Subject: Re: forests
From: Don Staples
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:18:27 -0800
Will Satterthwaite wrote:
>
> In article <3287C011.2E09@livingston.net>, Don Staples
> wrote:
>
> >
> > You bet, thats why foresters are fighing to maintain what we have, rather
> > than having full support from the government, environmentalists,
> > eco-freaks and the like.
>
> And how does cutting old-growth, which you have repeatedly supported in
> regards to Headwaters Forest, maintain "what we have"?
>
Will, you need to go back and look at my comments, this is a PRIVATELY owned forest, not
subject to federal restrictions as in a national forest. As a Corporate forest, it is
managed for production, as it has for the last 100 years. The change in ownership and
one individual in the new ownership caused the watermelons to wail and rent their
clothing about the loss of the "last of the ancient forests". I support capatalism, if
you want the property, buy it. And you and I have discussed to length that the old
growth you love is a stagnant, over mature, climax mono-culture forest. It supports a
very narrow band of plant and animal species that are associated with a climax forest.
Many more species of plant and animal find a niche in sub-climax forest. I love the big
woods, but, look at them with an open eye and see a very few of the 2000 year old trees
to the acre, and look at a younger forest and see the multitude of species and heavier
number of stems per acre.
Kink of like your grandpa. Good old man, your mentor in youth, but you know his time is
limited, you can put him in the home when he becomes feeble, wire him up to keep him a
few more months or years. But he is doomed, as you are, to spend a set time on earth,
all creatures have that limit. We can preserve the big woods until we loose them one by
one, or we can regenerate those same species, and keep 'em coming up, like grand kids.
It is management, in the long run, that will leave the red woods to the future, for all
things die.
What we have is still an inperfect system, but getting better, the activists are
pointing out the loss, we point out the potential future. There is a happy median, and
both sides need to address it, not through protest of a existing corporate problem or
situation, but as the pendulum swings it always comes back to the middle, and that is
where the future is, the happy middle. To achieve that happy middle is to listen to
both sides, not the shouting from the streets, but the logical, educated discourse of
science. What we have is a long road to the future, we cannot preserve the past.
> Rather, cutting 500-2000 year old trees and in the process destroying the
> ecosystem in which they dwell destroys "what we have" for any conceivable
> time span.
>
> -will
And you still think in human life span terms, the probability is that the redwood will
be here long after man has moved on, on morphed into a logical animal. Thousands of
species have come and gone without mans presence, now more are disappearing, I would
rather preserve what we have as a young healthy forest, than an overmature climax. And
I dont buy into the argument that a planted, or in my preference, a selectively
harvested forest is less than an "ancient forest".
I get long winded, and loose the thread, too many years behind and not enough ahead, but
I leave a world, I hope, ever so slightly better than I found it. My part of it any
way.
Ruminations of an old forester.
Subject: Re: forests
From: Don Staples
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:24:02 -0800
TL ADAMS wrote:
>
> whs@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Will Satterthwaite) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Rather, cutting 500-2000 year old trees and in the process destroying the
> > ecosystem in which they dwell destroys "what we have" for any conceivable
> > time span.
> >
> >
> There are forester and there are foresters. In the Southeast U.S.,
> most timber operations are on private lands, which are second or third
> cutting. Further south, the softwood pulp comes from tree plantation.
> The century oaks that I cut are because the T.Adams of 4 generations
> ago cared enough to replant and do erosin control. The burl and white
> oaks that I cut now are replaced with the same.
A reasonable response to the long term. Well done.
>
> No responsible forester fears responsible forest managment plans.
>
No, not at all, but getting all parties to agree on "a" management plan
is a process akin to tieing the Gordian Knot.
> Now, this does not apply to those government funded S.O.B's that
> get cheap trees in the Pacific Northwest.
> Right again, with out the cheap trees (particularly those out of those
government bastards in Canada) my southern grown yellow pine would be
more valuable. with more value I could increase the management portion
of my work, and extend the life of a forest. But as it is now, the
companies are going to a shorter term rotation, to get the quick return
from the land that cheap competition has forced. As the companies go to
shorter rotations, the equipment is downsized to handle the samller
stock, so the long term management becomes less attractive to the small
private landowner. He becomes short rotation minded.
vicious cycle.
ruminations of an old forester.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry )
Date: 14 Nov 1996 01:26:42 GMT
Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
: That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
: people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
: Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
: (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
: Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
: Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
: up as a rise in the cost of "fish", or not?
Much of what you say is true, and your analysis of the
caveats involved in using price information to measure
resource scarcity are well taken.
Why, then, are the Simonites so cavalier about using
price *decreases* as evidence for resource abundance?
You can't have it both ways, and the same caveats
apply in both cases.
In fact, of course, price variations are a very *poor*
measure of abundance or sustainability. The physical
data are far more reliable. That is, the best way to
measure the abundance of fish is to count the fish.
Bo
Subject: Re: Most enviromentally-friendly way to dispose of a body after death?
From: Don Staples
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:34:09 -0800
Mark James wrote:
>
> On environmental grounds alone is burial, cremation or
> some other method best. Humans make up an awful lot
> of biomass these days, so the question may be important.
I kind of like the concept of the old sci/fi hit "Soylent Green", may not
be spelled right. Anyway, our ancesters returned the "biomass" (body) to
the land, with all due ceremony. TAdams people placed the body on a
platform, and left them to the forces of nature, mine buried them in
mounds, and left them to the forces of nature.
Subject: Re: Good news for Ethiopia
From: dagmawi@msn.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:31:07 -0600
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 14 04:09:35 1996 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 153.35.236.215 (Cust87.Max7.San-Francisco.CA.MS.UU.NET)
X-Authenticated-Sender: dagmawi@msn.com
Lines: 95
Xref: magma.Mines.EDU sci.environment:109460 soc.culture.ethiopia.misc:667
In article ,
> abg21@dial.pipex.com (Nick Hunter) wrote:
> > clangell@eskimo.com wrote::
> > Ethiopia has severe problems of deforestation and soil erosion which
> > must be addressed on a large scale, especially in view of a population
> > growth rate of about 2.5%.
> > Eighty five percent of Ethiopians live in
> > rural areas and are thus directly dependent on agriculture.
> Directly dependent in which context? All we humans are dependent on
> agriculture for food production, so that's nothing new. If you mean they
> make a living from agriculture, it should not be forgotten that many
> Ethiopians in rural areas make their living through diverse means
> including teaching, medicine, industry, construction, transport,
> engineering, trading, security, politics, entertainment, tourism, mining
> and many, many other activities. Agricultural improvements will allow
> all these interwoven activities to prosper further which is great
> environmental news, because poverty is no friend of the environment.
> > The only source of fuel is wood, which is causing an alarming
> > rate of deforestation.
> When I was in southern Ethiopia three years ago many locals were happily
> cooking with kerosene or electricity, though wood is of course more
> traditional. Gasoline and diesel were widely available in the
> medium-sized towns and none of the busy trucks, cars or buses were wood
> burning. However the horse-drawn jitneys in some towns might have had
> the occasional sideways nibble at a twig or two....
> Charcoal was for sale along the main highways in the Central Rift, and
> this was a favourite money spinner for pickup drivers to return to Addis
> Ababa with. But in southern areas where impressive thick forests occur,
> I saw little active deforestation which could be attributed to charcoal
> burning - farming perhaps, but outside the rift, little "severe problems
> of deforestation" for fuel purposes.
> > Overgrazing is also a very serious cause of soil erosion.
> Which parts of "overgrazed" Ethiopia do you refer to, and how do you
> distinguish such erosion from that caused by occasional high rainfall on
> steep slopes?
> Ethiopia is a huge country, much with substantial rich volcanic soils.
> In the 1980's about 50% of its 1.2 million sq km was permanent pasture,
> with 11% cultivated. There are huge eastern tracts towards Somalia which
> for climatic reasons do not support much in the way of farming, yet
> other parts in the south which are splendidly luxuriant. In neither the
> desert areas, nor the southern forested parts did I see overgrazing -
> rather the reverse, I thought that cattle were rather few and far
> between. Parts of the Rift Valley were subject to seasonal water supply
> problems though, and on the fringes of some small-medium sized towns you
> could see occasional erosion accelerated by human and animal foot
> traffic.
> What impressed me in the south was the incredible extent and greenness
> of the land - which I felt was quite capable of sustaining its ingenious
> people once agrarian reforms encouraged them to get back to work on it.
> The previous Mengistu regime made a real mess of agriculture. By
> ratcheting-up a system to enforce seizures based on the harvest returns
> in best years, they disincentivised small farmers which were effectively
> forced off the land. The cooperatives were not successful, due in part
> to corruption, and the land has been outstandingly underutilised in
> recent years.
> Ethiopia is a land of extraordinary contrasts, and one image I cannot
> forget (immediately south of Addis) is that of numerous hayricks of teff
> distributed across the landscape like huge loaves of bread. It was a
> vivid contrast to the starving tribespeople in Tigray that I had become
> accustomed to seeing on TV - it was like seeing a giant breadbasket.
> I am delighted to see JF Howlett (jh5765@mail.bris.ac.uk) mention that
> Ethiopia is returning to productivity in such a short time after
> Mengistu. Perhaps at last we are seeing the benefits of all the hard
> work put in by the United Nations and World Bank.
> Your statements about Ethiopia sound a bit like outdated media clichés,
> and I would like to see your data which back them up. If not, then
> perhaps other people who know the country can add more detail to the
> emerging picture - which at last sounds like long-awaited good news for
> this cultured and noble people.
=========================================================
> > clangell@eskimo.com wrote::
> > Ethiopia has severe problems of deforestation and soil erosion which
> > must be addressed on a large scale, especially in view of a population
> > growth rate of about 2.5%.
=========================================================
These problems are being addressed on a large scale --- if you visit northern Ethiopia you cannot help but be impressed at the immense amount of work that has gone into creation of terraces, bunds, small dams, refforestation..etc. This is especially evident in Tigrai and Wello which were hardest hit by famine in 1984. A person visiting the mountainous province of Wello during one of its 2 harvest seasons (yes, thats 2 rainy seasons per year) will not be able to reconcile the breathtakingly beautiful scenery with the images of famine from 1984.
The forestry department is distributing tree seedlings free or at nominal cost to all farmers throughout Ethiopia. You will thus see small Eucalyptus plantations next to rural homesteads. The farmers prefer Eucalyptus because they can use the wood in five years. The forestry department is trying to encourage the planting of other trees like the native Ethiopian Juniper or the really handsome tree called Zigba, but these take a long time to grow, so the farmers are not planting them as much. The other things that are being slowly implemented are community forestry and agroforestry.
The real tough problem is the population growth rate which is probably closer to 3 percent. This is the first year since 1990 that the farmers associations (which administer most rural land) have been instructed to resume redistribution of land to accomodate new members (those reaching 18 years of age for example). This is really the number one problem that the farmers are dreading this year because they dont know how it will turn out and if the land they currently farm will be broken into smaller pieces.
Dagmawi
(I have taken the liberty to crosspost with soc.culture.ethiopia.misc and moderated)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 00:01:04 -0700
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:45:35 GMT, jgordes@mail.snet.net wrote:
>I'll say it again since the writers in this thread don't seem to be
>aware of utility restructuring (competition) but most of your
>arguments become moot since in a competitive environment no financiers
>will invest in nuclear plants which depend upon large megawattage
>units to meet certain economies of scale which inherently builds in
>costly overcapacity.
>The future belongs to the the modular, highly
>efficient aeroderivative gas turbine (probably intercooled) capable of
>using natural gas, oil, gasified biomass or hyrdogen. The cost could
>be as low as $220/kW as opposed to a $2200 worldwide average for
>nuclear.
And $10,000 for photovoltaic.
Where nuclear makes sense (and this was where we started in this
thread) is if you need to reduce CO2 emissions. I am not convinced
that we have to, but we might. Otherwise efficient natural gas
provides the lowest known cost of energy.
I will also be interesting to see what happens with power competition,
because of the huge investment in all sorts of inefficient centralized
plants - coal, fuel oil and nuclear. If we just turn competition
loose, those facilities will go bankrupt, which will really cream the
markets. On the other hand, competition will *probably* produce much
lower prices to industry (but probabaly higher costs to consumers).
Biomass and hydrogen have been discussed in this thread. I am
skeptical of biomass because of the huge farms that might be required
(although it might be possible to farm phytoplankton by dropping iron
in the ocean). Also, biomass requires processing (such as
gassification) that has an energy cost.
Hydrogen has to come from somewhere. It is best produced by
electrolysis (I think) and then you have to produce the power for the
hydrogen, Hydrogen is most likely to be a good fuel for remote or
mobile engines and generators (such as cars - on the high likelyhood
that adequate battery technology will not be developed).
So it would seem (without serious study of biomass) that NG is the
fuel of choice.
On the other hand, all of these technologies except nuclear and
biomass are produce excess atmospheric carbon. Either we will have to
reduce this, or the environmentalists will make us do in any case.
> The financial as well as other risks are much lower for
>this versitile alternative. Why argue over what is essentially a
>closed chapter?
Again, if you followed the context, you would understand.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 23:47:03 -0700
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:25:25 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:59:26 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>'I'm sorru, but I don't understand what you are talking about. And
>what is your alternative system?'
>
>occurring more frequently. I thought I stated desirable
>characteristics (I won't define an entire system of this complexity
>here) of my preferred system rather clearly, but I'll do it once more:
>a) it should limit excessive concentration ove wealth, and b) it
>should prevent people from being without minimum resources for
>survival unless they want to be.
The I don't understand what you are talking about occurs because you
are occasionally very obscure... probably because you are operating
from a different viewpoint than I am.
"What is your alternative" is my attempt to bring the discussion onto
level ground. I tire of constantly defending my ideas from attacks
when no alternative is proposed. I find that difficult to deal with
and unfair. Stating a few goals is just not enough. If you state the
goals without the implementation, then we have no way to evaluate
whether those goals can be achieved with anything other than MY
preferred system.
Furthermore, you usually object to my views by attempting to find
contradictions in them in some wierd way mapped onto your goals.
I would love to debate the goals (like why limit excessive
concentration of wealth). I disagree with that goal, and I don't know
what "excessive"means in this context.
I agree with your goal (b).
>
>I assume we're both right - I understand you perfectly and you don't
>understand what I'm talking about.
The latter is certainly true. I don't know if you understand me
perfectly.
> If I take both our statements as
>false, i.e. I don't understand you but say I do, and you understand
>perfectly but say you don't, it still leads to me to conclude that our
>differences are unresolvable.
I am sure that there are irreconcilable differences. It has been my
observation that there are essentially two poles in this area, and
people from those poles cannot reach agreement in some areas.
> Since I don't see an end to this
>dilemma, and since I've got a number of more pressing concerns, I'll
>have to bring this to a close. I'll respond similarly to your other
>posts on these issues so there's no chance you'll miss it.
Well, that's fine. It is starting to get repetitive and a bit uncivil
on both sides.
I will say it has been an interesting discussion from my point of view
and has stimulated thoughts in the area.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 23:51:02 -0700
On Wed, 13 Nov 96 23:08:34 GMT, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <328b127a.391191002@news.primenet.com>,
> ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
>>This is where it is useful to go into the moral and
>religious
>>literature of western civilization. The morality can be
>considered
>>either a religious mandate, or a societal evolution. I
>believe it is
>>both. Up until recently, there was an american identity
>which included
>>certain moral values, regardless of what institutions those
>americans
>>were involved with.
>>
>>With the arrogant, nihilistic and hedonistic values
>"revolution" of
>>the last 30 years, we have had people suddenly feeling free
>to make up
>>their own morals. The result is the screwed up and
>degenerate society
>>we have today.
>>
>
>Amen to that! I am presently trying to raise two daughters
>(ages 5 and 2.5 years). Believe me, I am not too optimistic
>about the kind of society and world they are growing up in.
My one daughter is a freshman in college this year. It has been a hell
of a learning experience for me... like her Catholic high school that
had a one semester "religion" course that was taught by a lesbian and
the entire subject of study was why lesbianism is compatible with
Christianity!
Like the discrimination she and her white and Chinese friends faced
when applying to college!
And lots of other stuff.
I wish you luck.
>Nevertheless, I intend to hold them responsible for their
>own actions, even if the rest of the world is going totally
>crazy.
Agreed.
>
>By the time my kids are brainwashed about how terroristic it
>is to kill plants and animals (even if it is to eat them),
>and they are told how manipulative coporations and
>capitalistic economic systems are, I imagine that I will
>start looking to them like I am pretty much out of touch
>with reality.
It didn't happen with my kid. She is a social conservative and a
Catholic. Enough parental involvement seems to help to counter the
brainwashing.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 05:01:17 GMT
Michael Turton includes:
Define "efficiency" please? Is using heavily subsidized oil
and water to increase yields "efficient?" As Arnold Pacey
points out in _The Culture of Technology_, from the
yield/hectare standpoint capital-intensive farming is more
"efficient," but from the energy input/yield standpoint,
low-tech, labor intensive farming is more efficient, many
times more, in fact.
Making energy efficiency a general goal is foolish. What counts is
the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
Even yield/hectare is much less important than yield/man-hour.
American farms are typically less efficient than European in
yield/hectare and more efficient in yield/man-hour.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 05:12:44 GMT
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
>On 4 Nov 1996 14:25:02 GMT, snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
>>In article <55b9os$7bu@News2.Lakes.com>,
>>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>>[most trimmed]
>>
>>>the current model is a good model, certainly it can be improved.But
>>>the forecasts it makes are reasonable and accurate. One of the first
>>>observables the model predicted was increasing frequency and severity
>>>of storms. Which has certainly became visible in the last 5 to 10
>>>years.
>>
>>I recall reading, last summer, a short clip to the effect that the
>>number of hurricanes was actually less than (?) 40 years ago; that the
>>increased damage (but fewer lives lost) was because of the build up
>>along the coast(s). Is this correct? Does "the" model actually
>>predict more storms?
>There has been a hurricane drought for the last 30 or 40 years. We may
>be out of it now. So the increase the last several years could easily
>be just a recovery to the older, more stormy realm.
nice try at being a spin doc but you failed. As this past season was
proof as the first huuricane of the season proved.Going back to the
beginning of the century there are only 3 other cases of a hurricane
hitting the mainland that early. But the fact of the matter is
hurricanes are not the only storms to be considered.Looking back over
the past year for this location(so. Minnesota) we had record cold and
hight temps last winter, july brought a record rainfall 8 inches in 24
hrs,record high and low temps in oct along with 2 torandos in Oct a
very highly unusal event.
Subject: resume
From: "neeren"
Date: 12 Nov 1996 12:45:26 GMT
B I O - D A T A
Name : Jain Nagendra N
Date of Birth : 23 May 1969
Residential Address : 193/7414, Kannamwar Nagar - 2,
Vikhroli (E), Mumbai 400083, India.
Telephone : 5790849, 5772963 (Res.)
Educational Qualification : Biochemistry Graduate (first class) from
University of Bombay.
Professional Qualification : Post Graduate Diploma Course in Environmental
Pollution Control Technology from Bombay University.
: Diploma in Industrial Safety from Indian School of Labour Education
Madras (Govt. Recognised.)
via correspondence.
Training attended : Evaluation & Control Of Hazards In Drugs &
Pharmaceutical Industries Conducted by Central Labour Institute Bombay
from 25th to 29th Sep 1995..
First Aid Training Program conducted by St. John Ambulance (India)
Thane District Center, Thane. certified First Aid having Roll no 1656 /
1 / 5 valid till 22nd April 1997.
Experience : Working at M/s Boehringer Mannheim India Ltd.
since Nov. 1991, as Asst. Manager in Environment Department a part of
Quality Assurance Dept.
: Two months of implant training in Environmental Consultancy NEAT
(Navdeep Enviro and Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.)and has prepared the
project report for the same.
Work responsibilities : - Efficient working of Effluent Treatment Plant.
- Monitoring the different parameters of water and
air.
- Necessary maintenance & upgradation of Pollution Control
equipment.
- To obtain consent order from State Pollution Control Board for
Air and Water every year and submitting Environmental Statement
(Environmental Audit Report) to MPCB.
- To obtain consent for handling treatment & disposal of Hazardous
Chemical & Waste matters.
- Replying of different Environmental Related questionnaire coming
from Government and other voluntary organisation.
- Member of Fire Fighting and First Aid team of the company.
Additional Responsibilities : Checking of packing material , Art works,
Proofs Designing of text matters per FDA guide lines and as per
Company's guide lines. Incorporating corporate guide lines in different
stationers.
Other Activities : - Visiting Professor for Bandodkar College of
Science for the course P G Diploma in Industrial Safety &
Environmental Chemistry.
- Life member of Maharashtra Riffle Association.
- Member of British Council Library.
- Member of World Wide Fund for Nature - India.
- During my three years Degree course, I have been a N.S.S.
volunteer for two years and hold a certificate of merit for the
participating in organisation of the Career consciousness
Program Organised by University of Bombay in collaboration
with Rotary District Bombay.
- Taken part in cultural forum and was awarded second prize for
the cartoon drawing competition. - I have also been a football player.
References : A. B. Jain - Law Officer
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Municipal Market
4th Floor, Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Road
Mumbai 400 001. INDIA.
: Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Sharma - Course co ordinator
Garware Institute of Career Education & Development
University of Bombay, Vidyanagari,
Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098. INDIA.
Subject: Re: Risk Management
From: "David Prime"
Date: 14 Nov 1996 10:00:12 GMT
City Attorneys Office wrote in article
<558arv$oum@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
> We are evaluating a project using a health risk assessment. The reults
> are risk expressed as the number of excess cancer cases per million
> people for adjacent residents and for nearby workers. We need some
> comparative risk assessments to put the numbers into perspective. We
> would like to get risk numbers for many daily activities such as
> smoking, driving, eating various food products, breathing polluted air
> in areas such as Los Angeles, living in high altitude cities such as
> Denver with an increased exposure to the sun's radiation, etc..
>
> Anyone having this information, or a reference to this information, is
> asked to e-mail it to me. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Larry Smith
These are figures in Deaths per million persons taking part in an activity
per year for the UK. They derive from the 6th report of the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Health and Safety
Executatives Dicennial reports, plus the International Commission on
Radiological Protection.
Accidents UK
Activity Fatality risk D/M/Y
Radiation workers (tertiary education) 4 (putative)
Textiles 11
All manufacturing 29
Radiation workers (UK average) 44 (putative)
Chemicals and allied 50
Construction 120
Coal mining 250
Dose limit (20 mSv/y) 800 (putative)
Dose limit (50 mSv/y) 2000 (putative)
Deep sea fishing 3000
Monarch UK 10000
Troops 1st world war 62000
Disease Fatality UK
Activity Fatality risk D/M/Y
UK population (suicide) 80
Pharmacists (suicide) 630
Publicans (cirrhosis of the liver) 800
Beta napthylamine manufacture (bladder cancer) 24000
For the US, Bernard Cohen
Cohen BL Catalog of risks extended and updated Health Phys 61 3 p317-335
1991
Cause Loss of Life Expectancy - Days
Alcoholic 4000
Poverty 3750
Unmarried (male) 3500
Smoking (male) 2250
Unmarried (female) 1600
30% Overweight 1300
Army Vietnam 500
Motor Accidents 200
Murder 100
Air Pollution 80
AIDS 55
Energy Conservation 50
Spouse Smoking 50
These figures are more difficult to explain, you would need to read the
original paper. However, e.g. for alcoholics he is saying that the life
expectancy of an alcoholic is 4000 days less than the averge US citizen;
the loss of life from road accidents spread out over the US population
causes an average loss of 200 days.
Energy conservation is a bit more tricky. He considered that two main ways
energy was being conserved was by the movement to smaller cars and the
reduction in ambient artificial lighting. By analysing the statistics, you
find that you are more likely to die in an accident in a small car
resulting in greater loss of life expectancy. The reduction in ambient
lighting results in more crimes of violence with again a loss of life
expectancy.
There are many more statistics in the paper and in previous ones that are
referenced by Cohen. He gives a full description of his methods and
sources.
Dave
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: "David Prime"
Date: 14 Nov 1996 10:14:46 GMT
Bob Bruhns wrote in article
<55sq9c$6aq@linet06.li.net>...
> Somebody wrote:
> : If you want the establishment view on fatalities from Chernobyl, the
> : total dose is around 600 000 person Sv spread over 10 000 y (United
> : Nations Science Committee on the affects of atomic radiation 1993
> : report). If you then apply the dose risk estimates from...
>
> : ...all would predict around 30 000 deaths about half of
> : which would be in the territory of the former USSR.
> : However, this number of deaths will not be discernible as stated above
> : simply because so many people die of cancer. For example, over 144 000
> : people died of lung cancer in the US in 1987; compare this with 30 000
> : deaths spread over 10 000 years.
>
> Somehow, I doubt that these deaths would be spread linearly
> over 10 000 years. Where is the discussion of radioactive fallout
> components with such a life? Nuclear proponents have been deafeningly
> silent on the subject of long half-life contamination from Chernobyl.
> I guess we're supposed to think that it's no biggie if it has a half
> life of 15 or 20 years... But if so, then would the deaths not be
> concentrated in that period also? Sorry, guys, you can't have it both
> ways.
>
The 'somebody' was me. The period of 10 000 years was taken in order to
include late deaths caused by genetic effects. However, you are quite
correct in that the cancer deaths would occur after a latency period that
varies depending on the cancer. Therefore, most of the deaths will occur in
a period of 10 - 50 years after the incident. You still will be unable to
detect excess cancers because of the background rate of cancer. The
exception to this may be in local populations who received the highest
doses.
In reply to Patrick Reid, I have not any scientific evidence for a
threshold for cancer induction by radiation. I therefore take the prudent
line that there is no threshold. This is the opinion of the United Nations
Special Committee on the effects of Radiation , the Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiations Committee, the International Committee on Radiological
Protection and every government in Europe and North America. I cannot see
why anyone can be so certain that all these people are wrong.
Dave
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 10:45:36 GMT
Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
[deletions: use of the CPI to measure the price of fish]
: What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
: That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
: people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
: Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
: (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
: Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
: Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
: up as a rise in the cost of "fish", or not?
Conceptually, this should not be an increase in the price of fish,
and should not show up in the CPI. If it does, it would be
because the BLS made a mistake.
This issue is hardly confined to fish; the BLS takes great pains
to ensure that the bundle of goods is the same in both years.
The case you describe sounds very easy, compared to, say,
cars or medical care. I would be incredibly surprised
if the BLS couldn't tell the difference between Mackerel
filets and Lousiana Spice Mackerel.
Consider an example:
Boring Fish Fancy Fish
Price Quantity P Q Fish Index
1995 2 20 10 1 100
1996 2 20 9 10 98 = 100 * (2*20+9*1)/(2*20+10*1)
1997 2 20 8 20 90.5 = 98 * (2*20+8*10)/2*20+9*10)
You seem to think that the index will rise because people are buying
so much more of the expensive kind of fish. It won't. It will
fall because the fancy fish is getting cheaper.
: > The treatment of new goods is a common criticism of the CPI,
: > but the usual critique makes the opposite point from yours.
: > Expensive new goods like VCRs are introduced, but drop
: > in price rapidly: the CPI goes down because of the fall in
: > price. It doesn't go up because VCRs are more expensive
: > than TVs. (the critique is that new goods aren't
: > introduced into the CPI rapidly enough.)
: The point is not whether the CPI takes introduction
: of new goods into account, the point is that the
: change in marketing of goods may lead to price
: changes that the market is inelastic to, and hence
: the rise in (eg) fish prices may not reflect a change
: in supply or demand of the raw goods (fish), which is
: what we're arguing here, but the fact that retailed
: fish now has value added from the raw product and
: people are paying that premium for extraneous reasons.
: (eg the convenience of rapid cooking, or pre-spiced,
: or "extra fresh"). CPI would have to be incredibly
: fine-grained (and rapidly become meaningless) if everytime
: the spice blend on cod fillets was changed the basket
: of goods contributing to the CPI had to be reinitialised.
: > : > : Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
: > : > : and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
: > : > This is totally irrelevant. The CPI people check out
: > : > the price of fish in retail establishments, and
: > : > don't make any distinction between domestic and
: > : > imported.
: > : Its not irrelevant! If some fraction of the fish is
: > : imported and becomes more expensive retail because the
: > : dollar reduced in value then this does not reflect
: > : an intrinsic supply-demand response but a forcing due
: > : to completely extraneous factors
: > : If the index of fish prices changes because a currency
: > : trader is worried about Sadam Hussein's temper, this
: > : can not be argued to be representative of some supply
: > : and demand problem with fish itself.
: > Ok, granted. I misunderstood your point because you didn't
: > claim any trend in the exchange rate. And you still don't.
: > I have no idea what's happened to exchange rates over the last
: > 25 years. Maybe the increase in the price of fish is even
: > more rapid than I thought.
: Or it may be slower. Remember the US doesn't import much
: fish from Japan, so $-Yen rates are irrelevant, you'd need
: the import value weighted basked of currencies of countries
: that import fish to the US. I have no idea where the
: PP corrected value of the $ was in 1970 relative to the intervening
: years, but I do know it changed drastically at times during that
: interval.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
Department of Economics Reason"
U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: Doug Huffman
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 06:53:45
Good retort, Mr. Cooney. I was impressed by the way Mr. Bruhns, not being
able to answer Mr. Guthrie's question in a satisfying way, answered an
entirely different question. And walked away contented.
In Article<328A69CB.353A@cris.com>, writes:
> Bob Bruhns wrote:
> > B. Alan Guthrie (zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
> > : Please explain to me the gross negligence which occurred at
> > : Three-Mile Island, Unit 2, on the morning of March 28, 1979.
> > : I have asked you this question before, but you have not responded.
> >
> > Sorry, somehow I must have missed your question.
> >
> > Actually, the gross negligence occured BEFORE the disaster. My
> > recollection was wrong, about the details of the TMI event, as I
> > was surprised to discover recently. In fact I'm surprised nobody put
> > the record straight. It was NOT bungling by the on-duty operators as
> > I had believed. BUT IT WAS EVEN WORSE, it was a huge failure of
> > nuclear plant safety, from the designers down to the plant managers.
> > Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
> I recommend you take a course in risk
> analysis and discussion on safety. Stop harping on Chernobyl and TMI and
> start to build something. Incidently, what's you thought relating to
> the terrible air crash in India-yesterday. Do you want to stop all air
> flight? MJC
>
> -
> "NUCLEAR POWER is safe, clean and cost competitive and widely
> misunderstood."
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 05:20:13 GMT
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) wrote for all to see:
>>On 13 Nov 1996 03:35:12 GMT, "Mike Asher" wrote:
>>
>>>Waiting in anticipation of you stating that WSJ and Ms Efron are evil
>>>right-wing founts of disinformation. Of course, I noticed you didn't
>>>challenge any of the many other examples I provided. Instead of allowing
>>>you to metastasize the argument, I'd like to ask you for a good example of
>>>ANYTHING Ehrlich has been right about....other than butterfly counts, of
>>>course.
>>
>>Ehrlich has *always* been right about the fact that the Earth and its
>>resources are finite, a point which is not acknowledged by many
>>idiots in the anti-enviro crowd. For this reason alone, the claim
>>that Ehrlich has "never been right" is bogus.
>Good, you found something Erlich can claim credit for, he figured out
>that the Earth is finite. Congratulations. I agree. Unfortunately,
>that instance of being correct did not initiate a trend in his
>predictive capability.
>>But if you want specifics, consider his 1968 prediction: "In the 1970s
>>the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are
>>going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon
>>now." Guess what happened? About 140 million people died of
>>starvation during the 70's, and 250 million have starved to death
>>since Ehrlich first made the prediction.
>The people who died of starvation did not do so as a result of the
>food shortages to which the passage refers, however. I do not think
>that fact should be left out. The food was available, but destroyed
>by political upheavals and military conflicts. COrrect me if I am in
>error, but when I read the book I had understood Erlich to mean these
>deaths would be caused by food shortages.
oh so you deny that there has been past famines due to drought in
Africa in the past 25 years? I seem to recall numerous droughts being
reported durning that time span that lead to famines. By the way 25
years ago Africa wasn't as unstable as it is today. You also must be
in complete denial over desertification.
>>Of course, these deaths have
>>not occurred on the doorsteps of cornucopians, which is why they are
>>conveniently swept under the rug.
>Ah, a resort to name calling, and references to the deficient
>character of those in disagreement with you.
>>Numerous general statements made
>>by Ehrlich about loss of animal habitat, topsoil and groundwater have
>>also come to pass.
>If these are predictions, and they have "come to pass" and they are
>"numerous", tell us about them. I for one would be interested. I
>have read two of his books, and believed him both times. I thought I
>had observed that almost all of these did not occur, but I may be
>wrong.
>>The notion that he's "never been right" is just
>>right-wing propaganda coming from non-scientists who quote from
>>other non-scientists.
>Ah, now you question the credentials of the observers, rather than the
>observations.
>Regards, Harold
>------
>"By September 1979, all important life in the sea was extinct.
>Large areas of coastline had to be evacuated... A pretty grim
>scenario. Unfortunately were a long way into it already...based
>on projections of trends already appearing..."
> - Paul Ehrilich, Environmental Handbook, 1970, pp 174
Subject: Re: Give'em Hell, Helen!
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 14 Nov 1996 13:54:56 GMT
Don Baccus (donb@rational.com) wrote:
: In article <563ien$98g@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
: jw wrote:
: >The re-elected non-greens are like
: >that grizzly. If they caved in *now*, that would
: >be cowardly and unwise, it would only encourage
: >the eco-nazis.
: They caved in last year on their agenda. Or did you somehow
: fail to note that the much-touted rewrite of the ESA never happened?
: Nor the rewrite of NEPA and the NFMA that these folks promised would
: lead to harvest levels in our National Forests not seen in a decade?
: That the bill to make grazing the primary use of BLM rangeland (as
: opposed to a use held on a theoretically equal footing with wildlife
: and recreation as is now the case under the doctrine of multiple use)
: never hit the floor, despite being written?
: And now Bill has the line-item veto, baby!
It is just a pity this wasn't in place 2-3 years ago, so that the
salvage rider (a subversion of democracy by Congress if I ever saw one)
would never have seen daylight.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 14 Nov 1996 13:52:54 GMT
Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: > >
: > > Hehehe. Unfortunately, that is not the correct definition of carrying
: > > capacity. If you're going to create the meanings as you go along,
: > > communication becomes impossible.
: > >
: > I note:
: >
: > Actually, communication only becomes impossible when people refuse to
: > agree on definitions. You see it here all the time.
: Very true, especially when we're dealing with slippery concepts like
: 'growth' and 'standard of living'. Carrying capacity, however, has a
: clear, rigorous, definition: the asymptotic value of the controlling
: population equation. Mr. Hanson's definition of CC as "population of a
: given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without
: permanently damaging the ecosystem" is fallacious.
This must mean that a lot of population models (nonlinear ones with
temporally intermittent behaviour) will have no carrying capacity.
Right?
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Paul & Anne Ehrlich's Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 14 Nov 1996 14:10:34 GMT
John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: There is only one thing actually false in Ehrlich's story of the bet.
: Having to pay more than $500 on a $1,000 futures contract is not "a
: small sum" relative to the size of the contract. The tale is fuzzy in
: other ways than not mentioning how much Ehrlich had to pay. Of
: course, for a man who got a $350,000 prize for making repeated false
: predictions, $500 is a small sum. To mention only the false
: prediction in _The Population Bomb_ is again fuzzing up matters.
It is, actually. Futures contracts are dangerous if you don't know what
you're doing, because you can end up losing (and being liable for) much
more than the amount of the contract. That 1000 above is probably
margin on something worth more like 10,000. I don't know if the usual
margin is as high as 10-1, but for oil before the Gulf War, though, it
was usually above 5-1 and was only lowered to about 3 or 4 to 1 (8,000
per contract, price between 22 and 32, in the last two months of 1990)
because of the volatility.
If Erlich had been _badly_ wrong, he could have lost several times more
than he did. If you bought call on Jan 91 oil at 25 dollars in Sep 90
(before the doubling of the margin) and it had only dropped to 23, you
would have lost half your contract. That is miniscule compared to what
actually happened to the price. Most people lost everything and landed
in debt.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:25:39 GMT
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
to see:
>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>
>>alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>>>But if you want specifics, consider his 1968 prediction: "In the 1970s
>>>the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are
>>>going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon
>>>now." Guess what happened? About 140 million people died of
>>>starvation during the 70's, and 250 million have starved to death
>>>since Ehrlich first made the prediction.
>
>>The people who died of starvation did not do so as a result of the
>>food shortages to which the passage refers, however. I do not think
>>that fact should be left out. The food was available, but destroyed
>>by political upheavals and military conflicts. COrrect me if I am in
>>error, but when I read the book I had understood Erlich to mean these
>>deaths would be caused by food shortages.
>
>oh so you deny that there has been past famines due to drought in
>Africa in the past 25 years?
Well, let me look and see if I denied people died by drought induced
starvation... no, can't find that. Sorry.
>I seem to recall numerous droughts being
>reported durning that time span that lead to famines.
I said "The food was available, but destroyed by political upheavals
and military conflicts." That is true, do you have any evidence to
refute this, or is it your desire to just vent?
In fact, if you examine USDA records, you will find record increasing
grain production and record tons of stored grain for most of these
years. Both the US and EU have just in the last few years seen some
success in their constant efforts to reduce their grain surplus.
I will repeat, "The food was available, but destroyed by political
upheavals and military conflicts."
>By the way 25
>years ago Africa wasn't as unstable as it is today.
I know, that is what I was saying. The political upheavals have
caused the hunger, the hunger was not caused by lack of food. You
could make a case that Western powers did not care enough, and did not
send enough of the food surplus, but you cannot say the food was
unavailable, that is not true. To prove it for yourself, check the
USDA figures on the last 25 years or so for surplus grain in the US
and EU.
>You also must be
>in complete denial over desertification.
I would have to think you beleieve you need a change of subject. I am
not surprised, you appear to me to be confused over the one under
discussion.
[edited]
---Regards, Harold
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
being honest."
- Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.
"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47