Newsgroup sci.environment 115147

Directory

As I see it, there is one big problem with the whole debate.  The most
likely number of stars in the universe that have life is equal to the
product of the number of stars and the probability that any one star had
the right conditions to foster the formation of life.  We know the number
of stars, roughly speaking.  If the probability of life forming around any
one of these stars is much less than 1/(the number of stars), then the
product is small and it is unlikely that there is other life out there.  On
the other hand, if the probability that any one star has the right
conditions to give rise to life is of the order  of 1/(the number of stars)
or greater, then there is a great likelihood that some other star has life
circling it.
The problem is that we have *absolutely* no way to rationally assess the
probability that any given star has the right conditions to have given rise
to life or intelligent life.  All we have is the two emotional "arguments",
a)  "There are *so* many stars, there *must* be other intelligent life out
there." 
and 
b) "The formation of life is *so* improbable that it *can't* have happened
more than once in the universe."  
Unfortunately, both of these arguments have exactly equal validity and
probability until we have some means of assessing how probable (or
improbable) the origin of intelligent life at any spot in the universe
might have been.
	Eric Lucas
Macarthur Drake  wrote in article
<5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu>...
> This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
> 
> 	I am an engineer, no biologist, astronomer or statictician or 
> anything, but something puzzles me. I am sure you are aware of the Late
Dr. 
> Sagan's quote  " extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof " with 
> regards to extraterrestrial life, UFOs etc. I have also heard people say 
> that the discovery of life on another world would be the greatest
discovery 
> in human history.
> 	 I beg to differ with both of these ridiculus statments. From my 
> understanding of biochemistry and the number of stars in the
universe....to 
> not find life would be the greatest discovery of all times. There is
nothing 
> extraordinary about looking the biochemistry of life and looking at the 
> billions of stars (in this galaxy alone) and concluding that there MUST
be 
> life out there. From a scientific view, there is nothing unique about
amino 
> acids.....the elements that make them up are not located only on this
planet 
> for sure. Now if there were only 10 stars in the entire universe the Dr. 
> Sagan's stament maybe more logical. But we can say, based upon all our 
> scientific theories, that LIFE MUST  exist elsewhare in the universe. If 
> not, then everything we understand about the universe is false. I even 
> suspect that life is rather common, say every 20,000 stars or so.
> 	Now I am not saying that UFO are here or anything, just that life 
> must exist. Maybe they are just prokaryots or something, but that is
life. 
> Why all the hype? We know that alien life MUST exist in some form or 
> another, so why get so excited? Now the debate over UFOs and aliens
visiting 
> is another story, although I think that can be debated scientifically
also. 
> I'd be glad to do that with anyone who likes debating as much as I do.
> 	I would appriciate any math or stats expert to comment on the 
> chances that we are alone in the entire universe. I bet that s/he'd say
that 
> it is statistically impossible for us to be alone, so what's the big deal
we 
> know that life is there, just a matter of time 'til we find it....or them
> us!
> 	By the way there are an estimated 100 million million million stars 
> or as Dr. Sagan put it more stars than the number of grains of sand on
all 
> the beaches/deserts on the entire Earth!
> 			
> 			Logical and insightfully comments welcomed!
> 
> 
> 
> 	drake.79@osu.edu
> 
> 
> 

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> Jim  wrote:
> 
> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim  wrote:
> >>
> [edited]
> >> >>
> >> >We know beyond a doubt that rainforests harbor many species that have
> >> >very restricted ranges, only a few of which we have discovered. To say
> >> >that they don't would be like saying that all the stars or galaxies
> >> >discovered are the only ones that exist.
> >>
> >> That is an interesting analogy, but I do not think that it is
> >> appropriate here, unless you intend some drastic action as a result of
> >> the paucity of stars or galaxies.
> >>
> >Of course not. My point is that the existence of many unknown species is
> >undeniable, as are the existence of many unknown galaxies.
> 
> I know what your point was, I am sorry I was not clear enough in
> explaining mine.  You want expensive, drastic action taken to
> alleviate a situation wherein you have postulated the existence of
> many species, then postulate their extinction.
> 
> Until you have a similar recommendation with regard to some expensive,
> drastic action in regard to postulated stars, the analogy is not
> appropriate.
> 
It is quite appropriate, because it is quite reasonable to postulate the
existence of these species. To not make such a postulation in our
decision-making would be acting irresponsibly. The analogy need not be
extended any further. Becuase we have a basic understanding of the
effects of ecosystem destruction, it is also reasonable to take action
to prevent these extinctions from happening.

In article <5bsemk$3ec@decaxp.harvard.edu>, edalbert@fas.harvard.edu (Eric
Albert) wrote:
> [...]
> 
> : : Because the energy from the sun (at this distance) is too diffuse to
be useful
> 
> : I am not sure what distance you mean, but if we are talking about the 
> : asteroid belt, then sunlight is not too diffuse. It can be concentrated by 
> : very flimsy mirrors, and material is cheap there. 
> 
>         Mirrors in space, especially anywhere near the asteroid belt,
> don't work too well. Too much dust. That's one of the reasons SDI never
> worked, even in theory.
I don't know who told you this Eric, but it's so wrong that it should be
obvious where the error is.   If there were that much dust in Space, then
the images of starlight from the Hubble Space Telescope would be
impossible to make out.  Of course, clear sharp Hubble images are present
on many web sites.  Use your search engine.  
The average mass density in Space is about 1 atom of hydrogen per cubic
centimeter.  The inner solar system does have a higher density, but that
is many orders of magnitude short of being dense enough that it would
destructively interfere with a mirror in Space over any normal maintenance
cycle.  And yes, routine maintenance on all space facilities will be part
of the cost of doing business there.  See the URL in my sig. for how I
think it should get done.
As to SDI, there was no ONE thing to work or not to work.  there were many
highly feasible comcepts.  The academic/political resistance in congress
to the defense of the Republic was simply too strong between May, 1975 and
January, 1995 to get the many workable concepts past demonstrations.  Now
it's the Clinton cronies who continue the jihad against NMD.  That may
change soon, hopefully before someone, somewhere in the world, loses a
city to ten-second-slum-clearance, courtesy of a ballistic missile.
> : : I suppose if you could find some way to send
> : : power over long distances (laser?)
>         Similarly, lasers in space aren't too great. Again, the quantity
> of dust out there is unbelievable.
Someone has sold you a bill of goods Eric.  Yes, there are huge quantities
of dust, which is spread over enormously larger volumes of Space.  Lasers
are EXCELLENT for moving energy in Space over long distances.  The size
and configuration of the optics have already been calculated by people
like Dr. Bob Forward.  Do a library search on his non-fiction books about
the future, physics, and space industry for more detail on this.
> Microwave beaming would be more effective (it's already done in large
> quanities here on Earth), but I think the power loss over such a great
> distance would be fairly large.
When you use longer wavelengths, like microwaves, you simply need to build
larger reflectors for them to maintain the same angular beam width.  This
is where the tradeoff with the lasers comes in.  If you want higher
efficiency conversion into electricity at the RECEIVING end, then
microwaves are probably your best choice, since they can get 80 percent
conversion at the receiving rectenna.  If you want smaller optics, then
lasers are your best bet.
 > Also, given the inefficiency that still
> exists in converting solar energy to anything useful, a solar generating
> station, even one near the sun, that converted solar power to microwave
> energy would be hard-pressed to do anything useful.
There are many solar power station concepts that could use 20-40 percent
efficient dynamic generating systems for electricity.  Essentially these
are space-going  versions of the Brayton Cycle powerplants that are run by
coal, oil, gas and nuclear at the surface of Earth.  You just heat the
boilers with solar light concentrated by mirrors, which will be maintained
by telerobots, if I have my way.  Photovoltaics are either sensitive to
radiation damage, of low eficiency (2-10 percent), or narrow bandwidth. 
Pick one problem to live with and you can get rid of the other two.  The
narrow bandwidth of course doesn't pose a problem for converting laser
light of the right wavelength.  That's the sort of PV that would probably
be used at the receiving end, if laser wavelengths are used.
> Finally, given the
> magnetic field fluctutations that exist close to the sun, you'd have
> problems with everything from circuitry to actually sending the microwave
> beam in a straight line.
Sorry Eric.  The calculatable intensity of a magnetic field needed to
effect either a microwave beam or a laser beam is far stronger than
anything we expect near the closest orbits that even near-solar power
stations would be placed.  (about at the orbit of Mercury)
The first stations would best be placed in geostationary or geosynchronous
earth-orbit, so that they could power both Earth's continuing industrial
revolution and the extension of that evolution into Space.
> "Those who depreciate agitation yet desire change are those who want crops
> without plowing up the ground. They are those who want rain without
> thunder and lightning. Power concedes nothing without struggle. It
> never has and never will."
> 
>                                                 -Frederick Douglass
Good quote!  This is being demonstrated once again, in how hard it is to
break the government stranglehold on human access to Space.  The issue is
not yet decided.
Regards,
Tom Billings
-- 
Institute for Teleoperated Space Development
itsd1@teleport.com(Tom Billings)
ITSD's web site is at,  http://www.teleport.com/~itsd1/index.html

Guys and Gals,
This stuff was a joke back when I went to school.
Anonymous  wrote in article <32E3BE8F.77B3@b.net>...
> I've always heard that some of the materials in smoke detectors is
> radioactive.  Is this true, and if so what is it?  Is there a potential
> nuclear threat from Sadaam Husein buying and then smashing apart
> millions of smoke detectors?
> 

Peter Hernes wrote:
> 
> > Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
> > its every form.
> >
> > (Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
> > Earth and your
> > -87 degree F wind chill factors!  Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
> > you?  Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
> > desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
> 
> I realize that it's popular to bash the Green House effect when there is
> -87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
> about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
> common sense and reality.
Quick summary of what follows:
  1) Data which supports the Green House Effect supports it.
  2) Data which ignores the Green House Effect supports it
  3) Data which contradicts the Green House Effect supports it - needs
more study.
  4) Anyone who disagrees is obviously unfit to judge.
"Higher average temperatures" are elicited by the measurements being
made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
leafy rural) environs.  The Green House Effect is a pile of
Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
Keep Occam's Razor honed.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
> First of all, the weather can't even be predicted reliably more than one
> day in advance because the atmosphere is a chaotic system -- what makes
> you think that the Green House effect is going to UNIFORMLY increase the
> temperature of every spot on the globe at all times?
> 
> Second, there are actually TWO things going on with gas emissions due to
> industry, cars, etc.  1) green house gases are causing an increase in
> AVERAGE temperature across the globe (lest you still disagree with this,
> consider that they just handed out a Nobel prize for work that shows this
> -- the green house effect is mainstream science now, not just some
> environmental extremism.  They don't hand out Nobel prizes for quack
> science)  2) sulfur dioxide emissions cause a DECREASE in average
> temperature.  To correctly look at the effects of gas emissions on
> temperature, you have to plot BOTH types and compare them with average
> temps.  What you get is a stunning overlap -- in places like the eastern
> U.S., Europe, Russia, and areas of China where local emissions of sulfur
> dioxide are high enough to compete with or overwhelm green house gases,
> the temperature has gone DOWN.  In the rest of the world where sulfur
> dioxide emissions aren't significant, but green house gases have
> increased, temperature has gone UP.
> 
> Third, weather patterns in the U.S. are driven to a large extent by the
> position of the Jet stream.  The green house effect essentially mimics an
> El Nino effect, in which warmer water in the tropical Pacific forces the
> Jet stream over the Pacific farther north.  Models show that the primary
> warming effects of green house gases will be in the tropical oceans
> because the intensity of the sun is the highest there, hence the
> similarity to El Nino.  In any case, pushing the Jet stream farther north
> in the Pacific means that more arctic air will get pulled down into the
> the U.S., hence, -87 in SoDak.
> 
> I agree that "environmentalism" has become extreme in many cases, and that
> is unfortunate precisely because it causes people to act in the OTHER
> extreme to counter it.  However, don't throw out the baby with the bath
> water.  The kernel of truth is still there in the "environmental"
> movement -- that is, that we have a finite amount of resources on this
> planet and we need to be good stewards of them.
> 
> Peter Hernes

Peter Hernes wrote:
> 
> I realize that it's popular to bash the Green House effect when there is
> -87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
> about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
> common sense and reality.
> 
> First of all, the weather can't even be predicted reliably more than one
> day in advance because the atmosphere is a chaotic system -- what makes
> you think that the Green House effect is going to UNIFORMLY increase the
> temperature of every spot on the globe at all times?
Good point.  People might be interested in looking at
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/TIanom.ann.gif
which shows how different areas varied from the overall increase
during 1996.
> 
> Second, there are actually TWO things going on with gas emissions due to
> industry, cars, etc.  1) green house gases are causing an increase in
> AVERAGE temperature across the globe (lest you still disagree with this,
> consider that they just handed out a Nobel prize for work that shows this
I think you are confusing two different things.  The Nobel Prize in
Chemistry was awarded for work on the relation between CFCs and ozone
depletion.
This has essentially nothing to do with the question of global warming.
(CFCs are in fact greenhouse gases, but that was not particularly
relevant
to the awarding of the prize.)
> -- the green house effect is mainstream science now, not just some
> environmental extremism.  They don't hand out Nobel prizes for quack
> science)  2) sulfur dioxide emissions cause a DECREASE in average
> temperature.  To correctly look at the effects of gas emissions on
> temperature, you have to plot BOTH types and compare them with average
> temps.  What you get is a stunning overlap -- in places like the eastern
> U.S., Europe, Russia, and areas of China where local emissions of sulfur
> dioxide are high enough to compete with or overwhelm green house gases,
> the temperature has gone DOWN.  In the rest of the world where sulfur
> dioxide emissions aren't significant, but green house gases have
> increased, temperature has gone UP.
There may be some elements of truth in your assertion, but I don't think
it is anything close to being that simple.  There are some differences
between
the Northern and Southern hemispheres and they may be related to sulfate
aerosols, but I don't think anyone claims such a simple direct relation.
> 
> Third, weather patterns in the U.S. are driven to a large extent by the
> position of the Jet stream.  The green house effect essentially mimics an
> El Nino effect, in which warmer water in the tropical Pacific forces the
> Jet stream over the Pacific farther north.  Models show that the primary
> warming effects of green house gases will be in the tropical oceans
> because the intensity of the sun is the highest there, hence the
> similarity to El Nino.  In any case, pushing the Jet stream farther north
> in the Pacific means that more arctic air will get pulled down into the
> the U.S., hence, -87 in SoDak.
> 
I only wish everything were so straightforward.  
> I agree that "environmentalism" has become extreme in many cases, and that
> is unfortunate precisely because it causes people to act in the OTHER
> extreme to counter it.  However, don't throw out the baby with the bath
> water.  The kernel of truth is still there in the "environmental"
> movement -- that is, that we have a finite amount of resources on this
> planet and we need to be good stewards of them.
> 
> Peter Hernes
I think your heart may be in the right place, but you have quite a lot
to learn.
One good place to start is the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change which presents virtually everything that is known and
extensive bibliographies.   Jan Schoerer also regularly posts a short
FAQ on the subject in sci.environment which is well worth reading and
also contains useful references.
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> Jim  wrote:
> 
> >John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> [edited]
> 
> >> The authors of the chapters in book Steitz hasn't heard of are the
> >> world's leading experts on extinctions, and the senior editor
> >> Professor Sir Robert May, FRS, is the chief scientific adviser to the
> >> British Government.
> >>
> >> Steitz's confidence in what he asserts is misplaced.
> >
> >Once again, I do not "assert" anything, but draw upon reliable sources.
> >For example, E.O. Wilson said "Virtually all students of the extinction
> >process agree that biological diversity is in the midst of its sixth
> >great crisis, this time precipitated entirely by man." Everything I have
> >read or heard points to the same conclusion, and I have heard no claims
> >to the contrary, except from the Rush Limbaugh crowd, and certainly none
> >from any scientist.
> 
> Then it would be interesting for you if you read the book, would it
> not?  You appear to be saying you have never read anything else, so
> what you have been exposed to must be true.
> 
> You now have another reference to examine, available in most
> libraries, which would allow you to broaden your exposure.  If you
> fail to do this, your information is incomplete, then do you have any
> reason to continue to expound on the subject?
I have never read anything else? You are way off. I am an active
information-seeker, and examine anything, time permitting. I honestly
have not seen or heard of "Extinction Rates", and I've spent quite a few
hours in library halls doing research. At some point (a point far since
passed), it simply becomes a lost cause to deny the global extinction
crisis, in the face of overwhelming evidence, if you were inclined to do
so.

William Holmes wrote:
> 
> ibokor wrote:
> >
> > Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) wrote:
> > : ibokor@metz.une.edu.au (ibokor) writes:
> > :(really BIG snip)
At last - the facts!!!!!!
Thank you author!
I will continue to read in the (small) hope that some of the opponents 
are actually listening.
Regards, Martin

Greig Ebeling wrote:
> 
> ibokor  wrote in article
> <5brdv3$hbc$1@gruvel.une.edu.au>...
> > Adam Oswald (concorde@powerup.com.au) wrote: (snip)
> I argued incesantly with a marine biologist at uni regarding the relative
> danger presented by nuclear reactors.  He knew some chemistry (and
> therefore knew something of radionuclides), but I was studying mechanical
> engineering, in particular environmental engineering which included the
> basics of risk engineering.  We both studied, but our opinions were chalk
> and cheese.  IMO it is not whether you study, but what you study.
> ...and why you study and how open you are to changing prejudices.
If you only study to gain data and knowledge to perform a particular task (e.g. work 
as a marine biologist or an engineer) then you can ignore anything that doesn't 
relate to that task.  If you enjoy learning as part of a whole life experience then 
the ability to ignore facts which don't suit your prejudices is very difficult.
As a keen participant in environmental issues, I am regularly reminded of the 
inability of intelligent people to see the broader picture within which details fit. 
e.g. the failure at Chernobyl, and the nuclear power industry's reaction to it, has 
been used as a learning experience to make an excellent source of energy even safer. 
Icould go on but some work impinges
Regards, Martin
(snip)

Macarthur Drake wrote:
>         Also very cute, but I thought I missed
> 'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time. Remember
> it is the thought that counts....words are just a specific pattern of
> varying density of air...and typed words on computers are just a bunch on
> transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....
"Lighten up" from someone who said "I beg to differ with both of these
ridiculus statments."  Go figure.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindSpring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

BIO-RESPIROMETER FOR BACTERIA AND ANIMALS
New Respirometer is intended for testing and modeling in the laboratory
gas exchanges during aerobic or anaerobic biodegradation/ bioremediation.
It can also be used to measure respiration of algae, fungi, oxidation of
food products,
bacterial response to antibiotics and toxins, respiration of soil, compost
 etc. 
Up to 80 sample chambers ( variety of sizes)  can be connected to
Micro-Oxymax  
Respirometer which is equipped with O2 and CO2, analyzers 
.Optional CH4 and H2S, H2 are also available.  Sample 
chambers can be refreshed from the compress gas bottles or 
from the Columbus Instruments programmable gas blender. 
Respirometer is capable to measure head space gas 
exchanges on 24h basis. Multiple experiments of different 
length can be conducted in the same time using liquid or 
solid samples.
Due to the exceptionally high sensitivity 0.2 uL of gas /h, 
Bioremediation Respirometer can monitor very slow  
biodegradation processes of plastics, hydrocarbons, 
explosives, creosote as well as respiration of insects, aquatic plants and
fish.
If you need more information and application notes please 
send your street address to:
Jan Czekajewski, Ph.D.
e-mail:janczek@aol.com

The webpage PointCounterpoint at http://www2.vivid.net/~ses/point.html
gives a quick overview of two very different opinions of what is going
on in the global warming debate.

Subscribe now to our email job journal, we'll give you 3 extra months
FREE!!! added onto your subscription.  It doesn't matter if you subscribe
for 6 months or one full year, we'll still give you the 3 extra months
FREE!!!.
Check out what type of jobs and how many jobs we list in our journal by
viewing our web page at:  http://www.swiftsite.com/mejjobs
We already have 92 meteorology and related  jobs in January's email issue
of "The Meteorological Employment Journal", and more jobs keep coming in. 
Check out the homepage!!!!!
Jobs are updated and sent to your email address each Monday.
To subscribe:
1) Fill out the subscribers form on our web page:
(http://www.swiftsite.com/mejjobs)
or:
Send us:
1) Name.
2) Address (city, state, zip code, country).
3) Email address.
4) Tell us you want the special offer. 
5) Tell us you would like to subscribe, for how long, and at which rate.
Meteorological Employment Journal
2221 Hollidale Dr. #203
Waukesha, WI 53186
Email: mejjobs@aol.com
Fax: 414-798-7089
Rates:
Students:             6 months($20.00)     1 year($35.00)
Non-Students:      6 months($25.00)     1 year($40.00)

http://ecohike.yorkweb.com/
This is an online journal about ecology, trees, and the great outdoors in
the PA, MD, WV region. Hiking, camping, paddling, and backpacking are the
focus of one section. 
If you are looking for outdoor activities in the region or some
environmental knowledge check the site out.
-- 
YorkWeb
Web Site and Internet Solutions
http://www.yorkweb.com/

>>                        Logical and insightfully comments welcomed!
>
>Sure, here's a comment:  Next time, don't spam every newsgroup in the known 
>universe with your deathless observations.
>
>Bill
>
	Cute, but the reason why I did post to so many is because it touches 
on several aspects of science. For example, a biologist that has studied 
ancient life may be able to comment on the beginings of life.

I am a master student on Environmental Engineering in China. I am now do
some research on risk assessment of hazardous waste. I need a database
which can provide the characteristic of chemical substance,such as the
solution,dispersion,evalution and BCF, SF, LD50 and other.
If anyone know such a database?
Thank you very much in advance
Qian Haiyan

In article <5c0t8g$j5g@access1.digex.net>, rdadams@access1.digex.net says...
>
>Macarthur Drake  wrote:
>> This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
>
>Then it should have been written more seriously and without
>a plethora of spelling and grammatical errors!!
>
	Also very cute, but I thought I missed 
'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time. Remember 
it is the thought that counts....words are just a specific pattern of 
varying density of air...and typed words on computers are just a bunch on 
transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....

The posting and response below bothered me a great deal.  I suppose that
it is just a sign of the times that the term "evolution" can be co-opted
and turned into an excuse for human distruction of nature.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions that came out in the 2
messages:
--First, survival of the fittest (a phrase, by the way, that evolutionists
shun) does not mean survival of the strongest, or the biggest.  It implies
that any organism that is well suited to a certain environment, will
persist there.
  (The definition of the 'fittest' then becomes 'the organism which will
survive in a particular environment,' so the phrase 'survival of the
fittest' is actually redundant.)
--Second, on the question of whether grizzly bears 'like' the environment
in California, I'm certain that grizzly bears are quite suited to this
environment.  Yes, it is true that environments change, and organisms
evolve to suit their new environment, but how fast do you expect any
animal to do this?  In the last century, humans have probably made more
changes to the environment than used to occur in thousands of years.  Tiny
changes in any given species take hundreds of generations to occur, so it
is unlikely that bears could suddenly develop some feature that would save
them from farmers' guns.
I could go on, but perhaps I should work up to the rest of the biology
course slowly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Currie		:  "We are not talking about gorse-bushes," said Owl a 
m233701@er.uqam.ca	:little crossly.
			:  "I am," said Pooh.		--A. A. Milne--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >    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
> 
> 
> 

In <5c1kqi$cdj@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur Drake)
writes: 
>
>In article <5c0t8g$j5g@access1.digex.net>, rdadams@access1.digex.net
says...
>>
>>Macarthur Drake  wrote:
>>> This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
>>
>>Then it should have been written more seriously and without
>>a plethora of spelling and grammatical errors!!
>>
>
>
>	Also very cute, but I thought I missed 
>'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time.
Remember 
>it is the thought that counts....words are just a specific pattern of 
>varying density of air...and typed words on computers are just a bunch
on 
>transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....
>
I'm interested in knowing about the star of CANOPUS? What the name
means, it's history, how far away it is, it's size, it's spectral
class, can NASA ever send a spaceship there, what constellation it's
in. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
COHEN
america2@ix.netcom.com

The probability of life elsewhere other than planet earth is exactly
1.0! This is a true statement and I have evidence! So does NASA in so
far as they keep blasting it into space. Suffice it to say that there
is life in space at this very moment. Moreover, what goes up must come
down!
It's all relative, but there still ain't no absolutes. If in theory
one wanted to assert that 'life must exist on another planet' one
would also have to assert that life did not exist on another planet
if one was to make these assertions within frames of
empiricism/science. To assert that 'alien life' existed one would need
empirical evidence to back the assertion and no one has
any. Theoretically, if one says that 'alien life' does indeed exist,
but they have no empirical proof to back the assertion, it is not
theory but more aptly dogmatic posturing.
-- 
   ----------------------------------------- Carleton University ----------
               Robert G. White               Dept. of Psychology   
                                             Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA
   INTERNET ADDRESS ----- rwhite@ccs.carleton.ca ------------------- E-MAIL
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------

William R. Penrose  wrote in article
...
> In article <5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur
Drake) writes:
> 
> The first man on the moon was supposed to be the event of the century. 
While 
> exciting at the time, its net effect on my life has been a lot less than
my 
> dog throwing up on the living room rug, my grand-daughter's birthday, or
even 
> the OJ trial.  Same goes for "life" on Mars.
> 
Oh, I gotta disagree.  Although this also brings up arguments about space
spin-off's, I think everyone understands Transistors, IC's, satcomm, and
other space technologies as being useful.
Nobody thought Columbus was very smart either.  Aren't you glad he tried?
Some people look forward, most people look at their shoes.
		== John ==

Smoke detectors contain Am-241 and can not be used for the produktion of a
wappon.
MfG
Dr. J. Fachinger
Anonymous  schrieb im Beitrag <32E3BE8F.77B3@b.net>...
> I've always heard that some of the materials in smoke detectors is
> radioactive.  Is this true, and if so what is it?  Is there a potential
> nuclear threat from Sadaam Husein buying and then smashing apart
> millions of smoke detectors?
> 

Mark Friesel  writes:
> If I recall the Curies ate radium, however, and lived to fairly ripe old 
> ages even though it is banned for use on public articles such as 
> watches.  Is this correct?
Don't know if they ate radium, but they certainly lived and worked
in a heavily radium and polonium contaminated environment for
a while. Bequerel, for some reason, was not instantly struck by
divine inspiration as to the horrors of ionising radiation when
he discovered radioactivity - or if he was, he didn't tell anyone.
Pierre Curie died young, he was run over by a bus.
Marie Curie died at age of 67
From URL  http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~rstriem/papers/lisa/curie2.html
a research paper by one Lisa Ford, we find:
"Curie died; she was 67. Her post-mortem report by Dr. Tobe 
stated that the disease was an aplastic
pernicious anemia of rapid, feverish development. 
The bone marrow did not rea ct, probably
because it had been injured by a long 
accumulation of radiations (Eve Curie, 1937)"
The reference is to Eve Curies 1963 biography of Marie Curie.

u269$44e$1@gruvel.une.edu.au> <32E2E559.62E8@erols.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: euler.tam.cornell.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3Gold (X11; I; OpenVMS V6.2     VAXstation 4000-60)
Xref: cornellcs sci.environment:126896 talk.environment:92979 aus.politics:67432 aus.general:28938 alt.politics.economics:104886 talk.politics.misc:736455
Dennis Nelson wrote:
> 
> ibokor wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> 
> These are very important questions too often left unanswered by the pro-nukes.
> My guess is that, at least in the past, the paper filters were simply dumped
> into unlined earthen trenches in places such as Hanford, WA and Barnwell, SC
> where the paper rotted and the ion-exchange resins decomposed releasing
> the traped radionuclides into the ground, the ground water and eventually
> the Columbia and Savannah rivers.
> 
> Dennis Nelson
	Actually most radio-active gases have half lives of a few
	seconds to a few weeks. So by the time anything rotted
	away the material that would be left would not be 
	radio-active.
	This is one of those issues that is not understood or 
	admitted to by "anti-nukes".
	I am neither by the way. I simply dislike misinformation
	which is what you presented here.
	If you are really concerned about radio-active emmisions 
	into the air then do a little research on the radio emmsisons
	by a coal fired power station. You will find that a 500 
	megawatt coal fired station releases more radio-active 
	uranium into the atmosphere in one year than a 1 gigawatt
	Nuclear Station is allowed to release in its entire 40 year
	lifetime.
---Bill
-- 
===============================================================================
  ___Bill		  william@fractl.tam.cornell.edu
				wth1@Cornell.edu
===============================================================================

I have been notified of your action.
I have notified you several times that no further notification is
necessary.
: Please take proper action.
Thank you.
TAXFREE@PLANETEER.COM (DANIEL J. LAVIGNE)
Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote:
> 
> The original message was received at Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:06:24 -0800 (PST)
> from cl-svr2.uccl.teikyo-u.ac.jp [157.102.10.2]
> 
>    ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications -----
>   (unrecoverable error)
> 
>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ... while talking to mail.uu.net.:
> >>> RCPT To:
> <<< 550 ... User unknown
> 550 ... User unknown
> ... User unknown
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Reporting-MTA: dns; cl-svr1.uccl.teikyo-u.ac.jp
> Arrival-Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:06:24 -0800 (PST)
> 
> Final-Recipient: RFC822; alt-cabal@uunet.uu.net
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.2.0
> Remote-MTA: DNS; mail.uu.net
> Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 ... User unknown
> Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:40:06 -0800 (PST)
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Stop Paying Taxes!! (Was Re: Asteroid strike!!
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 23:52:39 -0500
> From: "Daniel J. Lavigne" 
> Organization: International Humanity House
> To: alt-cabal@uunet.uu.net
> CC: Gregory Nicholls 
> 
> 
> Gregory Nicholls , in response
> to a challenge asking him to justify his support of
> plans and preparations involving the will and the
> capacity to mass murder fellow defenceless human
> beings, scribed many points in his rebut of
> the last exchange:
> 
> The one that collapses his argument follows:
> 
> Aha. Now we get to the rub. You're looking for an
> excuse to justify tax evasion. OK, I can live with
> that as a goal, just don't dress it up with morality
> as the cause. Should've guessed from the ID. This
> hasn't started as one of my brightest years .
> 
> taxfree@planeteer.com has dissected that which
>  provided to justify his
> defense of the indefensible and will provide the
> point by point rejection of his “argument” to any 
interested party.
> .........................
> taxfree@planeteer.com’s termination of
> ’s attempt at arguing
> the matter:
> 
> A moral argument supporting plans and
> preparations involving the will and the
> capacity to use nuclear and other weapons
> of mass murder against hundreds of millions
> of fellow defenceless human beings is simply
> not available.
> 
> The Federal Court Of Canada could not do it.
> The Federal Government could not do it. Both
> accepted everything I had to say of that matter
> as undisputable fact.
> 
> The eight years they had to study my assertions
> revealed no secret set of morality by which
> governments can lawfully insist that citizens
> must supply the funds without which no government
> can participate in such plans and preparations.
> 
> The challenge to :
> 
> That he supply a viable argument supporting his
> defense of the indefensible. Failing which he
> would then supply an alternative approach to
> justifying the right of humans to refuse to
> support societal insanity.
> 
> The mechanics of possibility / probability
> have no bearing on the matter. Past actions
> have no bearing on the matter. The "laws" of 
>"nation-states" commanding
> such support have
> no value. (Nor legal credence.)
> 
> I await, with amity, an argument from
> 
> that adds a new dimension to everyone's
> unassailable right and concurrent and unavoidable 
> duty to refuse to
> support plans and preparations involving the 
> will and the capacity to
> use nuclear and other weapons of mass murder 
> against fellow defenceless
> human beings.
> 
> I invite all to read my latest: T2020-88 The
> Statement Of Claim. The legal document by which
> I established the right of all to refuse to
> support societal insanity. A document of an
> achievement that may, there are no guarantees,
> move us from the abyss of all-out insanity.
> 
> Focus on paragraph 6. That is the legal base of
> the refusal. Canada’s Federal Court accepted it
> without recourse.
> 
> To a safer, saner world. To the development of reason.
> 
> 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
-- 
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

"\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz" <#UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you want Eco-adhesive (expensive and crappy), take whey (or fat-free
>milk - another gift from the Pleasure Police), and precipitate the
>casein by adding vinegar.
I don't know if it's an "Eco"-adhesive, but aren't there resins in use
today that are made with furfural or a related compound and
formaldehyde?  Furfural is made by acid treatment of xylose derived
from oat hulls.
	Paul

In <853677281snz@daflight.demon.co.uk>, Hugh Easton  writes:
>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.
Hmmm. Big changes in output for relatively small change in input aren't really
that unexpected. The weather system is chaotic, so small changes can quite
happily get amplified into big ones. Couple of things to bare in mind - temperature
is a measure of average energy and you're looking at average values over a 
long length of time. What you're seeing is a correlation between the average
ammount of energy in the weather system and the level of CO2 present in the
system. 
You're big assumption here is that the CO2 is the primary cause of the increases
of energy in the system. If this is correct, then your predictions are reasonable.
An alternative is the the CO2 levels track to the level of energy in the system 
(ie as it gets warmer more plants live and produce more CO2, when it gets colder
the plants die and there's less CO2). Oh, and don't forget the the snow and ice
release CO2 as they melt (the same CO2 the Vostok boys were measuring). 
The other thing to check is the accuracy of your temperature measurements. If
they are just measurements of temperature, then they aren't telling the whole
story. The weather is a chaotic system and you have to consider all forms of 
energy that are in it. Energy manifests as temperature, wind speeds, evaporated
water and melted ice amongst other things... If you're only tracking the 
temperature part of the data then your figures for total energy vs CO2 are
to low. 
The first noticably effects of global warming should be a tendancy towards 
more extreeme and more prolonged types of weather. Some parts will be warmer,
some windier, some weatter and some colder. What we're dealing with here is a
full blown, real time, chaotic equilibrium, not a slow, linear system. When you kick
energy into the linear system it gradually gets warmer. When you kick energy
into a chaotic system is starts doing different things as it gets pushed further
and further away from it's attractors.
Mik

Mike Carr wrote:
> 
> Guys and Gals,
> This stuff was a joke back when I went to school.
Yeah, but I saw this episode of X-files where this guy...........
;-)

Harold Brashears wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
There is nothing absurd about it. Both postulates are called for. If you
are not denying the existence of unknown species, then what are you
saying? Wether or not a species is known has no relevance to its
importance.

"Daniel J. Lavigne"  wrote:
[deleted]
>To a safer, saner world. To the development 
>of reason, a new vision of duty and the 
>worldwide use of T2020-88.
I have rarely seen such a collection of cliches in my life.  Please
stop drowning my box with e-mail.  I regret that I ever responded to
you, as your mind is so filled with false information as to insure
there is no room to reason.
I will leave the lurkers with one thought, and that is to note that
you have enormous faith in the goodwill of future tyrants.  I do not
share that faith.
You so want to insure your personal survival that you will sacrifice
your liberty to do it.
Regards, Harold
-------
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the 
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling 
which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. . . . "
	---John Stuart Mill, (1859)

Robert Hubby,  wrote:
> Who's Harrold?
> 
> On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Daniel J. Lavigne wrote:
> 
> >  (Daniel J. Lavigne) wrote:
> > >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) responded:
> > >
> > >>What about the 16 "Near use scenarios" since
> > >>Nagasaki Harold? Are you saying that you have
> > >>done something to try to prevent such use?
> >
> > >Let me see.  Nope, I reread the whole thread
> > >and could find no point where I claimed any
> > >personal credit at all.  Thanks for the efforts
> > >on my behalf, but it is not required.
> >
> >  (Daniel J. Lavigne) responds:
> >
> > I was implying Harold that you should be aware
> > that nothing you have ever done to date has had
> > one iota of impact on the decisions of those you
> > consider your masters; that any advice you could
> > have or would have ever dared to offer relative to
> > the near use of nuclear weapons would have been
> > rejected as slime from a serf; that nothing, other
> > than a widespread tax refusal, will cure bastards
> > of the madness of greed that guides their insanity.
> >
> > >Are you implying you had some personal
> > >responsibility, and therefore I
> > >should have, or what?
> >
> > No such implying intended or offered Harold,
> > but language utilized in a fashion so as to
> > wake the near comatose from their comfortable
> > thoughts that all is well in hand. If it went
> > zipping past while you were writing psalms of
> > support for your masters . . . what can I say?
> >
> > How about this:
> >
> > Dear Harold,
> >
> > It seems as if you consider the possible use of
> > nuclear weapons a game played by decent, adult,
> > humans. It also seem that you have made an
> > assumption that you are therefore justified
> > in trusting them to arrive at an acceptable
> > conclusion.
> >
> > Your responses indicate that any who doubt
> > the ability of those who control the strings
> > of your life should stay silent about those
> > doubts; as such doubts upset your quiet, ever
> > so acceptable, self-deception.
> >
> > Stuff the cowards’ crap Harold. It might be
> > acceptable to you and similar. I’ll pass.
> >
> > >>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?
> >
> > >You phrase in a fashion as to try to preclude any answer
> > >other than the one you wish to see.  This is a logical
> > >fallacy, kind of thinking with your hormones.
> >
> > Ah! The argument of a coward!; “You offered a
> > logical fallacy! How can I respond to that?!!”.
> >
> > Control your adrenaline Harold. If you believe
> > such preparations are justifiable, simply say
> > so. You may wish to offer your reasons but that
> > is not necessary. Millions of others believe
> > in such preparations. Millions of others pay
> > taxes towards such preparations. Millions keep
> > you company. Millions join you in licking the
> > boots of overbearing bastards. Why show your
> > shame by retreating to a coward’s argument?
> >
> > You need not do so so unless of course, your
> > absolutely lost and flabbergasted by the skip
> > and jump process that led you to say below:
> >
> > >I will simplify it for you.
> >
> > >1.  Nuclear weapons are real.
> >
> > >2.  Nuclear weapons can be made in substantial
> > >secrecy by any country that commits the resources
> > >to do so.
> >
> > >3.  Deterrence is real.  Example, Hitler was
> > >deterred from the use of gas by the knowledge of
> > >retaliation.
> >
> > >4.  Tyrants are real.  Example, Hitler, Stalin,
> > Shaka Zulu.
> >
> > >5.  Without the threat of retaliation, tyrants
> > >such as Hitler will use their weapons.
> >
> > >A conclusion which I believe reasonable is
> > >that a Hitler would be undeterred from the
> > >use of nuclear weapons by anything short of
> > >the threat of retaliation.
> >
> > Confused by my use of your outburst Harold?
> > Don’t be. Your pointing out the insanity, the
> > sheer stupidity of allowing bastards to develop
> > and control the weapons and fools without which
> > they are left as what they are: powerless scumbags.
> >
> > By the way would Hitler, upon being forced
> > into his bunker, have avoided use of "any"
> > weapon of mass murder had he had some
> > readily available? Would the fools and
> > cowards who, to that point, had all done
> > his bidding, followed his orders to use
> > such weapons? Fear of retaliation would
> > have stopped Hitler or his hordes? Hah! By
> > using such weapons they would have hoped
> > to avoid unconditional surrender!
> >
> > In a similar vein, did any American service
> > types refuse to participate in the murder of
> > Hiroshima's citizens? Has any soldier ever
> > refused to commit mass murder when so ordered?
> >
> > >I would counsel you not to get too much of
> > >a dither up about this.  Like all weapons, a
> > >defense will be found to nuclear weapons.
> > >Then we will be able to get rid of them.
> >
> > [balance of blather snipped]
> >
> > Ah! The counsel of cowards!
> >
> > i.e. Please keep quiet Daniel. My masters
> > will come to some agreement to share, with
> > other bastards, any new found knowledge on
> > how to defend against each others nuclear
> > missiles! Your tax refusal will hinder,
> > not help, their genuine efforts!
> >
> > I suppose Harold that, believing the bullshit
> > that guides and controls your life, you would
> > have all who have joined the refusal contact
> > Revenue Canada or the IRS and offer their
> > humble apologys and arrange for payment of
> > agreed upon penaltys and back taxes?
> >
> > Some might. But only if they, such as
> > yourself, consider preparations to murder
> > millions of children as a natural part
> > of human existence; children Harold, who
> > will never learn how to outrun an incoming
> > missile travelling faster than sound.
> >
> > The tax refusal continues Harold. While you
> > choose to be an abject slave to culpable
> > complacency, I guarantee you this; the tax
> > refusal, now lawful, will continue to grow.
> >
> > The beautiful part Harold, and I’m sure you’ll
> > appreciate this as much as the IRS and Revenue
> > Canada, the information on how to participate
> > is free! On the Internet! No cost! Here we go!
> >
> > The success and the legal base of the
> > now growing tax refusal is as simple
> > as your answer to this question:
> >
> > “Does my birth as a human being truly condemn
> > me to paying taxes to or otherwise supporting
> > a society participating in plans and preparations
> > to wage nuclear war and risk thereby the murder
> > of hundreds of millions of defenceless fellow
> > human beings?”
> >
> > Dare to guess, publicly, what many people are
> > deciding Harold? Go ahead. Don’t be bashful, it
> > can only be one or the other. While your at it
> > Harold, tell the world your choice.
snipped
taxfree@planeteer.com replies to Robert Hubby’s query:
"Who's Harrold?"
You mean who is working so hard to be the “herald”?
They’re one and the same Robert.
The same "Harold" whose promotion of 
subservience to the vile and violent 
will “herald” the use of those weapons 
and mindsets he presently wishes that all 
would, as acquiescent sheep, accept and ignore.
ie. Harold Brashears  
Go for greed’s gold, grab the silver from a 
dangling Juda’s, Harold? Forget so quickly 
that other people understand the old hymn, 
“There’s no whore like a political whore!”? 
Sell out to insanity? Can a few more pennies 
for your pension really mean that much?
Think about that Harold and while your at it, 
explain why, at your station in life, you 
would sell out your humanity. 
The bastards who’ll pat you on the head 
aren’t worth it Harold. Think about it.
Join the refusal and wake millions of 
sleeping fellow Americans!! Go for it Harold!! 
Be America's standard bearer !!
Go for it!! America needs someone with courage and 
character to risk the slurs and the sneers and do 
what your forebears knew was needed!! Speak up!!
But, if that’s beyond you Harold, if nature did
not grace you with sufficient will and insight 
to see through and address the insanity we face, 
I ask that you simply reconsider your current
support of the insanity, with a view to saying 
“Enough!”.  Thank you.
And thanks for asking Robert. :)
In closing: Many have contacted me regarding how 
to proceed with preparations leading to a fullsome
involvement in the refusal.
Many have asked that I become personally involved
in or otherwise assist their efforts. I wish I could.
The sheer numbers however, now seeking my personal 
involvement, were I to attempt to help them all, would
result in burn out and subsequent inability to maintain  
my goal of waking the balance of a now questioning 
world. The effort, and the refusal, would slowly 
grind to a halt. 
Now the good news! All necessary info is free! 
Everything you need to know can be accessed 
by querying "taxfree@planeteer.com".
And the only questions that matter are these: 
Can we do it? Can we waken humanity? 
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
 -- 
“IN MUDDY FIELDS FORGOTTEN”
ABOVE MUDDY FIELDS FORGOTTEN, O’ER FOOLS THROWN THERE ASTREW,
RAPTORS SOAR SO PATIENTLY  FOR SOLDIER MEAT ANEW
THEIR CAW A CERTAIN TEMPO, EYES GLANCING DOWN THE WAIT
FOR BULLETS THROUGH VACANT MINDS AND CARRION FOR THEIR PLATES.
GOD! I PRAY! DAMN SUCH FOOLS! SUCH BRAINLESS, USELESS TWITS!
SEND THEM TO A SPECIAL HELL! WHERE TOGETHER THEY CAN FRIT!
ABOUT THEIR FLAGS AND COLOURS, AND REASONS LONG FORGOT; 
AND WHY THEY DIED SO USELESSLY, THEIR SHROUDED FACES FROUGHT, 
WITH THE PRICE OF THEIR STUPIDITY, 
AND THEIR SOULS SO CHEAPLY BOUGHT.
DO THEY CURSE THAT IGNORANCE, THEIR KNOWLEDGE TOO LATE LEARNED?
AND ACHE AT OUR “REMEMBRANCE”, OF BRAVERY NEVER EARNED?
Copyright D.J.L. NOVEMBER 11, 1996

In article <5c21vj$30v@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> america2@ix.netcom.com (Brad) writes:
>In <5c1kqi$cdj@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur Drake)
>writes: 
>>
>>In article <5c0t8g$j5g@access1.digex.net>, rdadams@access1.digex.net
>says...
>>>
>>>Macarthur Drake  wrote:
>>>> This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
>>>
>>>Then it should have been written more seriously and without
>>>a plethora of spelling and grammatical errors!!
>>>
>>
>>
>>	Also very cute, but I thought I missed 
>>'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time.
>Remember 
>>it is the thought that counts....words are just a specific pattern of 
>>varying density of air...and typed words on computers are just a bunch
>on 
>>transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....
>>
>
>I'm interested in knowing about the star of CANOPUS? What the name
>means, it's history, how far away it is, it's size, it's spectral
>class, can NASA ever send a spaceship there, what constellation it's
>in. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
>
>COHEN
>
>america2@ix.netcom.com
>
Canopus:  Apparent visual magnitude -0.72, second brightest star in the
sky after Sirius, also called alpha Carinae (Carina = keel).  Carina was
part of the great constellation Argo Navis, ship of the argonauts, which
was subdivided in the 1750s into deck(Puppis), keel(Carina) and sails
(Vela).  Named for the pilot of King Menelaus' fleet of ships.  Spectral
class A9 II, so it is essentially a supergiant (some references may give
F0 Ib).  Distance about 1200 light years.  It is unlikely that NASA or
anyone else will ever send a spaceship there! Not soon, anyways. 
Can not be seen from north of approximately latitude 38 degrees.
-- 
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics  | Bismarck's law: The less people
& Astronomy, University College London | know about how sausages and laws
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT  UK      | are made, the better they'll
   email: mmd@star.ucl.ac.uk           | sleep at night.

drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur Drake) writes: 
> rdadams@access1.digex.net says...
>> Macarthur Drake  wrote:
>>> This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
>> Then it should have been written more seriously and without
>> a plethora of spelling and grammatical errors!!
>	Also very cute, but I thought I missed 
> 'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time.
Considering how many newsgroups you spammed, I'm surprised you
missed that one.
> Remember it is the thought that counts .... words are just a specific
> pattern of varying density of air...and typed words on computers are
> just a bunch on transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....
Something tells me that argument "ain't gonna make it" when you turn
in the first draft of your dissertation.  
As for "serious scientific debate", it's noteworthy that you responded
to the last phrase of my first sentence and completely ignored the
structural content of my response.
Dick

"\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz" <#UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The basic chemistry of star tar is default carbon-based life.  Start
> with a large plop which, for whatever reason, contains liquid water and
> you are in business.  Look at what infests Antarctic sandstone, deep sea
> ridges, and wet basalt two miles underground.  The Miller and
> Ponamperuma experiments generate abiotic fatty acids, sugars, amino
> acids, nucleic acid bases... and ordered coacervate droplets within a
> week.  Give it a billion years to organize in a diversity of physical
> and chemical environments.
> 
> The problem is that billion years.  The Earth is unique in that 2/3 of
> its planetary crust is orbiting 240,000 miles overhead - the Moon.
> 
Rare perhaps, but almost certainly not unique. Presumably the event
(collision?) that put so much of earth's crust into orbit could happen
elsewhere, and at any rate there could be other possible scenarios that
might bring all the right materials together under the conditions needed
for life to evolve and remain undisturbed enough to where civilization
could develope.
Frank

The proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Semi-Solid
Processing of Alloys and Composites are available for sale.
The conference was held on June 19th-21st 1996, and was attended
by over 200 delegates, 70% of them from industry, and from all five
continents.  
The proceedings consist of 67 papers (hardback, 362 pages, A4 size),
all refereed, and all professionally typset to give a uniform appearance.
At least 70% of the papers emanate from commercial sources, reflecting
the increasing importance of semi-solid metal forming in manufacturing 
industry. The reason for this accelerating rate of development is the 
ability of semi-solid metal processing to lead to improved product quality, 
die life, energy consumption, production ergonomics and safety.
The proceedings contain contributions on modelling, microstructures, 
rheological measurements and equipment, as well as on practical examples 
where the semi-solid casting route has been applied commercially.  Most 
articles discuss semi-solid casting of aluminium alloys, but there is also 
material on ferrous and copper-based alloys.
To purchase your copy of the proceedings, please send a cheque for
40 pounds sterling, plus postage and packing (see below), made out to
"The University of Sheffield", to the address below:
SSM Conference (Proceedings)
c/o Plato Kapranos
Department of Engineering Materials
University of Sheffield
Sheffield S1 3JD
England
Airmail post and packing rates are as follows:
Europe (incl. ex-USSR countries) 5 pounds sterling
Rest of World 15 pounds sterling
Payment in pounds sterling only, please.

In article <32E3F1E6.3B3E@hydro.on.ca>,
	Dan Evens   wrote:
>
>Actually, the expense to buy 100 billion smoke detectors would
>be enough to fight a very large war.  Supposing they were only $9.95
>each, that's a trillion.  There would certainly be easier and
>cheaper ways to build a weapon.  And then you've got this
>ENOURMOUS pile of now-defunct smoke detectors to get rid of.
>Geeze! The pile might be larger than many mid-size cities.
Funny this should come up...  About a year or two ago, in some suburb
of Detroit if I'm remembering correctly, a 15-year old kid took a serious
interest in radiation physics, and gathered up a goodly number of smoke
detectors and pulled the Americium out of them, and had it lying around
in a shed in his back yard.
I remember the news photos of people in enviro-suits doing the cleanup
of the shed.  Quite amusing...
	-Mike Pelletier.

John D. Gwinner wrote:
> 
> William R. Penrose  wrote in article
> ...
> > In article <5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur
> Drake) writes:
> >
> 
> > The first man on the moon was supposed to be the event of the century.
> While
> > exciting at the time, its net effect on my life has been a lot less than
> my
> > dog throwing up on the living room rug, my grand-daughter's birthday, or
> even
> > the OJ trial.  Same goes for "life" on Mars.
> >
> 
> Oh, I gotta disagree.  Although this also brings up arguments about space
> spin-off's, I think everyone understands Transistors, IC's, satcomm, and
> other space technologies as being useful.
> 
> Nobody thought Columbus was very smart either.  Aren't you glad he tried?
>
This is a very interesting question.   Columbus differed with the more
knowledgeable geographers and navigational scientists of his time about
the size of Asia and/or the circumference of the Earth.  He was wrong,
and they were right, but he was lucky that there was a previously
unknown (except to the Vikings) continent between Europe and Asia to
the east.   One can conjecture about what would have happened had
he failed.   It is fairly clear that eventually Europeans would
have found the `New World', which I remind you had already been found
many thousands of years earlier by other members of our species.  (There
were even at least three highly developed civilizations on the North and
South American continents.)  Probably the most significant barrier to
such voyages of discovery was the inability to determine longitude. 
This was solved by a combination of astronomical techniques and the
development of highly accurate clocks.   It seems likely that by the
eighteenth century Eruopeans would have made the same discovery if not
earlier.  But the Inca, Mayan, and other societies might have developed
further in the interim, and it is not clear what the result would have
been.   I suspect that many Europeans would have migrated to the
Americas but it might have been under very different circumstances.  The
institution of African slavery might not have become established in the
Western hemisphere.   Someone could easily write an alternate history of
such a world, and perhaps it has been done.   Since many of us wouldn't
be alive in the alternate world, the majority of us might not approve,
but it is not clear it wouldn't be just as good (or bad) a world as the
one we have.
> Some people look forward, most people look at their shoes.
> 
>                 == John ==
-- 
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> 
> Peter Hernes wrote:
> >
> > > Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
> > > its every form.
> > >
> > > (Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
> > > Earth and your
> > > -87 degree F wind chill factors!  Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
> > > you?  Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
> > > desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
> >
> > I realize that it's popular to bash the Green House effect when there is
> > -87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
> > about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
> > common sense and reality.
> 
> Quick summary of what follows:
> 
>   1) Data which supports the Green House Effect supports it.
>   2) Data which ignores the Green House Effect supports it
>   3) Data which contradicts the Green House Effect supports it - needs
> more study.
>   4) Anyone who disagrees is obviously unfit to judge.
> 
> "Higher average temperatures" are elicited by the measurements being
> made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
> leafy rural) environs.  The Green House Effect is a pile of
> Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
> happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
> 
> Keep Occam's Razor honed.
> --
> Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
> UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
>  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
> 
>
Would you please supply some evidence for your last statements?  Right
now you are simply proceding by argument by assertion of personal
belief.  Why in the world should anyone pay any attention to your
personal beliefs?   What qualifications do you have?  Have you published
any of your contentions in peer reviewed scientific journals?
Please refer to the IPCC Reports which discusses the issue of urban
heat island effects.  This issue has been thoroughly explored and it
does not suffice to explain what appears to be observed warming.
The issue of whether or not we have observed warming due to enhanced
greenhouse radiative forcing is quite complex.   There are in fact
reasonable arguments which critics have raised.  But I don't think you
have the foggiest idea what they are.   If you are going to engage in
polemics on this issue, you should at least arm yourself with sensible
arguments instead of engaging in simple minded arguments not
particularly supported by the data.
Leonard Evens       len@math.nwu.edu      491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois

David Gossman (dgossman@concentric.net) 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.
I wonder why libertarian musings always seem to involve attacks on
someone's scientific integrity.  Shooting the messenger?  In any case, if
you're looking for political conspiracy theories, blame the incinerator
folks.  They did an active lobbying effort, involving such innovations as
contacting lots of environmental groups to try to make common cause (talk
about dining with a long spoon!).  I don't think that this lobbying would
have had any effect if BIFs hadn't been already ripe for regulation.  
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html

\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (#UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 
: Quick summary of what follows:
: 
:   1) Data which supports the Green House Effect supports it.
:   2) Data which ignores the Green House Effect supports it
:   3) Data which contradicts the Green House Effect supports it - needs
: more study.
:   4) Anyone who disagrees is obviously unfit to judge.
: 
: "Higher average temperatures" are elicited by the measurements being
: made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
: leafy rural) environs.  The Green House Effect is a pile of
: Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
: happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
Not so.  We've seen the tree line in the Alps retreat further uphill, for
example.  The cold winter in Europe and the US is blamed, in part, on
warmer Pacific Ocean temperatures.  Not much asphalt in the Pacific Ocean!