Subject: Re: Greenpeace harms the environment yet again
From: zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 16:07:15 GMT
In article <55qmb1$o8k@tron.sci.fi>, Miikka Raninen wrote:
>In article <01bbcaa8$1401cf40$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher" says:
>
>>One of the most pressing modern day concerns is what to do with
>>weapons-grade plutonium from superpower stockpiles. Typically a dangerous
>>and expensive undertaking, some have proposed to 'burn' the plutonium in
>>CANDU power reactors, and derive energy while disposing of the plutonium.
>>Enter Greenpeace, though.
>
>>In a press release, Greenpeace has stated that the idea "must be stopped as
>>it will only stimulate those countries which are exploring the civilian use
>>of weapons-usable plutonium."
>
>>Greenpeace proving once again that it puts grandstanding above serious
>>efforts to improve the environment.
>
>Yet again Mike Asher is able to turn everything upsidedown...
>CANDU power reactors don't DISPOSE plutonium !
>They just use it as a fuel in a fission process where dangerous isotopes are turned
>into other dangerous isotopes. Actually the process produces more radioactive
>material because the plutonium has to be enriched first and after the fission there will
>be hundreds or even thousends (if you count the low-radiactive material) times more
>radiactive material then in the first place...
>
No, the plutonium does not need to be enriched prior to burning in a
CANDU or, for that matter, a pressurized water reactor or a boiling
water reactor.
And, no, you will not have hundreds of times more radioactive material
than in the first place. When a plutonium atom fissions, two atoms
of fission products will be produced. Now, the fission products will
most very likely be radioactive. On a molar basis, one will have twice
as many moles of radioactive materials, but on a mass basis, one will
have a slightly smaller mass of radioactive materials.
Perhaps, what our correspondent meant was that the activity (disintegrations
per minute) would be greater post-fission. This statement is true -
plutonium-239, with a half-life in excess of 24,000 years, has a
comparatively low activity level. The fission products, on the other
hand, have much shorter half-lifes and much greater activity. The
good news is that the activity (and the hazard) decays away much
faster than is the case for Pu-239. The time scales for the
fission product decay is on the order of centuries, whereas, for
Pu-239, the time scale is more on the order of 100,000 years.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | When the going gets tough,
| the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |
| E. Blackadder
Subject: Re: Rankine and Stirling engines
From: "Ross C. K. Rock"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:44:10 -0500
Tim Jebb wrote:
>
> Do power utilities use heat engines such as Rankine engines in any part
> of the power generation cycle? It seems that these technologies could
> make good use of the waste heat that can be seen drifting into the sky
> from cooling towers...
>
> If they don't, why not?
You are correct that a lot of heat is 'dumped' during the thermal
cycle associated with a power plant (over twice as much heat energy
is rejected as is produced in electricity).
Most power plants (Canadian CANDU plants included) use some form of the
Rankine cycle. It's a fundamental law of physics that you have to dump
as much heat as you do in order to get mechanical work out of a thermal
cycle. The unquestionable limit on the efficiency of an equilibrium
thermal cycle is, of course, Carnot efficiency:
[1 - (Tcold/Thot)] * 100%
Where Tcold and Thot are the absolute (Kelvin) temperatures of the hot
and cold legs of the cycle. In a CANDU, the hot leg is on the order
of 300°C (573 K), while the cold leg is on the order of 60°C (323 K).
(I don't have the EXCAT numbers in front of me)
Hence, the Carnot efficiency is 44%. We are actually getting between
28% and 30% out of our Rankine cycle, so we're somewhere between half-
and three-quarters of maximum efficiency. American and British reactors
tend to have higher efficiencies than CANDUs, however.
Anyway, as for the waste heat... unless you find an even colder sink
to use, you won't be able to set up a thermal cycle.
Nevertheless, they are using some of the waste heat at the Bruce
nuclear station to heat a greenhouse and power an alphalpha production
facility. The Bruce plant is located in south central Ontario on the
east shore of Lake Huron. In the winter, it can easily get down to
-20 to -30°C, yet they keep cranking out tomatoes (big ones, too...
please no jokes about mutant tomatoes).
Another source of leftover heat besides the heat rejected during the
Rankine cycle is found in spent fuel. However, there isn't a whole lot
of heat leftover fuel, and handling the stuff is a bit of a problem.
By the time it is easily handleable, virtually all of the decay heat
is gone.
--
o--------------------------------------------------------o
Ross C. K. Rock
Reactor Safety and Operational Analysis Dept.
Ontario Hydro, Toronto, CANADA
ross.rock@hydro.on.ca
http://www.inforamp.net/~rrock
o--------------------------------------------------------o
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca (Patrick Reid)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:15:42 GMT
[Posted to sci.energy]
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
>: >Scott Nudds wrote:
>: > The cost of avoiding waste disposal is . Don't burn the coal,
>: >don't produce nuclear waste and you don't have waste to dispose of.
>
>(Patrick Reid) wrote:
>: WRONG. To avoid all waste disposal would be outrageousely expensive,
>: since it would mean avoiding _any_ power production, even solar, which
>: involves some industrial waste.
>
> Funny, I have re-read my statement (above) several times, and I don't
>see where I state that all waste disposal should be avoided.
>
> Why are you trying to invent something that was not said Mr. Reid?
>
> It seems self evident to me that the cost of unnecessary resource
>consumption is not only lost resources, but the cost of disposing of the
>waste products produced.
>
> It also appears self evident to me that the cost of waste disposal,
>here there is no waste is precisely zero.
If you had meant to say that, the proper wording would be "The cost of
avoiding ADDITIONAL waste disposal is ." Not what you said. Your
sentence implied to me that we could avoid disposing of any waste at
zero cost, which is what I repied to. I went on to say that everyone
should try to minimize their electrical consumption.
>(Patrick Reid) wrote:
>: No one has approached the Chinese with a wind or solar or tidal or
>: geothermal plant which is cheaper than one of those three.
>
> I would advise the Chinese to ignore false choices based on false
>accounting. Minimum dollar cost is a fiction that does not reflect
>reality.
I notice that you snipped my comment pointing out your golden chance
to make your fortune by pointing out these self-evident truths to the
Chinese and getting them to purchase your design for meeting their
national power needs. As they say, "If you're so smart, why aren't you
rich?" Since China will be spending many billions in the next few
years on energy production facilities, you should be able to make a
mint.
[space added to prevent complaints about amount of reply text]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated | Voice: (506) 674-9099 |
| Saint John, NB, Canada | Fax: (506) 674-9197 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jsmolen@bcm.tmc.edu (Jim Smolen)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:25:28 GMT
jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>Your basic horseshit. Defense spending increased. Domestic
>spending not associated with entitlement programs (Social Security,
>Medicare, etc. ) decreased or stayed constant. The conservative
>Democrats in the House forced through the first two Regan Budgets.
>The situation only reached the stalemate you describe after 1986,
>when the Republicans lost the Senate.
Well, let's see what we got here. The following data were downloaded
from the Concord Coalition Homepage and are submitted for the perusal
of one and all.
Enjoy,
Jim
___________________________________________________________________
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET
Each year, the federal government publishes the Budget of the United
States
Government, a document of several hundred pages. It gives the expected
receipts and proposed outlays of the federal government for the
following
year. It also includes the Historical Tables, a collection of tables
that
summarize past budget information. This article references these
tables to
provide an introduction to the federal budget.
The following table shows the percentage of the outlays that are spent
on
each major government function. This is done for every tenth year from
1945
to 1995 in order to get some idea of how the allocation of outlays has
evolved. This does not show every short-term trend. For example, right
after World War II, around 1948, National Defense dipped briefly to
30.6
percent of outlays and Veteran Benefits, Net Interest, and
International
Affairs rose briefly to 21.7, 14.6, and 16.8 percent of outlays,
respectively. However, the table does show most long-term trends since
1945.
============================================================================
OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1945-1995
(as percent of total outlays)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERFUNCTION and Function 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE.................. 89.49 62.43 42.82 26.03 26.71
17.91
HUMAN RESOURCES
Education, training, employment,
and social services.......... 0.14 0.65 1.81 4.82 3.10
3.57
Health........................... 0.23 0.43 1.51 3.89 3.54
7.60
Medicare......................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.87 6.96
10.52
Income Security.................. 1.23 7.41 8.00 15.09 13.55
14.51
Social Security.................. 0.29 6.47 14.77 19.46 19.93
22.11
Veterans benefits and services... 0.12 6.83 4.84 4.99 2.78
2.50
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Energy........................... 0.03 0.47 0.59 0.88 0.60
0.32
Natural resources and environment 0.49 1.37 2.14 2.21 1.41
1.46
Commerce and housing credit...... -2.84 0.13 0.98 2.99 0.45
-0.95
Transportation................... 3.94 1.82 4.87 3.29 2.73
2.59
Community & regional development. 0.26 0.19 0.94 1.30 0.81
0.70
NET INTEREST...................... 3.36 7.09 7.27 6.99 13.68
15.28
OTHER FUNCTIONS
International affairs............ 2.06 3.25 4.46 2.14 1.71
1.08
General science, space & technlgy 0.12 0.11 4.93 1.20 0.91
1.10
Agriculture...................... 1.76 5.13 3.35 0.91 2.70
0.64
Administration of justice........ 0.19 0.37 0.45 0.89 0.66
1.07
General government............... 0.63 0.95 1.27 3.13 1.22
0.91
Allowances....................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
UNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS. -1.50 -5.10 -5.00 -4.09 -3.46
-2.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL OUTLAYS............ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997,
Historical Tables, table 3.1 (percentages calculated)
============================================================================
Of the twenty functions listed, the largest six made up nearly 88
percent
of outlays in 1995. In ascending order, these functions were Health
(7.6%),
Medicare (10.52%), Income Security (14.51%), Net Interest (15.28%),
National Defense (17.91%), and Social Security (22.11%). Of these six,
only
National Defense is dropping steadily as a percent of outlays. Income
Security appears to have grown rapidly until about 1975 at which point
it
stabilized. The other four functions appear to be still growing as a
percent of outlays with Health and Medicare growing most rapidly.
The next table shows the percentage composition of receipts by source
from
1945 to 1995. The leading source, Individual Income Taxes, has stayed
fairly stable at about 40 percent of receipts. Corporation Income
Taxes and
Social Insurance Taxes and Contributions appear to have pretty much
switched places.
============================================================================
PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF RECEIPTS BY SOURCE: 1945-1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Income Taxes........... 40.7 43.9 41.8 43.9 45.6
43.6
Corporation Income Taxes.......... 35.4 27.3 21.8 14.6 8.4
11.6
Social Insurance Taxes & Contrib.. 7.6 12.0 19.0 30.3 36.1
35.7
Excise Taxes...................... 13.9 14.0 12.5 5.9 4.9
4.2
Other............................. 2.4 2.8 4.9 5.4 5.0
4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL RECEIPTS........... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997,
Historical Tables, table 2.2
============================================================================
The final table shows the total federal outlays, receipts, deficits
and
debt as a percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and in billions of
dollars. As can be seen, the federal deficit (also called the
"Reported
Deficit") is simply equal to federal outlays minus federal receipts.
The
gross federal debt is the accumulation of all past deficits with one
addition. It also includes monies that are borrowed by the government
from
its own trust funds. The 1997 Budget states: "The Federal Government
accounts holding the largest amount of Federal debt securities are the
civil service and military retirement, social security, and medicare
trust
funds." Hence, the gross federal debt increases each year by the
amount of
the reported deficit plus any additional borrowing from trust funds.
============================================================================
SUMMARY OF OUTLAYS, RECEIPTS, DEFICITS, AND DEBT: 1945-1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(as percent of GDP)
TOTAL, FEDERAL OUTLAYS............ 43.7 17.8 17.6 22.0 23.9
21.7
FEDERAL RECEIPTS........... 21.3 17.0 17.4 18.5 18.5
19.3
FEDERAL DEFICIT............ 22.4 0.8 0.2 3.5 5.4
2.3
GROSS FEDERAL DEBT............... 122.7 71.3 48.0 35.9 45.8
70.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in billions of dollars)
TOTAL, FEDERAL OUTLAYS............ 92.7 68.4 118.2 332.3 946.4
1519.1
FEDERAL RECEIPTS........... 45.2 65.5 116.8 279.1 734.1
1355.2
FEDERAL DEFICIT............ 47.6 3.0 1.4 53.2 212.3
163.9
GROSS FEDERAL DEBT............... 260.1 274.4 322.3 541.9 1817.5
4921.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997,
Historical Tables, tables 1.3 and 7.1
============================================================================
As can be seen from the table, the debt reached 122.7 percent of GDP
at the
end of World War II. It's peak was 127.5 percent in 1946. From there,
it
steadily declined to 35.9 percent of GDP in 1975. It's lowest point
was
actually 33.6 percent in 1981. Since then, it has risen back up to
70.3
percent of GDP. It has continued to rise despite the fact that the
deficit
has recently declined. Hence, a stabilizing of the deficit does not
necessarily imply a stabilizing of the debt.
Hopefully, this article has succeeded in providing a brief
introduction to
the federal budget. Further information can be found by referencing
the
actual budget. For example, table 3.2 in the Historical Tables further
divides up outlays according to subfunctions. In any case, the Budget
of
the United States Government can be found in most public libraries. It
can
also be found on the World Wide Web at location
http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/index.html. The Historical Tables can be
accessed directly and downloaded in text or spreadsheet format from
location http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/histtoc.html.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:17 GMT
"sdef!" wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>I don't know if this agrees or disagrees, but It seems like work is
>irrelevant. The money you get is proportional to how important you are to the
>survival of the corporations who are now the most powerful things on the
>planet.
"The most powerful things on the planet"? Putting aside, for the
moment, earthquakes and such, I have to wonder if you have ever
bothered to look at the US government? It is a relatively rare
business with $1 billion in revenues, but a rare government agency
which has less than that to spend! The US government spends that much
every 3 or 4 hours. I remember reading, in a (UK) politican's
biography, about how they raised the price of prescription drugs 5%!
That's power unmatched by any corporation.
>For this reason nurses, for example, get about one tenth what the
>people who repair computers get.
The reason nurses get less than computer repair technicans has zero to
do with corporate power, and everything to do with the supply of
competent personnel in the two fields. I do not conceive of any
reason corporations would want to pay computer technicans more
necessarily than nurses.
Many women see nursing as a "caring" profession, and are taught they
should "care" about others, so many enter nursing. Far fewer people
are good computer techs. The same can be said for teaching, by the
way. The reason teachers are paid so little is simply because we have
so many of them.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:15 GMT
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
[deleted]
>: >If this is anything but wishful thinking, I'd like to see a pointer to a
>: >study with some serious mathematics, which takes into account the
>: >growing population as well.
>
>: You need to study demand and supply more carefully. The mathmatics
>: describing the situation can be found in most upper division economics
>: texts.
>
>I'm aware of this... and the phenomenon of overshoot and crash.
Really? In an Economics textbook? That would be interesting, which
one, may I ask?
>: Maybe it will help, if you remember that as a society's wealth grows,
>: the population increases slow down. Some demographers now are
>: wondering if the world population will ever double again.
>
>Thinking this is automatic all by itself is one of the greatest
>fallacies we could indulge.
Well, I am not sure why you would want to indulge in it, then, Though
I must admit I am fond of great fantasies, particularly Les Miserables
(the book, by the way).
The slowing of the world's population growth is not deniable, and
there have been some estimates noting that, with increasing world
wealth, population is unlikely to double again. Unlike some people's
expectation that humans increase in number until they run out of
resources, the evidence is that, for humans, as wealth increases,
reproduction decreases.
The most wealthy populations in the world are those with the lowest
birth rates, and it was the wealth that came first.
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Subject: Re: N Plant Refs Sought
From: Nick Eyre
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:22:30 +0000
In article <562iov$11f6@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK
writes
>Nick Eyre (nick@eyrenenv.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <327FEE94.3B4B@cris.com>, "Manus J. Cooney"
>: writes
>: >Bill Toman wrote:
>: >>
>: >> You asked. In shorthand, degrees in the field and 16 years in the
>: >> nuclear and electric utility industry. I am currently developing 1,200
>: >> MW of power projects in West Africa for a major US utility.
>
>: >Frankly, all my experience tells me that one "developing" a 1200MW
>: >project just couldn't affort the time. .....
>: > Enough, I tire. Good luck with your 1200mw project.
>: >
>
>: An interesting misreading. Only someone so deeply entrenched in the
>: nuclear industry and ignorant of current trends in power production
>: (especially in developing countries) could assume that 1200MW of power
>: would come from a single project. The world doesn't work like that any
>: more, Mr Cooney.
>
>That's interesting. For the various types of power generation, what
>would be the average, or "typical", size of installed capacity in MW,
>both per site and per generator (eg, a wind power site has several
>generators)? I'd be interested in hydroelectric, solar (mirrors heating
>water in pipes), oil, coal, gas, and fission.
Wind generators are around 1 MW. Max European wind farm only about 50
MW.
Hydro is increasingly being used in small sub-MW units.
Solar PV is cheapest distributed on buildings so comes in kW.
Fossil (CCGT) has a unit size of 200-300 MW.
Fission - the size typical of new build in most countries is precisely
zero!
>
>: BTW, in my home country, Britain, we found out about the costs of
>: nuclear power the painful way. The Govt tried to sell it, twice. First
>: time the financial markets wouldn't touch it. Second time the Govt kept
>: much of the liabilities in a state company and managed to sell eight
>: nuclear stations - they got less than it cost to build one. Tells its
>: own story I think.
>
>I'm surprised at how expensive it turned out to be, and find it
>difficult to believe that the entire reason should be bureaucratic
>and/or legal costs.
You can be as surprised as you like. So were all the nuclear
enthusiasts in Britain originally. The legal and bureaucratic costs of
privitisation were all met by the taxpayer, so it wasn't that. It just
is not economic. Even the privatised nuclear utility now wants to build
CCGTs!
--
Nick Eyre
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Nick Eyre
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:13:12 +0000
In article <560rll$l5h@lex.zippo.com>, "Paul F. Dietz"
writes
>Nick Eyre wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for pointing out this site. I use to work on accelerators so
>>I'll take a look. At first sight it's difficult to believe that
>>throwing extra neutrons at isotopes which are radioactive because they
>>already have too many can help much, but you never know.
>
>Sure, the isotopes in question have too many neutrons, but
>that's not the problem. The problem is that their halflives are
>too long. Most neutron-rich nuclei decay quickly. The idea here
>is to destroy the longlived ones by converting them to shortlived
>ones, which then decay. Examples:
>
> Cs135: halflife 3 Myr. Upon neutron capture, it becomes
> Cs136, halflife 13.1 days.
>
> Tc99: halflife 213 kyr. Tc100 has a halflife of 15.8 seconds.
>
> I129: halflife 16 Myr. I130 has a halflife of 12.36 hours.
>
Having read the web site, I see what they are trying to do. of course
transmuting long lived isotopes into short lived ones will increase the
short term activity many fold, but I agree that is a price worth paying
to reduce the long term activity.
Of course it is not that easy in practice as there will be other
reactions as well as capture and other isotopes will do the opposite of
what is wanted, e.g. any Xe-134 around could easily end up as Cs-135.
You just cannot control which reactions you get. (I recall my professor
as a graduate studebt comparing accelerator nuclear physics to trying to
play a mozart sonata by standing at the opposite end of a dark tunnel
from a piano and throwing bricks at it.)
>Excess neutrons are in short supply in reactors, though,
>which is why this incineration is not really practical in
>conventional reactors (especially since you want to use
>thermal neutrons for the transmutation, which depresses
>the neutron yield from fission vs. fast neutrons.)
Yes I can see why accelerators are a better option. Still as their site
readily admits there is a lot to do. Handing molten plutonium fluoride
fuel doesn't sound much fun and the post irradiation chemistry could be
much more complex than reprocessing. Good luck to them - I don't expect
commercial systems quickly. Still, as its a few ten of thousands of
years before most of the Pu-239 disappears of its own accord, time is on
their side I suppose.
--
Nick Eyre
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:24 GMT
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote for all to see:
>Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
>: > Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But things
>: > will have to get _much_ better before the price of fish falls to, say,
>: > its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two and a half times cheaper than
>: > it is today, relative to the CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish
>: > has gone up 40% faster than overall inflation. "We're running out
>: > of fish" doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
>
>: Ah, the price of _what_ fish, where?
>: Are you comparing sardines in the Bay
>: Area or salmon in London?
>
>These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
>of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
>of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
>
>Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
>From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
>rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
You might look at the season's Alaskan Salmon. There is so much some
fisherman are dumping it at the docks, since the price they are
getting won't support their families, due to the market glut.
It's so cheap partly due to salmon farming, BTW.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:21:13 -1000
John McCarthy wrote:
->
-> Scott Susin includes:
->
-> Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But
-> things will have to get _much_ better before the price of
-> fish falls to, say, its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two
-> and a half times cheaper than it is today, relative to the
-> CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish has gone up 40%
-> faster than overall inflation. "We're running out of fish"
-> doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
->
-> 1. "We're running out of fish" suggests that the absolute catch is
-> declining. It isn't. You can give it a different interpretation if
-> you like, but you will mislead people unless you include the
-> interpretation every time you make the statement.
Well John, if there is anyone who is an expert on misleading
people, it's you.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fishery Declines of more than 100,000 tons, Peak year to l992
Species Peak | Peak | 1992
Year | Catch | Catch | Decline | Change
|(. . . million tons . . )|(percent)
Pacific herring 1964 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.5 | -71
Atlantic herring 1966 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 2.6 | -63
Atlantic cod 1968 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 2.7 | -69
Southern African pilchard 1968 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 1.6 | -94
Haddock 1969 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | -80
Peruvian anchovy* 1970 | 13.1 | 5.5 | 7.6 | -58
Polar cod 1971 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.33 | -94
Cape hake 1972 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | -82
Silver hoke 1973 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 0.38 | -88
Greater yellow croaker 1974 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.16 | -80
Atlantic redfish 1976 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | -57
Cape horse mackerel 1977 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | -43
Chub mackerel 1978 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 2.5 | -74
Blue whiting 1980 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | -55
South American pilchard 1985 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | -52
Alaska pollock 1986 | 6.8 | 5.0 | 1.8 | -26
North Pacific hake 1987 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.24 | -80
Japanese pilchard 1988 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 2.9 | -54
TOTALS: | 51.48 | 21.77 | 29.71 | -58
Source FAO.
* The catch of the Peruvian anchovy hit a low of 94,000 tons
in 1994, less than one percent of the 1970 level, before
climbing up to the 1992 level.
From NET LOSS, p.p. 14-15, 1994. (Worldwatch Paper # 120)
Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036 , Tel: 202/452-1999
Fax: 202/296-7365, E-mail: wwpub@igc.apc.org
Subject: Re: Southern Dependency
From: jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 22:44:24 GMT
jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <327EB473.5D69@easynet.co.uk> "sdef!" writes:
: >A. Whitworth wrote:
SNIP...
:
: To draw this conclusion, one must vastly exaggerate the
: importance of natural resources.
:
: The mineral resources of the third, or underdeveloped,
: or backward, or poor, world, were given to it by the
: advanced West - which found the minerals, found
: the proper ways of extracting them, and found
: profitable uses for them.
Disproof by counterexample: China, India, North Africa,
the Incan empire, the Aztec empire, Thialand, Indonesian,
most of the near east, the Turkish empire... (limited only
by my willingness to go to the library and learn more.)
In short, you are an ignoramous.
josh halpern
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:40:19 -1000
John McCarthy wrote:
> Only a few of the minerals mentioned had price hikes. The five
> involved in the Ehrlich-Simon 1980-1990 bet all had price decreases.
>
> The _Limits to Growth_ model was nonsense, and experience verified what
> analysis had shown.
Paul Ehrlich was not part of the Limits to Growth team.
This is what the book was about:
===============================================================
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.
THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL
One end of the spectrum is defined by an ambitious study
published in 1972 under the title The Limits to Growth. Based on
a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by Professor Jay
Forrester at MIT, a large-scale computer model was constructed to
simulate likely future outcomes of the worldeconomy. The most
prominent feature of systems dynamics is the use of feedback
loops to explain behavior. The feedback loop is a closed path
that connects an action to its effect on the surrounding
conditions which, in turn, can influence furtheraction. As the
examples presented subsequently in this chapter demonstrate,
depending on how the relationships are described, a wide variety
of complex behavior can be described by thistechnique.
Conclusions of Pessimist Model
Three main conclusions were reached by this study. The first
suggests that within a time span of less than 100 years with no
major change in the physical, economic, or social relationships
that have traditionally governed world development, society will
run out of the nonrenewable resources on which the industrial
base depends. When the resources have been depleted, a
precipitous collapse of the economic system will result,
manifested in massive unemployment, decreased food production,
and a decline in population as the death rate soars. There is no
smooth transition, no gradual slowing down of activity; rather,
the economic system consumes successively larger amounts of the
depletable resources until they are gone. The characteristic
behavior of the system is overshoot and collapse (see Figure
1.1).
The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal approaches
to solving the individual problems will not be successful. To
demonstrate this point, the authors arbitrarily double their
estimates of the resource base and allow the model to trace out
an alternative vision based on this new higher level of
resources. In this alternative vision the collapse still occurs,
but this time it is caused by excessive pollution generated by
the increased pace of industrialization permitted by the greater
availability of resources. The authors then suggest that if the
depletable resource and pollution problems were somehow jointly
solved, population would grow unabated and the availability of
food would become the binding constraint. In this model the
removal of one limit merely causes the system to bump
subsequently into another one, usually with more dire
consequences.
As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that
overshoot and collapse can be avoided only by an immediate limit
on population and pollution, as well as a cessation of economic
growth. The portrait painted shows only two possible outcomes:
the termination of growth by self-restraint and conscious
policy—an approach that avoids the collapse—or the termination of
growth by a collision with the natural limits, resulting in
societal collapse. Thus, according to this study, one way or the
other, growth will cease. The only issue is whether the
conditions under which it will cease will be congenial or
hostile.
The Nature of the Model
Why were these conclusions reached? Clearly they depend on the
structure of the model. By identifying the characteristics that
yield these conclusions, we can examine the realism of those
characteristics.
The dominant characteristic of the model is exponential growth
coupled with fixed limits. Exponential growth in any variable
(for example, 3% per year) implies that the absolute increases in
that variable will be greater and greater each year. Furthermore,
the higher the rate of growth in resource consumption, the faster
a fixed stock of it will be exhausted. Suppose, for example,
current reserves of a resource are 100 times current use and the
supply of reserves cannot be expanded. If consumption were not
growing, this stock would last 100 years. However, if consumption
were to grow at 2% per year, the reserves would be exhausted in
55 years; and at 10%, exhaustion would occur after only 24 years.
Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
include the amount of available land and the stock of depletable
resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed relative to
the supply of land. The combination of exponential growth in
demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply, necessarily implies
that, at some point, resource supplies must be exhausted. The
extent to which those resources are essential thus creates the
conditions for collapse.
This basic structure of the model is in some ways reinforced and
in some ways tempered by the presence of numerous positive and
negative feedback loops. Positive feedback loops are those in
which secondary effects tend to reinforce the basic trend. An
example of a positive feedback loop is the process of capital
accumulation. New investment generates greater output, which,
when sold, generates profits. These profits can be used to fund
additional new investments. This example suggests a manner in
which the growth process is self-reinforcing.
Positive feedback loops may also be involved in global warming.
Scientists believe, for example, that the relationship between
emissions of methane and global warming may be described as a
positive feedback loop. Since methane is a greenhouse gas,
increases in methane emissions contribute to global warming. As
the planetary temperature rises, however, it could release
extremely large quantities of additional methane, and so on.
Human responses can intensify environmental problems. When
shortages of a commodity are imminent, for example, consumers
typically begin to hoard the commodity. Hoarding intensifies the
shortage. Similarly, people faced with shortages of food commonly
eat the seed that is the key to more plentiful food in the
future. Situations giving rise to this kind of downward spiral
are particularly troublesome.
A negative feedback loop is self-limiting rather than
self-reinforcing, as illustrated by the role of death rates in
limiting population growth in the model. As growth occurs, it
causes larger increases in industrial output, which, in turn,
cause more pollution. The increase in pollution triggers a rise
in death rates, retarding population growth. From this example it
can be seen that negative feedback loops can provide a tempering
influence on the growth process, though not necessarily a
desirable one.
Perhaps the best-known planetary-scale example of a negative
feedback is provided in a theory advanced by James Lovelock, an
English scientist. Called the Gaia hypothesis after the Greek
concept for Mother Earth, this view of the world suggests that
the earth is a living organism with a complex feedback system
that seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment.
Deviations from this optimal environment trigger natural,
nonhuman response mechanisms which restore the balance. In
essence, according to the Gaia hypothesis the planetary
environment is a self-regulating process.
The model of the world envisioned by the Gaia hypothesis is
incompatible with that envisioned by the Limits to Growth team.
Because of the dominance of positive feedback loops, coupled with
fixed limits on essential resources, the structure of the Limits
to Growth model preordains its conclusion that human activity is
on a collision course with nature. While the values assumed for
various parameters (the size of the stock of depletable
resources, for example) affect the timing of the various effects,
they do not substantially affect the nature of the outcome.
The dynamics implied by the notion of a feedback loop is helpful
in a more general sense than the specific relationships embodied
in this model. As we proceed with our investigation, the degree
to which our economic and political institutions serve to
intensify or to limit emerging environmental problems will be a
key concern.
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:55:31 GMT
Bob Falkiner (falkiner@interlog.com) wrote:
: Harry - I think you've missed the point of these postings....
Actually, Bob... I believe you are actively trying to avoid addressing
the specific point of my post.
:
: New cars are clean, and tend to stay clean because of the computerized
: controls.
This is a misconception. First, the overall design of a modern sensor/
computer equipped automobile requires maintenance skills, equipment,
and knowledge far exceeding capabilities of the average mechanic and
automobile repair establishment. Other than dealer service organizations,
which have priced their services out of the reach of a large segment of
the population, few organizations possess the technical diagnostic
capabilities required to service a modern car.
While the automobile is relatively new, the computer controls effectively
control engine operating paramater to optimize pollution minimization
while still achieving some approximation of acceptable performance.
However, as the car ages (lets say 3 years for openers), both sensor
degradation and engine operation exceed the range of correction that
the computer can achieve. (Even if it had meaningful sensor input,
which it usually doesn't at this point.)
It is a given that most mechanics cannot diagnose, yet alone correct
the above condition with any meaningful degree of accuracy. As a
result, in order to achieve an acceptable level of performance,
malfunctions sensors are much more likely to be disabled rather
than being replaced (since the mechanic likely doesn't know which
one -- of many -- is at fault...plus, likely more than one has
degraded to the point of producing erronious is not meaningless
input to the computer.)
Of course, in many instances, nothing at all will be done, and
once computer correction thresholds have been exceeded, the car
will continue in a downward spiral of declining performance and
increasing emissions until that point at which time it will either
no longer run or pass emission testing. Of course, disabling
some of the sensors and computer adjustments may prolong this
stage, but this is scarcely a scenario to be either admired or
taken as a laudable legislative goal.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have done. When we
legislate requirements that force the sale of unmaintainable
(because of their complexity) vehicles, we shoot ourselfs and
our neighbors in the foot, while magnifying profit of the auto
manufacturers.
:
: Old cars are dirty, and tend to get dirtier with age without computer
: controls.
No. Today, old cars today are primarily computer controlled cars where
the sensor and computer system is no longer maintainable and has, more
likely than not, had these components essentially disabled.
:
: 2 cycle engines are very dirty and tend to get very very dirty
:
: so.... if you own a brand new car and an old lawn mower, they are now
: about equivalent in the overall pollution equation.
Citation please. This sounds like a claim from someone that is either
incapable of or unwilling to make meaningful comparisons.
:
: or ... if you own an old van delivering things 10 hours per day, it is
: the equivalent of about 5000 new cars in a typical commuter driving
: cycle.
You're either dreaming, or confusing an old van with a typical city
operated diesel bus! :-)
:
: This is just one of many consumer beliefs that will have to be accepted
: as the typical automobile becomes so clean that it removes itself from
: the urban pollution equation. The consumer and government demand has
: been for reduced tailpipe emissions. Now that 20 years of government
: bureaucracy has been built around this, how do we declare success, even
: after that we've achieved it??
Are you joking? (If LA is the laboratory, the experiment was a decided
failure.
: This is going to be a case study in government rivalling the US space
: program!
Perhaps it's time to return to both the NASA and the automobile that
existed in 1969. Now that would be progress!
Harry C.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:26:33 GMT
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Examples of this form of coercion are to be seen everywhere.
> Automobiles designed to rust, exhaust systems designed to corrode
> away, product life cycles that are several months long that make
> replacement parts impossible to find or more expensive than
> purchasing a new unit.
> There is undoubtedly a huge market for an inexpensive car that has a
> standard and unchanging design that is intended for long life and
> simple repair. No such automobile is currently in production, and
> none is planned. The reason is not that it is impossible. The reason
> is simply because the automotive industry knows that a standard
> design for an automobile will destroy the profitable marketplace
> they have created for themselves.
Scott, why dont you design such a car?
It could be a cooperation between you, retired and young designers,
the "pirate" car spare parts industry and lots of small and medium
sized industries.
> And at the rate at which Yucca is going, it should just about be
> ready to receive waste in 3,000 to 5,000 years.
Political problems are more annoying then technical ones, its hard to
apply logical problem solving on them.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:17:46 -1000
George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
-> >-> > Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
-> >-> > include the amount of available land and the stock of
depletable
-> >-> > resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed relative to
-> >-> > the supply of land. The combination of exponential growth in
-> >-> > demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply, necessarily
implies
-> >-> > that, at some point, resource supplies must be exhausted. The
-> >-> > extent to which those resources are essential thus creates the
-> >-> > conditions for collapse.
-> >->
-> >-> Sound conclusion, based on false premises.
>
> >Please elaborate (cite sources).
>
> "the supply of food is fixed relative to the supply of land"
>
> In other words, no allowance for higher yields: the whole world's
> agricultural productivity is frozen at the level prevailing when the
> paper was written (late 1960s, early 1970s perhaps).
>
> This has been proven a very stupid assumption. Indeed, it was then.
> For sources you could start with the FAO Statistical Yearbooks.
(Since the supply of land suitable for agriculture is
decreasing, perhaps their assumption of fixed yield is
wasn't such a bad one.)
In any event, they updated and reran the model 20 years
after the first run and came up with more-or-less the
same results.
------------------------------------------------------------
"In Scenario 1 the world society proceeds along its historical
path as long as possible without major policy change. Technology
advances in agriculture, industry, and social services according
to established patterns. There is no extraordinary effort to
abate pollution or conserve resources. The simulated world tries
to bring all people through the demographic transition and into
an industrial and then post-industrial economy. This world
acquires widespread health care and birth control as the service
sector grows; it applies more agricultural inputs and gets
higher yields as the agricultural sector grows; it emits more
pollutants and demands more nonrenewable resources as the
industrial sector grows.
"The global population in Scenario 1 rises from 1.6 billion in
the simulated year 1900 to over 5 billion in the simulated
year 1990 and over 6 billion in the year 2000. Total
industrial output expands by a factor of 20 between 1900 and
1990. Between 1900 and 1990 only 20% of the earth's total
stock of nonrenewable resources is used; 80% of these
resources remain in 1990. Pollution in that simulated year has
just begun to rise noticeably. Average consumer goods per
capita in 1990 is at a value of 1968-$260 per person per year
-- a useful number to remember for comparison in future runs.
Life expectancy is increasing, services and goods per capita
are increasing, food production is increasing. But major
changes are just ahead.
"In this scenario the growth of the economy stops and reverses
because of a combination of limits. Just after the simulated
year 2000 pollution rises high enough to begin to affect
seriously the fertility of the land. (This could happen in
the 'real world' through contamination by heavy metals or
persistent chemicals, through climate change, or through
increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a diminished
ozone layer.) Land fertility has declined a total of only 5%
between 1970 and 2000, but it is degrading at 4.5% per year in
2010 and 12% per year in 2040. At the same time land erosion
increases. Total food production begins to fall after 2015.
That causes the economy to shift more investment into the
agriculture sector to maintain output. But agriculture has to
compete for investment with a resource sector that is also
beginning to sense some limits.
"In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground would
have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates. No
serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the
remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why did
this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth
increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and
2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows by
85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During the
first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century, the
rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use as
many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in the
entire century before. So many resources are used that much
more capital and energy are required to find, extract, and
refine what remains.
"As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to obtain
in this simulated world, capital is diverted to producing more
of them. That leaves less output to be invested in basic
capital growth.
"Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this is
physical investment and depreciation, not monetary). The
economy cannot stop putting its capital into the agriculture
and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity of food,
materials, and fuels would restrict production still more. So
the industrial capital plant begins to decline, taking with it
the service and agricultural sectors, which have become
dependent upon industrial inputs. For a short time the
situation is especially serious, because the population keeps
rising, due to the lags inherent in the age structure and in
the process of social adjustment. Finally population too
begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack
of food and health services." [p.p.132-134]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE Billions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |11
You are here----------------+ |10
| _ |9
| _ -|~~-_ |8
V _ -~ | ~ - _ |7
_-~ | ~ _ |6
_- ~ | ~_|5
_-~ | |4
_-~ | |3
____ ---~ Massive human die-off begins. |2
-- ~~~~~~ (GIGADEATH) |1
--|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
[P. 133, Meadows, et al., BEYOND THE LIMITS;
Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099,
603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576; ISBN 0-930031-62-8]
BEYOND THE LIMITS is an update to the Club of Rome's 1972
LIMITS TO GROWTH and is endorsed by Jan Tinbergen.
Tinbergen shared the first Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969.
[For a good history of this issue, see:
Neurath, FROM MALTHUS TO THE CLUB OF ROME AND BACK;
M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1994; ISBN 1-56324-408-X
For a detailed book about the Club of Rome itself, see:
Moll: FROM SCARCITY TO SUSTAINABILITY; Peter Lang, 1995.]
For more, see:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page5.htm
Subject: The Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:16:08 -1000
For Immediate Release
Contact: Lisa Magnino at press@islandpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betrayal of Science and Reason
Paul and Anne Ehrlich Chronicle Anti-Environmental Efforts of the
"Brownlash" in Betrayal of Science and Reason
World-renowned scientists and writers Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H.
Ehrlich have long been dedicated to educating the public and
policymakers about environmental issues. Their efforts have
greatly improved our understanding of the impact of humans on the
earth's resources and aided in the passage of environmental
protection measures. Yet, as the Ehrlichs explain in their new
book, "we and other environmental scientists find ourselves once
again struggling to preserve those gains and to keep global
environmental deterioration from escalating beyond repair."
In Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental
Rhetoric Threatens Our Future ($24.95, hardcover), the Ehrlichs
have written a hard-hitting, timely account of the backlash
against environmental policies that they label the "brownlash."
The brownlash distorts and denies mainstream scientific thinking
in an effort to roll back environmental policies in favor of
immediate economic interests. Its message is given voice most
often by individuals aligned with right-wing organizations or
private interests and is propagated in the mainstream media,
which lends it an unfortunate aura of credibility.
As the Ehrlichs explain, the brownlash succeeds in large part
because the public and policymakers alike have a limited
understanding of science and scientific procedure: "To the
average person the scientific process is a sort of black hole, an
alien world of arcane experiments, unintelligible or confusing
results, and peculiar people." Ironically, point out the
Ehrlichs, the very principles that create sound science--such as
peer review, an adversarial framework that subjects accepted
scientific knowledge to continual challenge while ensuring that
any new hypothesis is vigorously tested--create fodder for
opponents' attacks.
At the core of Betrayal of Science and Reason is a systematic
debunking of the myths advanced by the brownlash, such as:
* natural resources are superabundant, if not infinite
* risks posed by toxic substances are vastly exaggerated
* stratospheric ozone depletion is a hoax
* global warming and acid rain are not serious threats to
humanity
* there is no extinction crisis
* humanity is on the verge of abolishing hunger; food scarcity
is a local or regional problem and is not indicative of
overpopulation
* population growth does not cause environmental damage, and
may even be beneficial.
The Ehrlichs explain clearly and with scientific objectivity the
empirical findings behind these issues, presenting information
that can be used to evaluate and respond to the erroneous
information and misrepresentation put forth by the brownlash.
Betrayal of Science and Reason also examines how brownlash
rhetoric finds its way into the media, citing competition,
deadline pressures, and the emphasis upon trends and controversy
in reporting. The Ehrlichs give numerous examples in which
national news organizations were duped by brownlash rhetoric and
in which journalists sympathetic to the message of the brownlash
almost single-handedly affected public opinion.
In closing, the Ehrlichs encourage scientists to get involved in
educating the public- "if something is worth discovering, it is
worth communicating" - and the public to "get acquainted with the
issues."
Perhaps no other scientist has been the target of brownlash
rhetoric more consistently than Paul Ehrlich, who is routinely
attacked as an alarmist or doomsayer for his work on human
population issues. He is Bing Professor of Population Studies and
professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, and the
author of 30 books, including The Population Bomb. Anne H.
Ehrlich is senior research associate in biological sciences at
Stanford University and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences.
Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric
Threatens Our Future
By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
Shearwater Books/Island Press
Publication Date: October 21, 1996
320 pages, Appendices, index
Hardcover: $24.95 ISBN: 1-55963-483-9
Members of the press: please send two tearsheets of any mention of this
title to our Washington address: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW,
Suite 300. Washington, DC 20009. When providing ordering information,
please use the following: Island Press, Box 7, Dept. 2PR, Covelo, CA
95428;
800/828-1302.