Newsgroup sci.environment 115529

Directory

People wanting to learn more about the United States taking 50-60
bowhead whales and at the same time hypocritically condeming the
Canadians for wanting 2, should look at these URLs, all of which
are on a United States government webserver:
 
 
 
 
The first URL above is the 1995 annual marine mammal report to
Congress made by NOAA/NMFS. What's below is from page 56 of the
1992 report ("IWC" stands for the International Whaling Commission):
    "The [IWC Scientific] Committee estimated that in 1988 the
    western Arctic bowhead whale population numbered approximately
    7,500 animals (95 percent confidence interval of 6,400 to 9,200
    animals). The initial pre-exploitation (1848) population was
    estimated at 12,400 to 18,200 whales. The Committee also
    estimated that the annual replacement yield (i.e., the number
    of animals that could be replaced by population growth if taken
    from the population) would be 254 individuals, with 92
    whales being the lower bound of the estimate's 95 percent
    confidence interval. The Committee concluded that the expected
    Native subsistence kills of 41 to 54 whales per year, by
    themselves, should not prevent the recovery of the stock. However,
    other factors (e.g., environmental change, pollution, noise
    disturbance from offshore oil and gas resource development, etc.),
    combined with the subsistence take, could have cumulative effects
    that would prevent the stock's recovery."
--
David Eitelbach
dseitel@spams.r.us.com

Darren Garrison wrote:
> 
> odenkirk@stu.beloit.edu (Crystal Odenkirk) wrote:
> 
> >aluf nikal (aluf@networx.net.au) wrote:
> >: It is an established *historical* fact that Jesus existed.
> >
> >To go off subject for just a moment...
> >
> >just how do you figure that?  What historical evidence is there beyond what
> >may or may not be a novel (and which receives about as much credibility as a
> >source from me)?
> >
> >crys
> 
> I seem to remember seeing -somewhere- in some achademic source that
> there is a recording of a Yoshua ben Yosef (or however you spell
> those) at around the right time in around the right area.  (Can't be
> more specific, I would be if I could find the source.)
Kind of like a person in the year 4000 proving that Fred existed...
Dan

What it boils down to is some people don't have anything better to do 
than pretend they are on game shows and try to show off their knowledge. 
Logic says the new millenium will begin Jan 1, 2000, that during my 
first year I was 0 years old (rather, 0 implied years old, but x weeks, 
or later y months old.  This system seems to extend to approximately 18 
months, whereafter years takes hold).
I take the pragmatic point of view: I will attend any party I am invited 
to in the year 2000 and/or 2001, and I will NOT insult the host...
P.S.  Computers think the millenium will begin Jan 1, 2000, and are they 
ready to PARTY!
Dan

> excuse me, but aren't you the one who thinks that 2000 years after 1/1/1 Ad
> is 1/1/2000 AD instead of the obvious answer 1/1/2001? perhaps you should
> 'Go figure' and arrive at the correct conclusion.
It is a human contrived number that means absolutely nothing.  In fact, 
computers will crash on 1/1/2000, which IS a significant event.  I 
believe he feels that the millenium will occur 2000 years after 
the year 1/1/0000, the LOGICAL beginning of our calendar.
There is no significnace to the trivial debate (debate of trivia) except 
when the parties begin, and I believe there will be plenty of parties on 
1/1/2000 AND 1/1/2001.
So, yes, lighten up. To quote the great Mr Natural: "It don't mean 
shit!", or an unrememberable character in POGO: "Don't take life so 
serious son, it ain't nohow permanent".
Dan

Water could be "disappearing", but not at significant rates: (escaping 
into space, flow into the mantle, receiving from space [asteroids, dust, 
etc.], and release from rocks [vulcanism, venting, etc.]) I don't know 
if anyone knows if the net of these is positive or negative.  More 
temporaarily, locking/releasing from the ice shields (+/-).
What is being referred to is USEFUL water: uncontaminated water, free 
from pathogens and chemicals which make it unusable.  Don't have numbers 
handy, but much more than 90% of water is salt water in oceans and lakes 
- unusable for most purposes such as drinking and agriculture without 
expensive treatment (e.g. Saudi Arabia).  With pollution, pumping, and 
consequent salt water intrusions, useful water is disappearing at an 
alarming rate locally, potentially harmful rate globally.
dan

In article <5cb2nf$lio@library.airnews.net>, pls.see.addr@my.sig (Bill
Gross) wrote:
> We should leave the Canadians alone as the toady up to the last
> vestige of Communism.  Without the Canadians steadfast support of this
> repressive regieme we would have nothing to remind us of how vile such
> a form of government can be.  While those in the North think that they
> are tweeking the US, they are in fact doing the world a service.  If
> we did not have that cancerous disease isolated on a Caribean Island
> under the tutiledge of Canada we all would forget how bad comunism can
> be.
> 
Don't flatter yourself. What "we in the north" are doing is exercising our
rights as a free country to set our own politcal agenda. I know that irks
you staunch 'mericans, but then again, wasn't it Prez Bush who was out
yachting with Sadam Hussein one month and then declaring him "evil" the
next? 
My point being that some countries prefer to make up their own minds about
other governments, instead of blindly kow towing to the USA's foreign
policy.  
Carol
-- 
http://www.bulldog.org/frenchies
http://www.bulldog.org/bullmarket
http://www.bulldog.org/tessa  

In <32E9BF55.24D3FAC5@alcyone.com> Erik Max Francis 
writes: 
>It's a simple application of Occam's razor -- without further
evidence, the
>simpler (meaning requiring the fewest assumptions) of the two
explanations
>is the best.  That puts life originating locally _way_ out in front of
>panspermia.
I disagree. Occam's razor cuts both ways.
Consider the assumptions made in both cases:
In one case: (1) the unknown conditions for life's origin
existed on Earth, and (2) once arising, it could survive.
In the other case:  (1a) the unknown conditions for 
life's origin existed *somewhere*, 
and (2a) once arising, it could spread.
(2a) may be stronger than (2) - but (1) is 
*much* stronger than (1a).
If (2a) is weaker than (1), then panspermia comes ahead;
if (2a) is stronger than (1) then local origin come ahead.

In <32E95C12.58A9@wired2.net> Tim Worstall  writes: 
[...]
>Use Occam's razor...we *know* life exists here ans we don't know
whether 
>it *arose* here. But since we have no direct eveidence that it exists 
>elsewhere, the simplest solution that explains all the facts so far 
>uncovered is that it exists and arose here. All else is se=peculation
in 
>the absence of evidence one way or the other.
No, I disagree that this is the simplest solution.
It is chosen, not by Occam's razor, but by
another arbitrary principle: _whatever *is*
in a spot *arose* in that spot, unless proved otherwise_:
a *presumption of immobility*.
This is not Occam, nor is it common sense.
For example, human beings live in Europe; it follows
that they evolved *somewhere*; the supposition
that they evolved in Europe was never the simplest
or most probable - even *before* evidence of African
origin was found. Why? Because preconditions in Europe
were not right. As for preconditions for life's
origin, we simply do not know them.
We have no direct evidence that life exists elsewhere,
true - but we also have no evidence of *any* kind that
it *could* have arisen here.
If we knew of a mechanism by which it *would* have
arisen here, *then* this would be the simplest
solution, in a sense: it would save mental work. 
Sticking with a sufficient explanation is one form of 
Occam's razor (though not Occam's form). Even then
alternative explanations *might* be true and *ought*
to be considered.
But we do *not* know of such a mechanism; "arose here"
is no explanation at all, but an arbitrary guess:
"arose here *somehow*".
"Arose *somewhere somehow*" is at least
more likely  because of the greater varity of conditions.

> 
> >> To (2): Your home might be a (pot) smog filled wasteland, but I like my
> >> suburban home. [...]
> >> I wish you would have the chance to see the US from about 5 miles away. Up.
> >> If you fly in from the Altantic, up the St.Lawrence, cross country to LA
> >> you see an amazing picture. For hrs. and hrs. you see nothing but pristine
> >> wilderness. Then to your surprise you'll discover here and there, far
> >> inbetween, a thin, gossamer straight line, like the fine thread of a
> >> spiderweb: It's a double laned Interstate Hyway. Even more rare are some
> >> unusual dots you may chance t
(blah, blah)
Thats cool and all, but try to walk through that "pristine" wilderness
and you will constantly be clambering over fences, tromping across farms
and fields, dashing across highways, and listening to the roar of jet
planes above filled with people looking down and saying "ah, what
bounteous good glory lies below, when do we get to Dineyland?"  The
distance thing doesn't cut it, pal.  You get too far away from anything
and you start to not see the problems.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[snip]
>>Agreed! I seem to remember Isaac Asimov coming down to a number of
>>carbon-based life-holding-planets to be a number with so many places
>>that a human could not write it down in a lifetime.
>I've seen Asimov make at least one mathematical mistake, but none of 
>this magnitude.
What he calculated in "Extraterrestrial Civilisations" was that there
should be 350,000 *technological* civilisations in the Milky Way. Of
course, he was quite clear in the book that a lot of his figures were
unproved and sometimes pure guesswork. He wrote the book before any of
the modern theories of solar-system formation had been published, so
he sensibly noted that there was no way of telling if almost all stars
had orbiting planets, or almost none did. (What he did with that
statement was not so sensible.)
Of course, this book only dealt with the Milky Way. Perhaps the
original quote was taken from another source.
>I doubt that any scientist even of Asimov's modest stature would make the 
>claim that there are more planets in our universe than 10 with 
>forty zeros after it.  And this is one of those topics Asimov
>was quite knowledgeable about.
Yes. It seems unlikely that he would say that.
regards,
chris
_____________________
Chris Lawson
claw@ozemail.com.au

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
[snip]
>Yes, it is inherent in the word "arose". Yes, it is generally believed
>that life *evolved* on Earth from the first prokaryotes.  But those
>first prokaryotes were already very much alive, and the issue
>here is whether they *arose* on Earth, i.e. emerged from a prebiotic
>soup here rather than being transported here from elsewhere to take
>advantage of our rich prebiotic soup.  There is PLENTY of reason
>for taking this possibility seriously, given our current ignorance
>of how the protein synthesis mechanism could possibly have arisen
>in a few million years.
But not too seriously. Sure, we don't know much about the prebiotic
conditions on Earth, but we know even less about the prebiotic
conditions of other planets. Proposition Earth sure has its problems,
but Proposition Elsewhere has *exactly* the same difficulty explaining
how life arose from prebiotic material *plus* problems explaining how
it got to Earth intact.
So you've swapped one difficulty for two. (This is similar logic to
that used by religious folk who insist that the Universe must
logically have a Creator, but don't see that their logic must apply
then to the hypothetical Creator itself.)
regards,
Chris
_____________________
Chris Lawson
claw@ozemail.com.au

artifaxi@aol.com (Artifaxi) wrote:
>Excellant post Barry,
>I don't see turning the ecodestruction system around unless there is some
>sudden catastrophic display that reaches the insulated in their disney
>world castles. Perhaps creating an informational package that demonstrates
>to the manufacturers that they will lose a hell of a lot of money if in 8
>years we have a tree die off and frantic governments outlaw private
>vehicle usage.
>Good post.
Well said!
Dell Erickson

Re.: Solar energy:
1. Accidents: If the array were placed on or near ground level (side
of dwelling) accidents should not be a problem;
2. Maintenance & leaks: My array requires approximately 1/2 hr. per
year of actual maintenance (to change the water/glychol mixture, same
as our cars' antifreeze), if a person is so inclined, which I am not
always. There are few or no leaks after the initial system is setup
and tested (based on my 15 year experience-- no leaks). To be fully
beneficial in winter, snow should be brushed off. After 15 years of
use, it is becoming less effective, probably due to the "blackness"
(heat absorption) of the panels has deteriorated and will require
maintenance;
3. Cost is the limiting factor. I estimated my system would be a net
cash saver in 11 years, but that is only because I installed it
myself. As the price of energy increases, (and those now using an
electric utility) the breakeven point will shorten. My system
performed beyond expectations-- even the gas company took notice:
first they came out and examined my meter and the following year,
probably thinking it was faulty, replaced it!
My conclusion is that solar energy is a suitable alternative energy
resource, but realistic expectations are important.
Footnote: Although conservation and alternative energy searches are
important and necessary, please keep in mind that they serve to
accomodate/promote population growth and often seem, just like any
another technological fix, a tool to mask our more profound problems.
Regards,
Dell Erickson
>briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell) wrote:
>On 11 Nov 1996 01:21:27 GMT, leana@iastate.edu (Leana R Benson) wrote:
>>Coal and nuclear energy are pollutants, pure and simple. We should work 
>>on developing alternatives to polluting our environment and save coal and 
>>nuclear energy as a last resort. Why is this such a difficult idea for 
>>some people to understand?  Would it be that much trouble and money to 
>>change to a pollution-free way of producing electricity?
>Solar energy ....
snip....

jim blair  wrote:
snip....
There is an interesting discussion along these line at
"sci.bio.ecology"
Dell Erickson

At 10:59 AM 1/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Introduce comes from the Latin which means "to lead in," but in a more active
>sense of  "to tow." 
Therefore "introduce" is appropriate! And since it is not the first time 
that
they were here, "reintroduce" is also appropriate. Unfortunately, I don't 
have
a big enough dictionary to verify that the word is used & acceptable in 
that
usage. Logic is not always the arbiter of language. Sometimes usage takes
priority. Example: "...until there was you": "ungrammatical", but 
correct!
 Thus, your argument that they were introduce earlier is
>not  valid argument.  Who was  there to introduce them?
I don't know; I wasn't there.
>To your statement that"the point is to preserve wildlife, not to make people
>feel good" is a lack of understanding of people.  Most people do not give a
>squat about endangered species.
Which is exactly why we have to focus on preserving wildlife, NOT on 
making
people feel good!!! Killing grizzlies made the people of California feel 
good,
but it wasn't right.
  When they do, it is because the endangered
>species protect something they want.  I know.  I have worked with protected
>species and habitats for over 25 years.  People only come to me when they
>want to use my expertise on  protected species to preserve something they
>want.
Then you have some kind of problem! People come to ME, to protect 
wildlife,
because they know that I value that.
>So, let us say you do introduce grizzlies into CA.  Let us say they do well.
> People will want to get into these areas and will. 
If you can predict the future, you must be rich! We humans run the world. 
We
can do whatever we want, including setting aside habitat that we choose 
not
to enter. We have many such areas, exxcept that we still allow biologists 
to
go there (e.g. the Condor Sanctuary). I hate to break it to you, but 
wildlife
can't distinguish scientists from other people!
 Or equally likely, the
>grizzlies will leave this no-human zone and expand into other human areas.
Possible, but if we can confine them in a zoo, we can make it unlikely 
that
they will wander out of their habitat. It CAN be done.
> Will you be then so arrogant as you accuse me of being to then
>remove/kill/return the wayward grizzly?  Or will your arrogance say leave the
>grizzly alone.  Let him wander into populated areas.  Any human in its way
>beware.
Yes, if they have a right to live on the planet (OF COURSE they do!), 
then
they have a right to travel, just as we do. Automobiles kill more people
than grizzlies ever did. Shouldn't we kill off all the automobiles, or 
confine
them to areas where they can't hurt our children???
>The point of my public relations argument is one has to put one's effort into
>fights one has a good chance of winning.  It does not do any good to fight
>winless battles.
That is begging the question, not a rational argument. What you are 
saying is
that Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Buddha, Christ, & others who changed the 
world
were wasting their time, since the odds were against them winning! You 
are 
saying that we should never try to do anything that looks difficult! If 
you
are merely saying that "we shouldn't try to do anything that we can't 
do", then
you are saying NOTHING. A tautology. Irrelevant.
 Unpopular is another story.  For example, the Condor
>requires similar sorts of "no-human" habitat.  The Condor recovery team
>realized this and knew that they could not set aside enough land for this,
"Realized" is the wrong word. That means that they KNEW that. Nobody 
KNOWS
that something can't be done. As the Army (?) says, "the impossible takes
a little longer". If it is impossible or impractical, then, obviously, 
all
we have to do is MAKE it possible & practical. Flying was impossible, 
until
the Wright Brothers came along. And habitat off-limits to humans was 
impossible
until I came along. I just hope you don't have much influence on 
students, or
they won't try anything new or difficult. I'm glad that whoever invented 
the
PC wasn't one of your students!
 so
>they opted to release Condors where there essentially are no people.
>
>I have fought these environmental battles for over 25 years.  Those people
>and corporations that I have had to do battle against have too much money and
>power .
Your excuses won't help. You are using the wrong technique. You have to 
change
how people think about wildlife (e.g. that they have as much right to be 
here
as we do -- actually, MORE).
>Thus, rather than getting beaten to a pulp each time, I have attemped to use
>my meager resources to fight the battles I have a chance of winning.  
That is ONE tactic, but not a very effective one. It wouldn't have helped 
any
of the people I mentioned. They didn't compromise on what is important.
>So where will this grizzly land come from?  Other than the desert which many
>think is a wasteland, there are no large tracts of "human-less" land left in
>CA.  Provide us with a viable workable alternative.  
We have NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER using eminent domain to get land for 
building
new freeways, even through the middle of Los Angeles (e.g. the Century 
Freeway)!
It should be relatively easy to do the same for relatively wild land, 
such as
the Lost Coast.
>The people will not want grizzlies in CA.  The government will not, fearing
>liability.  Funds are limited.  
It would take little funds, since  the area would require little or no 
maintenance.
Also no liability issue, since the grizzlies would not be near people, &, 
besides,
are wild. We don't indemnify people who hike in wilderness areas!
>Finally, your way of arguing a point is both to go overboard 
What does that mean?
and to be
>vindictive.  You feel the need to attack me as a teacher. 
I have no such need. I just hope you don't teach such pessimism, or you 
will
seriously stunt young people.
 When I argue about
>the negative publicity, you say that I mean certain wildlife do not have the
>right to live here.  I said no such thing.  I am simply making a true
>statement.
No, there are no "truths" regarding publicity. It is too fuzzy a subject 
to
be an exact science.
  This is a factor that must be weighed.  I feel that they
>certainly have the right to be here.  Unfortunately, that can not be any more
>in CA.  And note that you did not refute my argument.   To argue that WE have
>no right to be here is illogical.  We are part of the whole.
But look at how we got here: by killing the loacl inhabitants! There is 
no
such "right" to do that.
  Should the
>Indians leave too?  By your extremist argument, maybe we should ALL go back
>to Africa?  Then you twist what I have said to say that I support
>exterminating species.
If you aren't FOR them living here, then, logically, you are AGAINST them
living here, which implies that you don't accept that they have the right
to live here. QED
>It seems to me that you have the interest, the time, the energy and the
>passion.  But you will not gain the support you seek with your attacking
>ways.
Maybe. Maybe not. I had no problem getting people all over the world 
interested
in stopping highway construction.
  Also pick fights that you have half a chance of winning.  
Why? Why not CREATE the chance, by changing the environment (intellectual
climate). Telling people that changing ideas is hopeless is 
counterproductive.
Speak for yourself. I know that the idea of habitat off-limits to people 
is an
idea that is gaining popularity rapidly.
>Walter H. Sakai
>Professor of Biology
>Santa Monica College
Why do you insist on using private email? This kind of discussion belongs 
in
a public forum! 
---
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 <32E9BF55.24D3FAC5@alcyone.com> Erik Max Francis 
writes: 
>
>jw wrote:
>> It appeared suspiciously soon after the planet
>> cooled. Because of this, importation seems perhaps more
>> plausible than indigenous origin of life.
>What in the world makes you say that?  
The assumption here is that the origin of life
is an improbable event. It has not been reproduced,
even with deliberate effort. When people try to calculate
from known mechanisms, the odds come out immensely against it
(which is why "anthropic principle" is sometimes invoked).
Granted that other, quite unknown mechanisms may somehow
lower the odds - it is still likely to be a rare event.
An improbable event usually takes long to happen.
Yet here it happened soon. It is a puzzle.
Even with the advantages of its mechanism of heredity,
early life evolved slowly. Pre-life, lacking 
such a well-debugged mechanism, would be unstable
and fall back all the time. *If* it evolved into real life
at all, this ought to have taken very long.
If the earth was being seeded from outside, that would
be a perfect solution for the puzzle! Evolution
is slow - but contamination is fast.
>Perhaps, instead (as in fact the
>vast majority of biophysicists believe), life evolves very rapidly on
>worlds where the conditions are right.
The vast majority of biophysicists can hardly
believe anything (at least 
professionally) on totally  insufficient data.
It is not *known* how life can arise; it is 
not known *what* conditions are right for that.
But conditions for life's *survival* are known.
Life on Earth appeared approximately as soon as
*these* conditions were ready. The same happens
in a vat when a broth cools - given *contamination*, and 
not otherwise. Why not assume the same here?
>Furthermore, the panspermia theory would have to explain why the Earth
got
>seeded immediately after its formation, which is actually harder to
>explain.
Not at all: by this theory,
seeds of life would be floating and settling
on Earth continuously for a long time. 
One of the seeds would survive as soon as the conditions 
for its survival were ready.
Of course I do not know what actually happened;
but if I had to bet now, I would bet on *Martian* 
origin of terrestrial life... 

                                 LIFE ERSATZ IN ARTIFICIAL WORLD
____________________________________________________________________
        Let`s  compare  a former natural life of people and modern
life. One would think a modern man's life is a gradual increasing
substitution of real natural life to life ersatz.     A substitution
of natural impacts to artificial impacts was begun long ago.  But
natural impacts was links in chain of direct  and  back relations
between impacts to sense organs and corresponding man's reaction.
Artificial impacts suppose not direct and back relations and it leads
to sense organs deception. Does the deception is harmless?
      Environment.  It stands more and more artificial. There are in
houses various artificial unnatural materials (artificial unnatural
materials for walls,  plaster,  painting, artificial thermal
insulation, artificial climate installations,  etc.).  Artificial
materials  mimic to natural materials :  "wooden" and "flower"
wallpaper and  linoleum, artificial  plats  for furniture with
formaldehyde emission (they look as natural "wooden" plats). There are
in house and in office artificial plastic trees and flowers.  A
harmful plastic in the trees and flowers looks as useful natural trees
and flowers impressing in man's memory.
      All artificial unecological materials have an improbable
advertising of ecological clean materials.  The advertising is now an
obligatory enclosure to any harmful materials.
       Mimicry of artificial materials to natural materials  results
in sense organs deception: a man looks with pleasure at artificial
materials( for example artificial plastic flowers,  trees,  etc.)
which have natural look, color and harmful odours. He understands an
artificiality with sense of touch of unliving flowers...
     Artificial odours masking harmful emissions are used in city
environment. But  the  harmful emissions stand not healthy by
artificial pleasing additions. For example a dangerous cancerogen
synthetic resin smelled as a raspberry after of synthetic essence
addition.
     Unfortunately in  modern  city  all natural healthy influences to
man sense organs ( favorable optic  perception  of  beautiful  natural
landscapes, pleasant odour influences of rain noise and birds singing,
pleasant natural smells of forest and flowers ) are replaced by
harmful  and unpleasant artificial influences ( rectangular monotonous
faces of buildings, strong transport noise, dirty air, etc.).
         Clothes. A clothes is artificial  protection of body,  an
ersatz  of animals bellows. A primitive natural man was naked or was
dressed with narrow bandage.  A naked skin possibly was a natural
limitation of man expansion  areal.  So  far  many clothes man sorts
are working animals skins. "Nature presents".
        A multitude of artificial materials uses in modern clothes.
Clothes with use of synthetic artificial materials are unpleasant for
man skin and unhygienic. An advertising of new artificial material
escorts its appearance, but afterward its defects result in relapse to
natural materials a man uses at all times:  a flax,  a silk, a cotton,
a wool. But after a new advertising praises a new artificial material
as a healthy  material.  A mankind gone already repeatedly a way from
general admiration to full negation of new invention.  For example an
awarding of Nobel prize for DDT invention was acknowledged a mistake.
        Tailors speak a clothes hides body defects.  A man devised
"prosthesis" (a clothes) makes his body more handsome and consequently
misleads a possible sexual partner. Does it harmless? The innocent
deception in the end can influence to posterity.
       Food, medicines.  There are many ersatz in the important part
of man's life. A natural food from eco-farms (without different
additions for color,  odour, taste, conservation, etc.) now is an
exclusion. But a man was formed in natural food use conditions.  Does
a  substitution of natural food to artificial food is dangerous?  A
time and a natural selection only will answer to the question.
        There are  not now any stages of food use.  Former people went
to bed not after abundant meal( for  example  after  successful
hunting, etc.). They danced and sang long,  gave back an energy of
food.  A food energy conformed approximate to use energy.  Now people
eat  and "take part" in  dance by TV - review...  People give back
energy very little and go to bed without reserving energy use. A
natural and useful chain of impacts and man's reactions is tore.
         Former man's medicines was natural medicines,  but modern
medicines are synthetic.  An influence of synthetic medicines to man
is tasted in trend of short time less as time of natural medicine use.
A damage of any artificial medicines turn out after its long use and
people use not the medicines. But there is not a long control and we
don't know what medicines will harmful in future.
      Artificial medicines result in substitution of natural
resistance of man's organism : for example a high temperature of man
may be sometimes useful, it lead to natural death of microbes. But a
man takes an artificial medicines for temperature reduction. There is
again a natural connections break.
         Body. There are not in nature any artificial organs and
artificial  body parts.  It allows to survive and to win (for example
in fight for female) more healthy and more physical developed males.
Winners in nature  have  real  brave look.  An external look of
animals in nature misleads not usual, there are not prosthesis. And
what about man? Earlier a people also known  not  prosthetic
appliances.  Modern  people change  an external look of any body
parts,  they construct prosthetic appliances and mislead opposite sex
persons:  for example a wig  is  a prosthetic  appliance  of  bad
hair( it shows about some physical defect);a "luxurious" woman bust is
silicone prosthetic appliance of underdeveloped  organ;  a gray hair
painting is an ersatz of natural color; a skin drawing is an ersatz of
young healthy skin, etc.
         The  Negro  from book "One-storied America" (I. Ilf,  E.
Petrov) sung about his fine girl.  He recognized  after  wedding
about  artificial charms  of  his  fiancee ( an artificial wadding
bust,  a wooden foot, etc.). Alas,  a man makes already an artificial
sexual organs to get a well-deserved look,  and he misleads   his
partner. But artificial sexual organs are not limit for a man:  he
makes also artificial woman's. A man uses ersatz even in such delicate
sphere!  Does a partner deceit is inoffensive?  Let's will not  forget
genetically  changes  processes last.
         Various artificial technique.  The technique carries new
unexpected problems  in man's life.  A car and an airplane change a
method of natural man's movement. Maybe an impossibility of long
distances overcoming was  a natural obstacle against a confusion of
difference races and nations. One car or airplane kills in summer a
big quantity of insects and small animals. Does can allow the
intervention in nature?
     A man has not effective mechanisms for ground digging.  He worked
artificial mechanisms(prosthetic  appliances of absent organs) and now
he dig very big volume of ground is comparable with globe volume.
A man improves permanent prosthetic appliances of attack and mass
affection weapons.  Natural means of attack and defense (claws, tusks,
a poison,  armor,  etc.)  are  effective  only by defense or attack to
little quantity of another animals.  A nature spare all animals. A man
made very big quantity of effective weapons.  The weapons are
prosthetic appliances of absent organs(claws, tusks, a poison, etc.),
and new absent in  nature means.  The weapons conform not to
ecological surviving norms and can annihilate repeated all life.
     Art. Animals in nature dance, sing, play, emit various sounds. It
make all animals(no  selected),  there  are  not  indifferent
spectators :all sounds  and  dances  are  necessary  part  of life and
surviving. Ours ancestors danced,  sang,  played all together. There
was not special separating  artists  for dancing and singing.  Now
there are a small quantity of artists play and represent senses  in
reality  feel not. Talented artists play (deceive) by body,  face,
voice... Sense ersatz came gradual in man's life.
         Does a  sense ersatz is in natural life?  Yes,  there is a
beast's and victim's mimicry, but it is the mimicry for surviving and
for species life. Animals can not lie without important problem
decision.
       A former  man  tested  real senses conformed to external
impacts: real fear for big beast meeting,  real enjoy by food
procurement, etc. Senses ersatz was not known .  All sense organs and
all effectors reacted to danger and other impacts and a man ran from
danger,  he threw a spear to bag a food.
       Now senses conform not to impacts and to following man's
reaction (for example TV shows a thriller, senses organs react to
visual impacts and forestall effectors about actions necessity ,  but
effectors react not). Sometimes senses are unreal completely (for
example by big alcohol or narcotic use or by strong influence of
artist play in theater).
       Many performances and films show unreal life.  Great artists
use wonderful stamps  and "play" (show unreal life and show allegedly
real senses). They compel passive spectators to live a strange life
and  to experience  a strange sense.  A people lives a strange life (
ersatz of real life) and lowers their senses. A some artists play and
much spectators sit and experience.
         Many great works of well-known writers is  contrived
completely, describing people and events are unreal and artificial.
Great I. Bunin spokes all famous stories "Dark alleys" was contrived
completely.
      Sport. In  former  times every young man proved his knack and
intellect in skirmish with beast.  Every man and youth  participated
in hunting, in boxing fights,  in different power games (the
competitions was primitive sport).  Every male in nature takes part in
competition for female possession to get more viable healthy
posterity.
       There are in modern  sport  a  little  quantity  of
professional sportsman's and big quantity of spectators,  "fans"; they
take part not in competitions but experience very much.  A sense
sportsman ersatz and moving  activity ersatz accompanies a passive
sitting.  A man sits but his heart beats very fast,  his senses are
strained, adrenaline goes in good order to blood,  effectors are ready
for actions... Again a natural chain is tore.
     Modern sport includes very much artificial actions. In former
times a man ran for very important aim attainment, now he runs with
jogging;  in former times a man threw a spear for food getting,  now
he throws a spear in competitions,  etc.  An imitation of normal
activity uses  in  sport;  bicycle trainer without ride process,
running track without real movement, etc.
       Cosmetic. Wherefore used a cosmetic? There are in nature
examples of bright  colors  and  odours use for partner search and for
healthy posterity receipt.  A modern cosmetic is now a possible
partner deception  but not inoffensive deception.  A cosmetic makes
more attractive face of partner, a perfume odour can change completely
a natural odour of partner emit his glands.  All cosmetic is an
ersatz:  a lipstick is an ersatz of young and healthy lips color;  a
perfume  (for  example with  corporal  odour)  is  an ersatz of
healthy and clean body odour, etc.  The cosmetic carries hindrances in
natural process  of  suitable partner selection for more healthy
posterity receipt.      A natural odours role is very important in
man's life. If at former time a man went away from his home for long
time he took the  wife or children clothing part, their hair with
specific odour. The natural man's odour is his very important
characteristic. If a man loves a natural  woman odour they may have
favorable combination of their parameters as husbands and may have
healthy posterity. A standard odour of different  mans  and  women
excludes a possible way of healthy couples selection.
      Love. Many  animals  use in loving process a favorable change of
their look and behavior.  A lover man also has more  beautiful  look,
his eyes shine, his checks redden, etc. But a man thought out many
artificial ersatz's.  He proposes "ideal standards"  of  man  and
woman, another people  must  adapt  to the standards and ideal models.
A man must be delight with standard woman but not with real concrete
woman.
       But the  suggesting standard models are not a man or woman
ideal. Biodiversity is very important condition of life
sustainability.  Racy animals (dogs,  etc.)  and  plants are not firm
to sickness,  but wild animals and plants life is basic condition of
sustainable  development of nature.  Let's encourage a biodiversity in
mans and in women.
       Let's produce real modern situation:  A man with many
prosthetic appliances  wins  in  competition for beauty heart.  He has
thick wig, even white artificial teeth,  a beautiful color  of
artificial  eyes lenses, a young face by plastic operation, artificial
increasing muscles,  increasing penis, artificial young healthy body
odour, beautiful clothing ,  etc.  A  woman  has  in  addition  big
artificial breast, etc.(without penis).  Where will go a natural
selection?  What natural processes will touched and will go in another
unforeseen directions?
       Virtual reality. Computer virtual reality is a limit of man's
life artificiality (maybe it is a new step to increase of life
artificiality). Computer  influence to man's sense organs produces
seeming sensations in different parts of man's life - from car driving
to  sexual action. A man conceives artificial unreal sensations as a
reality, but there are not natural back connections within influences
and man's reaction. Maybe a man will pay for the sense organs error...
Thus modern life stands more and more artificial life.  It  leads turn
to  break  of direct and back connections was formed by long-term
history of humanity. A time will decide does it dangerous for a man. A
duration of  ersatz  life impact to man is insignificant in comparison
of man's development duration.
         Scientists (  American B. Nebel,  etc.) suppose there are not
arguments  to  think  a man is a peak of evolution and its end;  all
going processes of genetically changes lead to new species appearance
and  to existing species disappearance. A natural selection lasts... A
mankind existence term is very short (in  comparison  with  some
disappearing species). Does a man can to replace a real life to
artificial life?
     Does it  will  influence to man's development process?  Are we to
can to think we are individuals pulled out  long  historical  process,
and we can make everything independent of development mankind process?
Or we must mind we are chain parts and must think  also  about  future
generations and about their sustainable development?
       There is  along with artificiality life increase also a back
tendency- life ecologization.  An interest to ecological clean food,
water, clothing,  home, medicines increases constantly. Ecological
clean environment, ecological needs,  healthy city and country - it is
a way of natural healthy life getting in place of life ersatz.  Only
the way can exclude the important problem of life ersatz.
                                    Alexandr Tetior

Peter Berdeklis  writes:
>
>Forgive my ignorance on death and destruction issues, 
 You are excused, although it can be useful to be moderately informed 
 on the basics when public policy issues depend on the physics that 
 underlies a particular technology.  In this case, unlike all the neat 
 chemical explosives shown on NOVA last week, one can talk about some 
 details because you can't take the recipe and burn your house down. 
 Significant resources are required to produce a nuclear device, which 
 is why theft of weapons or components is such a concern. 
>but I thought that 
>Pu was used as an activator for a sub critical mass of U - the bullet 
>method.  Is this not the way modern nukes are built?  
 It is not even the way the original nukes were built.  Those details, 
 and even the relevant numbers, are now in several widely-available 
 publications -- including the lecture notes used at Los Alamos. 
 The "gun method" employed at Hiroshima is a pure U-235 weapon that 
 fires part of a critical mass into the other part.  Low natural 
 fission rate for U-235 is such that the assembly can be completed 
 before the explosion takes over.  Details on our weapons inventory 
 are still classified, but I doubt if more than a few of these were 
 ever built and, if they were, they were soon replaced. 
 Pu-239 has natural decay rates that make gun assembly speeds too 
 slow.  The reaction will start early and disassemble the mass before 
 it can fully ignite.  Sort of like burning gunpowder in the open 
 rather than putting it in a firecracker tube.  The "implosion" 
 method was invented to avoid this problem.  
 Your statement above sounds a bit like a description of the "initiator" 
 that supplies a burst of neutrons to be sure the fission reaction gets 
 started at the appropriate moment, but it also describes "composite" 
 weapons that used both Pu-239 and U-235.  Rhodes discusses this 
 sequence of development extensively in both of his books. 
>If so, isn't the Pu 
>the hardest stuff to get because (for the most part) it must be made in a 
>reactor?
 They are both hard to get, because you must have fairly pure 
 (the term "weapons grade" refers to the isotopic purity, a range 
 of percentages that I forget but which are described on the DOE 
 OpenNet pages) materials consisting of a single isotope.  Since 
 natural U is only 0.7% U-235, isotope separation is about as big 
 a job as chemical separation of the Pu bred in a reactor. 
 It is not an exaggeration to say that the tens of metric tons (yes, 
 you read that right) of Pu-239 and U-235 in our weapons stockpile 
 were made one atom at a time.  I think we made more U-235 than Pu, 
 and that it was a bit easier, but the physical size of the plants 
 required to separate U is impressive.  IIRC, something like 1/15 of 
 all the electrical power in the US was used for U separation at the 
 peak of production in the 1950s. 
>This is not to suggest that that was the reason that the Pu was there - 
>just a general question.
 But it is a relevant one.  For the Pu to be useful in such a context, 
 say in a composite device, it would have to be weapons grade Pu-239.  
 If it was poisoned with other Pu isotopes, it would be useless for this 
 purpose.  If not, you would still have to have kgs of weapons grade U-235 
 to construct a fission weapon using 80 g of Pu. 
 I suspect lots of people don't realize just how small this quantity 
 would be: it is only about 4 cubic centimeters, 4 sugar cubes.  This 
 is a lot for use in nuclear physics measurements, so the suggestion 
 that it was from a research reactor (and thus contaminated with other 
 isotopes) is a plausible scenario. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "They invented band!"  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  Spectator at 1997 inaugural parade
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  commenting on the Macarena done by
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  the Florida A&M; Marching 100