not
elevated significantly above natural variation, and that there is a
source of future availability of large woody debris. (For more
information on these scientific studies, contact Dr. Charles Shaw,
science manager for the Tongass Land Management Plan team at
907-586-8811, x233.)
-- The Tongass proposed Land Management Plan would result in
substantial reductions in population viability of old-growth
associated species. According to an interagency assessment of proposed
logging levels, the long-term viability of northern goshawk, brown
bear, gray wolf, marten, and northern flying squirrel is low in
several ecological provinces on the Tongass that will be subjected to
high logging levels under the Forest Service's preferred management
option. Of particular concern is the fragmentation and reduction of
high volume (volume class 7+) old growth ecosystems that are of
greatest importance to fish and wildlife species and have been most
affected by logging -- less than 10% of original high volume old
growth remains on the forest.
-- Commercial fishing, sport fishing, and tourism rank first, second,
and third, respectively, as private employers in the region, and they
rely on an unspoiled natural environment. Wild salmon runs, for
example, teem on the Tongass as they do nowhere else in the United
States, yet continued clearcutting threatens these runs with
extinction.
-- Until recently, most logs cut on the Tongass were used to feed two
pulp mills. Both mills operated under long-term contracts to cut
federal timber at subsidized rates. Indeed, taxpayer-financed logging
of the Tongass has made it the biggest money loser in the entire
national forest system. A shutdown of all logging in the region,
however, is not necessary. Timber sales can continue in areas that
have already been roaded and partially logged, although a rapid shift
away from large size industrial clearcuts is needed. There is a new
opportunity here to establish sustainable timber harvests at the hands
of local independent lumber companies -- operations that are smaller
scale yet maintain lumber processing in the area. These local
companies will retain some logging jobs in the area while maintaining
the viability of the Tongass for its other valuable revenue-producing
uses.
-- Although we consider Vice President Gore to be the best person to
take action on the Tongass Land Management Plan decision, you may wish
to let the Forest Service decisionmaker know your opinions as well.
His name is Phil Janik, Regional Forester; he can be reached at the
Federal Office Bldg., Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628 FAX:
907-586-7866
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
JOIN UP, THE ACTIVIST CALENDAR OF THE AQUARIAN WEEKLY
Date: 19 Jan 1997
From: Makinclan@aol.com
 Mid-Atlantic activist organizations, send information about your
group to JOIN UP, the activist calendar of The Aquarian Weekly, a
progressive publication based in North Jersey. To ,
send how, when and why your organization got started, what your recent
successes have been and what you'll be up to in the coming weeks.
Please send complete contact info: name, address, phone, fax, e-mail
and web-page.
Thank you and peace... Bob Makin
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TURTLE PHOTO CONTEST
Date: 19 Jan 1997
From: ASalzberg@aol.com
THE 1997 ANNUAL NEW YORK TURTLE AND TORTOISE PHOTOGRAPHY SHOW
Contest Rules
1) All photos must contain turtle or tortoise material! Appropriate
subject matter may include, but is not limited to: turtles in the
wild, in zoos, or in aquariums; your own turtles at home, or turtles
with other animals or people. 
2) Photos must be prints; either black-and-white or color--no slides
or transparencies as we have no way to exhibit these. Prints can be
any size up to 8" x 10" each to be mounted on a stiff board (oak tag
or mat board). The board should be slightly larger than the print.
3) A maximum of five photos per entrant will be allowed.
4) No professional photographers please!
5) Your name and address must be written on the back of each photos'
mounting board. 
6) A caption should appear on the front of the mounting board below
the photo indicating the species shown, description of the photo,
locations, and any photographic information (such as camera, film
type, settings, etc.).
7) All entries must be postmarked no later than May 30, 1997. Due to
the preparation time required for mounting the displays, no photos can
be accepted as "hand-ins" on the day of the June show. Send all photos
to NYTTS Photo Contest c/o Suzanne Dohm, 40-23 204th Street, Bayside,
NY 11361. Members everywhere are encouraged to participate!
8) Photos will be judged on the basis of composition, technical merit,
originality, subject matter, and other criteria at the discretion of
the judge. A professional wildlife photographer will judge the event. 
9) All photos become property of the New York Turtle and Tortoise
Society and cannot be returned. Winning photos may be reprinted in
future issues of "NYTTS NewsNotes," or used for publicity purposes. 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
  *        G A R D E N   S T A T E   E N V I R O N E T        *
  *  Tel 201-586-4128  MAILBOX@GSENET.ORG  Fax 201-627-8616   *
  *  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  *
  *                 EcoNet Conference: env.nj                 *
  *              WWW Site: http://www.gsenet.org              *
  *            BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400            *
  *     Listserver: majordomo@igc.org  subscribe gsenet-L     *
  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
=END=

Jim McCown wrote:
> 
> In article <5bbl5h$ilg@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz> Brendan Moyle  writes:
> 
> >It may be a better strategy to try to do another degree in Australasia.
> >That way you could a) develop a network in this region to look out for
> >you b) develop a better understanding of environemntal issues in
> >Australasia and c) give yourself more qualifications to develop your
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >'edge' in the job market.
> 
> >Kind regards
> 
> >Brendan
> 
> Brendan:
> 
> What is the difference between Australasia and Australia? This has baffled me
> for years.
Australia is JUST Australia (the continant plus the island of
Tasmania).\\
Australasia refers to Australia, New Zealand and a group of nearby South
Pacific nations that share some interests in common.  (Like, originally,
getting the bomb testing stopped! (If it was so **expletive deleted**
"safe" why didn't they do in in the continental US and in la "belle"
France?  NOBODY really believed it was safe!  If they HAD there was NO
reason to go to the expense of doing it in the South Pacific!  It was
just convenient to PRETEND to believe it was safe and then dump it on
the less powerful.)
jdbarron@cphl.mindspring.com
US by birth, Kiwi by CHOICE

Sure, go ahead, reintroduce the grizzly to California, there are to many
people there anyway!  Seriously, introduction of the bear to California is
never going to happen. The bear requires to large of a range and they are
dangerous enough that the public outcry would stop any proposal dead in
its tracks.  In places where the bears exist, ie: Montana, they do
occasionally eat people.  Still, I am all for their reintroduction.
As far a place that humans couldn't visit, not a bad idea, but would you
settle for a place where we couldn't construct trails or alter the habitat
in any way?

One way these guys are being made accountable is by having their actions
made public. That is very clear for example on this web page:
www.ewg.org
Where Coors toxic chemical releases to water can be found, not to mention
their contributions to Colorado, and other, politicians.  At this
posting, I have no clue if what you'll find is good news or bad news, but
you can see where they rank in their state, and in the country.  
I would be nice if we knew more than just what they dump in the water....
maybe someday we will.
P.S. Sorry, don't know how to make that url into a link, suggestions
would be appreciated.

In article <32dfaf1d.181629082@Newshost.grace.cri.nz> Bruce Hamilton,
B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz writes:
>They show the EPA ranked Cement Kilns and Boilers as 3rd
>( 400 g TEQ/yr - eyeballed of an unmarked log plot so likely to be
>slightly out ), way behind medical waste incineration ( 5,000 g TEQ/yr ) 
>and municipal waste incineration ( 3,000 g TEQ/yr). Perhaps a later
>EPA report exists.
This is true. It is unclear exactly how Med WI's and MunWI's etc. rank in
reality because of the paucity of information on real emissions. But the
sheer number of Med WI's will likely keep them in the lead at least
temporarily until they either reduce PVC waste, or we switch to new
health care paradigms.
The interesting twist regarding ck's however, which nobody is really
tallking about, is the actual measured emissions comparing those that are
burning haz waste to those that are not. A 1996 CBNS (Center for the
Biology of Natural Systems, FYI) study shows an order of mag difference
in PCDD/PCDF emissions, higher of course for those that burn haz waste.
So all the theory being kicked around in this thread is quite
interesting, but what is really getting into the air is the real issue.
And the bottom line is more PCDD/PCDF emissions result when ck's burn haz
waste.

In article <5bhcqa$4mg@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> Jennifer Mills,
dmills@inseine.ifmt.nf.ca writes:
>I am wondering if anyone has any imput/comments/sources of information
>on how to 'test' this water for contamination, etc.
>
>My project must be somewhat experimental, and I must be able to test
>it without the use of a proper science lab.
There is this concept of biological indexes, where you can wade through a
stream and seine for bugs, typically insect larvae that live in water. 
Based on the kinds of bugs you get, you can predict how healthy the
stream is, i.e. if most of them need a lot of oxygen, then the stream has
high O2 which is good, etc.
I wouldn't try this in most urban harbors, which may be very polluted, so
it wouldn't be so safe. But you could go upstream, to someplace on a
river above the harbor, and answer the smaller question of whether the
water coming into the harbor is high or low quality. Try contacting your
local state Dept. of Natural Resources or  its equivalent to get some
instructions. You could also contact the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's
education dept. 410-268-8816 they do this with kids every day.
Hope it helps
--jaxon

Sam McClintock wrote:
> b) do cement kilns "suck" in their ability to burn haz waste? No, it
> depends on the waste stream being burned and the operation of the kiln.
>  Two problems occur when burning haz waste that work either way.
> 
> First, just putting haz waste in places a WHOLE new set of standards on
> a source that is traditionally "dirty," e.g. emits a lot of pollution.
> So the facility can be burning waste that actually improves its overall
> emission profile - because it is substituting for coal/coke - and it
> still must install a hefty new set of monitoring protocols, automatic
> waste feed cutoffs, VOC monitors, etc, PLUS initiate a fairly rigorous
> plan for how to comply with the federal regs (along with the NORMAL
> routines of a BIF, such as characterizing the waste stream, monitoring
> waste fuel feed rates, etc.)
since you helped write the regs, i accept your statements (why did the 
hwi indutry publish a series of lies on this.  it's not because they are 
biased and desperate--they didn't fudge, they apparantly out and out 
published a comparative table of lies.  btw, i am no fan of burning hw's 
in ck's or hwi, short of very clean fuels, as you keep saying.  we are 
much more technologically advanced than to believe burn is the best to 
get rid of nasties.
> On the other hand, the typical cement kiln is not equipped to capture
> acid gases and volatile organic compounds.  Some metals that volatilize
> will also pass through the predominant control systems available.  So
> if the waste matrix contains substantial percentages of halogens,
> metals, or toxic organics YOU MAY see a proportional increase in the
> emissions.  But you can't make a blanket statement without knowing the
> kiln, its operations, its overall compliance, an inspection of its
> emission testing, and knowledge of its control technologies and waste
> matrix.
yes, i can.  K makes the arguments why.  david is responding.
tony tweedale

David Gossman wrote:
> thorough although some are so green that all they can look at is paperwork.
> Also "upsets" to a cement plant may reflect a very small change in
an implicit admitance that all ck's are not blue sky emitters, tho you 
never claimed that, to be fair!
> operating conditions that negatively impacts cement production yet have no
> impact on fuel combustion or combustion conditions. "Upsets" in cement
> kilns and incinerators are not synonomus.
double talk.  may be true but who can tell.  e.g. verify your claim 
below that solids in ck are evenly at high T.
re: risk assesmnts (ra):
> You are wrong.  Read the preamble to the BIF regs(It is to long to reprint
> here.)  Also common guidance for both BIF's and incinerators is provided by
> EPA for multipathway risk assesments.  Only problem is that most, but not
> all, incinerators recieved 10 year permits prior to said guidance.  PS
great, guidance.  but the central point is that despite numerical safety 
factors, quantitative ra will always suffer from not being able to 
account for what we don't know about how chemicals can hurt us.  i'm 
glad to see you don't much dispute that as the years go by, we are 
finding serious health problems in our altered chemical 
environment--endocrine disruption, immune-cns & immune-respiratory 
pathways, carcinogens that are both mutagenic and not (therefore helping 
validate a no-threshold d/r model in some cases), and any # of reports 
on how chemicals affect dna transcription--ie f***ing with life itself.
> opposite but consider the following fact.  The first cement kiln to
> commercially burn hazardous waste started in 1980.  It had limits on Pb as
> well as a variety of other metals to prevent problems.  Every batch of
> waste fuel burned was tested for those metals.  Can you name a single
> hazardous waste incinerator with that history?!  As the manager of that
are you telling me that hwi don't characterize their waste?!
> Time - Gas residence time in a cement kiln is about 20 to 30 seconds.  Tim
[big snip]
all i snipped is fine in theory, but what about actual operations?  you 
post no data showing those conditions are maintained. K makes *more* 
than a theoretical case to dispute your theoretical near perfect ck: at 
least sometimes areas of low T & turbulence.  you admit O2 must be kept 
low--got any data that shows no areas of pyrolysis?  time i might grant 
you, because i don't know, tho K attacks that too with theory and data.  
> Because a cement kiln has a huge
> quantity of very hot clinker in it at any time it is very stable thermally.
> Such a system provides another avenue to
> prevent the types of "upsets" discussed by those familiar with
> incinerators.
good grief.  upsets will occur *because* of the masses, if *any* part is 
cold.  what you are actually saying here is that the mass can not be 
controlled as close to instantly as in a hwi!
> > ecds: high metal, low btu solid hw1s are preferentially funneled to ck1s.
> 
> This is also not true and the industry has provided EPA with extensive data
> to prove it. Where is the data behind your accusation.
fair enough, i don't have any beyond the cite.  where's yours?  i don't 
believe you, at this point.
> wrong. If this were true why have solvent recyclers allied themselves with
> the cement industry?
*my* point, exacalactly.  the solvent recyclers used to be able to 
recover the recoverable portion, and burn any hi btu portion.  now, ck's 
have taken the portion that used to be recyclable, and are sending 
dioxins & other o-cl's into the air with it.
> > 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.
not a word to dispute me here.  it's not all the ck indutry's fault 
certainly, but w/out them burning hw, u.s. industry would be investing 
in  and developing these techn's.
> Cement kilns don't have ash. They do have cement kiln dust which is
> chemically and physically very different.  This is another illustration of
> your lack of understanding of the process.
no, i have epa's ckd report.  i'll call it ash because it is also ash.  
anyway, "different"??--not inert, i suppose? :-)
  The current BIF regs are mass
> emission limits for metals.  The industry proposed and EPA has also
> proposed technology based limits which are concentration based.  First you
> complain about the lack of technology based limits and now you complain
> about them when they are proposed.  Make up your mind.
i already had: i want both: technology based mass limits.  mass limits 
are only way to limit actuals.  i'll bet! (your industry proposed 
concentration based limits)!
tony tweedale

At 10:26 AM 1/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Why do you call it a "reintroduction?"  It was NEVER introduced into CA in
>the first place, so you can not introduce it again, i.e. reintroduce it?
What word would you prefer? It was "introduced" here at some time in the 
past,
or it would never have been here.
>I personally think it would be bad, mostly from a public relation
>standpoint.  Grizzlies require too large a range.
Public relations for what? The point is to preserve wildlife, not to make
people feel good. You seem to think that people's needs come above all 
else.
Too large for whom? For what? It would not just be for THEM. It would 
also
provide safe (from humans) habitat for countless other species that don't
have human-free habitat now.
  There would be too many
>human encounters, and there would be calls for their elimination.  We are
>seeing this with the Mountain Lions already.  Where would we put them? 
>Even the most remote areas in CA are teeming with people. 
That is exactly the point! They would have to be GIVEN habitat that is 
off-
limits to all humans & their livestock, so that there would not be 
conflicts.
 It is much
>better that we remind people that the animal on our state flag has been
>extirpated from our state.
Better for whom? For what?
We can do BOTH. But the latter does nothing to protect wildlife in the
future. What you are saying is that it is okay to murder someone, as long 
as
we point out that it was a bad thing! Talk about a double standard! The 
message
you are giving is that murdering humans is wrong, but murdering wildlife 
is
okay.
>The negative publicity on the wolf introductions in Wyoming is a good
>example.  Introducing grizzlies in CA would be a nightmare.
What negative publicity? You are saying that certain wildlife have no 
right to
live here. Such arrogance! If anyone has no right to live here, it is us.
Grizzlies were here first. What are you teaching about biology? That 
wildlife is
here only for the benefit of humans? What about rattlesnakes & black 
widows &
poison oak? Should we exterminate them too, because they are an irritant 
for
people?
Please explain why humans have a right to all the land in the state, but 
the
wildlife who lived here first have NO right to live here? (In order to 
live
here, they must have viable habitat, which means being left alone.)
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

>    I really begin to wonder if there really is such a thing as 
>evolution.  Perhaps there is more to the creation attitude than meets 
>the eye.  If the grizzly bear was meant to be in California, then why 
>isn't it?  Isn't the theory of evolution that if something is strong 
>enough to survive, it will?
No, that idea was thrown out long ago! Many species survive not because
they are the "fittest", but because of an accident.
  This bear is a mighty animal, and surely 
>survival of the fittest would have kept it whereever it wanted to be.  
>Obviously, much like the many Californians leaving that state for other 
>states, the grizzly decided not to stay.
No, it loved it here, especially when we brought livestock. That was when
it started to really multiply! We slaughtered every last one, the last 
one in
Sequoia National Park in 1924. There is not a single organism in the 
worls that
can stand up to humans, with their oil, guns, nuclear power, etc. It 
doesn't
mean they aren't "fit" to survive.
>    Why then, do you feel it is your duty to force this animal back 
>into the state it left?  Sometimes I wonder why animal rights activists 
>and enviromentalists even want to be considered closely related on the 
>political spectrum, when they are bumping heads trying to do and undo 
>everything that happens through natural selection.  
Killing off the grizzly was "natural selection"? You don't know much 
about
CA history, do you?
>    When and if a species becomes endangered or even extinct, it is 
>through a natural process.  Evolutionists believe that if that grizzly 
>wanted to be in California, then it would evolve into such a powerful 
>being that nothing would stand in it's way.  Seeing that this isn't 
>happening, I doubt the theory of evolution, and I doubt that the 
>grizzly even wants to be in your state.  Leave the poor guy alone.  You 
>would totally destroy his life by tearing him from his current 
>environment to selfishly move him to one of your choosing.  How do you 
>justify that?  You would have to rob some other state of their 
>inheritance of the grizzly habitat to move the bear to California.  
>When does this madness end?  Why can't we let nature take it's course 
>without butting in to engineer our own desired evolutions?
>    This is an opinion, and doesn't really require e response.  
If we let nature take its course, we would have left the grizzly alone &
let it live in CA! I am just bringing it back to where it was before we
got here. The Indians lived with it. We were too selfish. You talk as if
you have an unselfish concern for the grizzly, but actually, you are the
selfish one. You don't even live here, and yet you want to dictate what
we do here! Crawl back under your rock.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) wrote:
: ibokor@metz.une.edu.au (ibokor) writes:
: 
: > In the case of many western European reactors the population in the
: > corresponding areas is measured in millions. Worse still, the
: > railway and road networks would be unusable and evacuation nigh on
: > impossible.
: 
: Its not that tough to decontaminate a hard surface or structure like a
: road or railtrack. Farmland is more sensitive then cities, there you
: have to wait out the decay of the radioactivity before you can use the
: crops. (It becomes an unplanned wildlife preserve. :-) )
: 
When the Chernobyl reactor "incident" occurred, an area of
some tens of kilometres radius around it was evacuated --
I do not recall its precise radius, but I believe it was 
thirty or more kilometres. If you draw a circle of that
radius around any of the nuclear reactors in Switzerland,
almost any in Germany, France, Belgium or Italy, the region
which needs to be evacuated immediately --- in order for
the area to be decontaminated --- contains populations 
measured in millions rather than tens of thousands. These
areas also include major rail and road links which make
the evacuation more hazardous and major hospitals, which
suddenly become unusable. Look at the reators in the Rhone 
Valley in France, or the one at Goesgen in Switzerland
as an example. A serious incident at the latter would complete
dislocate the Swiss road and rail networks. The problem I
mentioned is *not* the subsequent "decontamination", but
the physical impossibility of the immediate evacuation without
serious danger to the people involved. How many trains and
cars would it take? How do you control the traffic jam?
Where do these people go?
Chernobyl was fortunately a realtively isolated location
with sparse population in the immediate vicinity.
: In Sweden they installed filters to capture most of the radioactivity
: released if there is any accident where the preassure gets to high for
: the containment. That do definately take care of this proposed problem
: for accidents far worse then TMI.
What happens in the case of an "incident" in which the filters
are damaged? How do you "filter" all radioactive substances
without sealing off the exit? How, for instance, does the filter
distinguish radiactive isotopes of one element from the non-radioactive 
ones and selectively capture these? When, where and how are these filters
emptied? What do you with the captured radioactive material?
: 
: > I thought that the type of reactor in Chernobyl was also in use in
: > the UK at least.
: 
: Graphite moderated yes but the overal designs were not as bad in the
: UK.
: 
Documents releases in Britain after the period of secrecy showed that
the Windscale had a long history of contaminating the environment
ever since its inception. It was quite ironical to be sitting and
reading Thatcher government berating Gorbachov's for not announcing
te "incident" for two days (I believe) and then to have a short while
after, the British press report on the information about the nuclear
"incidents" in Britain which had not been disclosed for thirty
years --- the information was "classified" for that period.
: > It is quite ironical to hear post 26th April, 1986 how dangerous
: > Chernobyl was. I was in Zurich in April, 1986 when the Swiss "atom
: > lobby" invited experts from the USSR (in fact from Chernobyl
: > itself!) to help the Swiss "atom lobby" in its campaign to increase
: > nuclear generation of electricity. Chernobyl was hailed in the Swiss
: > media and in press releases as the safest, most up-to-date plant
: > operating in the world. The tune changed within a month.
: 
: Is that realy true? How disgusting! (Its a pity I dont have time to
: check it. :-( )
I'm not sure whether Swiss law allows you to check whether I
was in Zurich at the time from official files. So you'll
have to accept my word for that or choose to believe that
I wasn't there.
As for the rest, you could try looking at copies of the
"Neue Zuercher Zeitung" or "Der Tagesanzeiger" from April
1986. Most larger libraries in Europe are likely have copies.
These newspapers probably also have electronic addresses.

bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Friend,
>All of these issues you raise have been discussed back and forth in these 
>ngs by Jayne, I, and others. You're not saying anything new here. The 
>specific discussion between Jayne and I is about something else.
>I would simply like her to reveal her biases in this discussion, and she's 
>already doing this nicely in another thread she started in reply.
>The real question is, What about compassion towards the suffering poor and
>towards Nature that is being destroyed in our time. My point is that
>Jayne, and her beloved Vatican, lack this compassion as they try to
>discourage the poor and suffering masses living in overpopulated countries
>from using contraception. Simple. 
>Regards,
>Yuri.
I have a friend who believes that wearing fur is a great crime. She's
out there to protest the slaughter of innocent animals. She's got her
spray can to make her point.
An opinion in not truth. To consider a position that has been studied
by many brilliant minds and debated, and resolved as a bias reflects a
bias as well.
Respectfully Yours
E MD

At 03:43 PM 1/18/97 PST, you wrote:
>I know I saw a plan to create a reserve network with sufficient
>dispersal corridors for grizz, but I don't remember who put the
>plan together. There was the (somewhat optimistic?) intent to
>reintroduce them.
It was probably related to the Wildlands Project or Wild Earth Magazine.
That's where I saw that.
 I think politics will preclude that, but it
>is an interesting idea as you say.
Didn't someone say "politics is the art of the possible"? Our job is to
make the impossible possible.
>CATALINA ISLAND CONSERVANCY|             
>P. O. Box 2739             |
>Avalon, CA   90704         |
Has there been any discussion of making Catalina Island a human-free zone?
If any area can be, it is an island.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles

Hugh Easton wrote:
> 
> In the early 1980's, a multinational project was set up to collect and
> analyse samples of ice which originally fell as snow up to 160,000 years
> ago in Antarctica. The objective was to obtain information on past climate
> and on how trace gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), might affect climate.
> 
> I recently downloaded the entire data set from the internet, and have since
> been analysing it. The results can be viewed at:
> 
>      http://www.daflight.demon.co.uk/science/index.htm
> 
> One result which emerged early on is what appears to be a discrepancy
> between this data and the level of global warming predicted by computer-
> based climate models. Perhaps some of the more knowledgeable readers of
> these newsgroups would care to comment.
> 
> It was also possible to draw some definite conclusions about what degree
> of action is required to prevent possibly serious climate-related problems
> from developing in the future. Again, comment would be welcome.
> 
> Anyone who wants to include a hyperlink to this site from their web page
> is welcome to. Also, if anyone has trouble obtaining the raw data (I have
> included pointers to it) or problems viewing this web page (it is my
> first attempt at developing one!), please let me know.
> 
> --
> Hugh Easton                             
I've looked at your analysis, and I found it quite interesting.   But I
have some doubts that you got it right.   It is my impression from what
I have read and from the IPCC Reports that computer modelling is roughly
consistent with paleoclimatological data, including the Vostok ice
cores.   Perhaps there is more data now available and you got it right,
but I would certainly want to see some verification before accepting
your analysis.
I don't disagree that doubling the CO_2 content of the atmosphere or
worse could lead to very significant climate change and that the effects
should take centuries or longer to work their way out.   But I think the
magnitude of the change you suggest is too large.
On this issue there are acouple of points which might or might not be
relevant.  First, the radiative effect of increases in CO_2
concentration are logarithmic rather than linear.  Seconly, as you point
out in your analysis, what happened in going from glacial to
interglacial periods involved more than changes in CO_2 concentration.
Indeed, from the little I have read, it is not clear whether the warming
or the change in CO_2 concnetration occurred first.  I think most people
believe the warming started for other reasons, was followed by increases
in CO_2 concentration as the biosphere reacted to the warming but then
this led to further warming.
All this points out that the results of making a major perturbation in
the concnetration of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere is not
something that can be predicted at present with any confidence.   The
best tools we have to make such predictions are the computer models,
which have been getting better in the last few years as other factors
such as aerosol cooling are taken into account.   But it would be
foolish to take the predictions of these models literally.   They can
give us some idea of the nature of the change, and that is enough for
me---as a prduent person---to call for limiting the rate of increase
of greenhouse gas emissions.   Even so, you are probably right that
whatever actions humanity may take in the next 50 years, short of some
new miracle energy source, we are probably in for permanent and possibly
very underable changes in climate.
- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne@mmalt.guild.org) wrote:
>: Now it is your turn to answer some questions.
>By all means.
>: 1) How do you define overpopulation?
>When the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
Strange concept. Did you know that the first three Spanish expeditions
to California died, of starvation. Did you know that the Franklin
Expedition to Hudson's bay also starved to death. I guess we'll just
have to go and eliminate those 30 million Californians, along with all
those northern Canadians.
>: 2) Do you support imposing population control programs on unwilling
>:    people?
>In general no. But in some cases such measures may be necessary. This is
>why I support the policies of the Chinese government that try to limit
>population growth. They are not perfect, but the direction is right
>overall. 
I seem to remember this type of thinking was very prevalent in the
1930's. They sterilization people, the insane, the mentally
challenged, and lets not forget minories. They even had a special name
for it, 'eugenics' I think it was called. Of course Hitler supported
this type of thinking.
>: 3) Do you feel that protecting wilderness is more important than
>:    protecting human rights?
>False dilemma. This is obviosly a trick question. My answer: The two
>concepts cannot be separated, so I support both.
Its amazing, how the wilderness is always somewhere else. How about
those rivers in Europe? I hear some of them are worse than the Hudson.
However that's not wilderness. It just flows into the sea.

A letter to the editor that won't be published; thought I'd just
publish it myself here.
-Kristen

Dewey Burbank wrote:
> 
> Dennis Nelson  wrote:
> [snip]
> [attributions mangled] somebody else wrote:
> >>
> >>    What kind of a catastrophe would just one nuke-waste accident be?  Spent
> >>    fuel is shipped in a dry state - it is difficult to see how radioactive
> >>    material could be widely dispersed, given the requirements of the spent
> >>    fuel shipping casks.
> >
> >Try imagining a fertilizer bomb under a railroad casque, what about a munitions
> >train or a fuel tanker wreck.  We had a commuter train collide with a freight
> >train here in Maryland and the wreakage burned for hours.
> 
> This thought experiment and the associated anecdote are
> meaningless; spent fuel (and high level waste) shipping casks are
> specifically designed to withstand train wrecks.  Not only
> designed, they are also TESTED.  I have seen footage of a cask on
> a truck parked on a RR crossing, being hit by a train travelling
> very fast (70 mph?); the truck was obliterated.  The cask
> survived with nothing more than a large dent.  The contents were
> unharmed.  It subsequently passed a leak test.  That is what the
> DOT requires before they will let you transport this stuff on
> America's highways.
I recently heard a news report to the effect that much of the indestructability
propaganda of these nuclear fuel shipping casks was in fact faked, or at least
the testing results were faked.  What is the truth?  In any event I doubt
that one could survive a fertilizer bomb such as the one which demolished the
Morrow Bldg. in Oklahoma City.
> 
> [snip]
> Yet another person wrote:
> >> >>    The point about Hanford is the surounding area is still
> >> >> contaminated. There is a huge underground plume contaminated with
> >> >> nucleotides thats moving towards the Columbia River, the top soil
> >> >> still ccontains measurable nucleotides. The incidence of cancer of
> >> >> surrounding area is higher than average. When I was still living in
> >> >> Portland there was some people from the Dalles,Or that was considering
> >> >> sueing the feds for cancer deaths of relatives due to the high
> >> >> radioactivity of the Columbia durning the 50's and early 60's.
> >
> >Not to mention the fact that the one-time spectacular salmon runs up the
> >Columbia river have now all but completely vanished.
> 
> While it is certainly true that the Columbia river salmon runs
> have been decimated, it has nothing to do with Hanford.  In fact,
> the Hanford Reach of the Columbia (the roughly 50-mile-long
> stretch of free-flowing river between Richland, WA and the Priest
> Rapids dam, into which the reactor cooling water was discharged)
> is the last major salmon spawning area left on the Columbia.  The
> reason for the salmon dieoff is those other "environmentally
> friendly" sources of electric power, notably Bonneville dam, The
> Dalles dam, John Day dam, and McNary dam, all downstream of
> Hanford.  Of course, the dams on the Snake river don't help the
> salmon much either.
What about the fish ladders around each dam?  I once visited a dam
near The Dalles and watched the workers visually count and identify fish
which passed through a counting station on one of these fish ladders.
> >> >>    I'll will concede that nuclear doesn't generate any green house
> >> >> gasses(but neither does wind, or hydro)  but the problem of the spent
> >> >> fuel is at the present unworkable.
> 
> Hydro may not generate greenhouse gases, but it does kill fish by
> the millions.
How does it kill fish by the millions?  Some of the best trout fishing in the
world is below the Flaming Gorge dam in Utah and the Glen Canyon dam in Arizona.
> An interesting aside to this discussion is that they have
> converted some of the old reactor cooling water intake basins at
> Hanford into fish hatcheries.  See
> http://www.hanford.gov/et/succfish.html for more information.
Nice touch!
Dennis Nelson