Newsgroup sci.environment 109243

Directory

==============================================================================
Please post this EVERYWHERE.
(also-please remove any source addresses before passing it on it is important
that this cannot be traced to any one source)
Hard copies out soon.
==============================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------"SEA EMPRESS" TEXACO OIL TANKER DISASTER---------------
------------------------------------ONE YEAR ON-------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------10,000 SEABIRDS DEAD---------------------------
--------------------------------FISH NUMBERS HALVED---------------------------
-------------------------------ECOSYSTEMS DESTROYED---------------------------
----------------------TOTAL SPENT BY TEXACO ON CLEAN-UP: #ZERO----------------
---------------------------------NO PROSECUTIONS------------------------------
-------------------------------NOT EVEN AN APOLOGY----------------------------
                              THE TIME HAS COME TO
                                      _SHUT_
                                      _DOWN_
                                  MILFORD-HAVEN
14TH/15TH FEBRUARY 1997-FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE SEA EMPRESS HOLOCAUST.
MASSIVE DIRECT ACTION AGAINST THE OIL INDUSTRY AND MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY.
JAIL THE GUILTY- STOP THE COVER-UP- STOP ORIMULSION- CRUSH THE OIL PARASITES.
------------------------------Earth First! Profits Last!----------------------
MORE INFO NEARER THE TIME. START ORGANISING NOW. GET READY. MAKE THIS THE ONE.
                                   Lest We Forget.
===============================================================================
-- 
!!!!! - IMPORTANT - !!!!!
please change 'avage' to 'savage' in the address before replying.
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK

TL ADAMS (coltom@west.darkside.com) wrote:
: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
: 
: There is no point trying to educate you, facts when presented are
: ignored.  Truths when given are corrupted.
I see.  You were presented with the Truth by Divine Mandate, and anyone
questioning your Truths with technological discussions is an obvious
not believe and infidel.
I believe we now have you calibrated...
: 
: Having lived in L.A. (Culver City and Topanga Canyon, near the place 
: where Top. and Old Topanga splits, not far from Rocco's Pizza), I can
: state that the use of two cycle engines are very common.  Can you say
: leaf blower, 
Can you say lawn mower, which is what this thread centers on?  
Nearly all lawn mowers are powered by 4-cycle engines.  Those 
powered by 2-cycle engines are in the definite minority, and
generally of the bargain basement variety.
: 
: > : 
: > : Power plants add almost none of the VOC burden to Ozone production. 
: > : Not only are they a small source, most are located far enough away from
: > : urban sources to not take part in the VOC ozone equation.  (NOx is another
: > : matter)
Perpaps, but what about their other emissions?  (And why are you so 
pre-occupied with Ozone?)  Until recently, it wasn't even a major topic
in the discussion of atmospheric pollution.  Ever today, it is largely
only a niche consideration in very localize and VERY urbanized problem
areas.
: > 
: > What you're really saying is that since these are not near you, you 
: > really don't care that they pollute someone else...someone far away from
: > the populated urban areas.
: > 
: 
: Ozone is formed when VOC and NOx and sunlight forms some rather complicated
: chemistry.  Without a high concentration of all three, you don't get
: unacceptable levels of ozone.  It is ozone we are talking about,
: bozo.
The please exclude 98% of the USA, which are not seriously affected by
Ozone, from your proposals and discussions.
:
: NOx, SO2 and acid rain is another matter.
: 
Exactly, and where the action (except for mega-urban stinkholes) where
the focus is, and should be.
: > : 
: > : Small commercial engines are another matter.  They are run in peak ozone
: > : forming season, they are run in the ozone formation area.  If you've
: > : ever lived in an ozone non-attainment area you would know that one of
: > : the pleads that is issued is for citizens to avoid lawn equipment usuage
: > : during ozone action days.  
: > 
: > On the other hand, I would argue that such areas are so densely populated,
: > few residents really need a power mower.  
: >
: > : 
: > : Whats been required for new lawnmowers is pretty low tech stuff.  I've
: > : heard that the estimate is $25-50 dollars for a new system.  About
: > : the cost of the chainbreak on my stihl chainsaw.  A basic lawnmower 
: > : cost about $125, 
: > 
: > Funny, I can remember when the same thing was said about automobiles.
: > Anti-pollution adders for a car were estimated by their proponents as
: > costing roughly $125 (catalytic converter and blower).  As it turns
: > out, pollution control devices on a modern car cost roughly the price
: > of an engine.
: > 
: 
: Oh please, the manufactur cost of an engine is not greater than the 
: the manufactor cost of pollution control devices.
Then why not give us a basic rundown of these devices and your estimate
of their costs?  Somehow, I seriously doubt that you could even name them.
: Your arguement
: is so spurious to be laughable.  A new $20,000 car, it purchased by buying 
: repair or replacement parts, costs of S150,000 (source Click and Clack,
: NPR)  Don't spout bullshit here 
What has this discussion to do with anything?  I am stating that the 
cost of pollution control features to a new car (by the manufacturer)
is equal to the cost of the engine.
If you wish to challenge this truth, please posts some facts, not just
blather on about the retail cost of replacement parts.
: 
: > What can one conclude from estimates of this quality?  I conclude
: > that the proponents of such systems, by putting forth estimates of
: > such poor quality, label themselves as either technically incompetent
: > or simply liars.  Your choice.
: > 
: Yes, I agree that the above statement describes YOU very well.
I am at least presenting the facts.  You are presention nothing but
your emotional, religious beliefs.
: 
: Don't say that air quality in the South Coast Basin (L.A.), has not
: improved immensely over the last thirty years.  Any resident, or
: former resident will call you a damn liar for that statement.
Perhaps it takes a visitor to tell you that the air there still
stinks and is unheathful.  If you call that success, I hate to see
what it would take for you to describe it as a failure.
: 
: The CAA has brought attainment to many areas of the country.  It has
: improved the air in all non-atttainment areas.
God, motherhood, apple pie!
Try injecting some thought and reason into any following posts.
                                           Harry C.

> 	A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about. 
After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different.  The sad thing
is that these holdovers from the 60's cultural revolution are desperately
trying to find some remnant of their doom and gloom prophecies that the
public will accept.  People of their ilk who call themselves scientists
like the wackos at Natural Resources Defense Council and at Greenpeace are
determined to disrupt progress in food production and distribution so that
their predictions of "Famine 1975" will come true at some time in the
future, even if they are off by over two decades already.  Global cooling
predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have now become global warming
predictions, and most of the gibberish about other crises are about as
true and believable as Saddam Hussein's predictions of global disaster
before the Gulf war.  These people are at the end of their rope.  Let them
hang with it!
Don L. Ranck   B.S.,  Agricultural Education & Science, with Distinction
                       The Pennsylvania State University, 1970
                       Five years in development work in Northeast Brazil,
'71-'75 
                       Twenty years farming in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania
dranck@cpcnet.com

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>"sdef!"  wrote for all to see:
>[edited]
>>I remember reading in a properly refernced Womens Environmental Network briefing on 
>>chlorine that originally it was an unwanted byproduct of the extraction of sodium for 
>>weapons among other things. 
>I have no idea what elemental sodium would be used for in weapons
>production.  Does someone have a clue?
>I am pretty sure it is not required more conventional weapons, what
>could be a use for unconventional (like nuclear) weapons?
not really sure on a specific use in weapons. But considering Na2CO3,
NaHCO3 and NaOH are three compunds that would be listed in the top 25
to 50 industrial chemicals, I don't find it surprising. Since most
involves preperation for water electrolysis with Cl2 as a secondary
product.
>Regards, Harold
>-------
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).

Patrick Reid wrote:
> 
> [Posted to sci.energy]
> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> >David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
> >> the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
> >> climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
> >> chase the squirrels out of the piping.
> >>
> >> The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
> >> from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
> >>
> >>                              -dlj.
> >>
> >Replies like this won't do much for your credibility.
> 
> Actually, since the death toll for Chernobyk will brobaby never exceed
> a few hundred, Mr. Lloyd-Jones is quite likely correct.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 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 - - - - - - - - |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

PROFEESIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING ASSOCIATION
	                LECTURE SERIES
   CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS IN THE ILLINOIS UST PROGRAM"
The Illinois Underground Storage Tank program has experienced many
changes over the previous 5 years and as a result has greatly impacted
Illinois environmental products and services suppliers.  Continued
market change is assured given the upcoming 1998 regulatory changes to
the UST program.  As you are aware, the Office of the State Fire
Marshall is the agency in charge of the UST program within the state
of Illinois.  November's dinner program will discuss the current
condition of the Illinois UST program and will examine the expected
technical and financial impacts of the 1998 regulations on providers
of UST related environmental products and services.  Learning
current market trends and the projected impact of the upcoming 1998
regulatory changes to the Illinois UST program will help you chart a
survival strategy during these times of continued market uncertainty.
	                      OUR SPEAKER
Mr. James McCaslin is in charge of the Illinois Underground Storage
Tank program for the Office of the State Fire Marshall and is based in
Springfield, Illinois.
WHEN:		Thursday, November 21st
		5:30 to 6:30 P.M.   Registration and Networking
		6:30 to 8:30 P.M.   Dinner and Program
WHERE:	Kennessey's Cypress Restaurant 
		500 East Ogden Avenue 
		Hinsdale, Illinois
		(630) 323-2727
COST:		$25.00 Members with Reservations       
		$35.00 Non-Members and At-The-Door
To make your reservation either FAX to (708) 782-9710, OR e-mail to
thcg@mailzone.com the registration section of this page no later than
November 20th to PEMA .  Payment will be accepted at the door.
Cancellations on November 20th will require payment.  
Please indicate your dinner choice.
GRILLED CHICKEN BREAST            STEAK TERIYAKI 		  VEGETARIAN
Name:________________________________________________________________
Company:_____________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip:_______________________________Telephone/FAX:______________
                                       #  #  #

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.
We place the body in skins on a small platform.  What we have taken
from the mother is returned to the mother.  Ashes to Ashes, life to life.
I have grown to accept that most Europeans don't like this method.
And you need a fair amount of land for the site.  
I vote for cremation, no land usuage, no pathogen problems.

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.

Bob Fields wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                            Call for Papers
> 
>                              SAFECOMP'97
>                  The 16th International Conference on
>               Computer Safety, Reliability and Security
> 
>                         University of York, UK
>                        September 8th-10th, 1997
> 
>                                Sponsored by
>      European Workshop on Industrial Computer Systems Technical Committee 7
>                                 (EWICS TC 7)
> 
> SAFECOMP is an annual event reviewing the state of the art,
> experiences and new trends in the areas of computer safety,
> reliability and security. The conference focuses on critical computer
> applications. It is intended to form a platform for technology
> transfer between academia, industry and research institutions.
> 
> Papers are invited on all aspects of computer systems in which safety,
> reliability and security are important. Industrial sectors include,
> but are not restricted to, avionics, space industry, railway and road
> transportation, process industry, automotive industry, and
> research. Suggested topics are:
> 
>      Safety Assessment
>      Safety Guidelines, Standards and Certification
>      Formal Methods and Models
>      Industrial Applications and Experience
>      Issues of Security
>      Computers and Environmental Safety
>      The Safety Case
>      Design for Safety
>      Management and Development
>      Human Factors
>      Sociological and Legal Aspects
>      Assuring Emerging Technologies
> 
> At SAFECOMP '97 there will be the opportunity to exhibit relevant
> books, software tools and products and space will be provided for the
> display of posters. Organisations wishing to have space at the
> exhibition or display space for a poster should contact SAFECOMP'97 at
> the address below.
> 
> Important Dates and Deadlines
>         February 1, 1997:       Submission of papers
>         April 15, 1997:         Notification of acceptance
>         June 15, 1997:          Final copy of paper required
>         September 8-10, 1997:   SAFECOMP'97
> 
> How to Submit a Paper
> 
> Send five copies of full papers, clearly showing the name and mailing
> address, e-mail address, and fax number of the principal author to the
> address below. Papers should not exceed 10 pages in length. All
> submissions will be reviewed by members of the SAFECOMP International
> Programme Committee. The final camera ready paper is required after
> provisional acceptance by the International Programme Committee. Only
> previously unpublished papers may be submitted.
> 
> The following declaration should be added to the submitted proposal:
> 
>         "All necessary clearances for the publication of this paper
>         have been obtained. If accepted, the author will prepare the
>         final manuscript in time for the inclusion in the conference
>         proceedings and will present the paper at the conference."
> 
> For more information on the conference, the full call for papers, and
> submission instructions visit our world wide web site at:
> 
>         http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/safecomp-97
> 
> or contact:
> 
> Ginny Wilson
> SAFECOMP'97
> Department of Computer Science                          Tel: + 44 1904 432782
> University of York                                      Fax: + 44 1904 432708
> York, Y01 5DD, UK                       Email: safecomp-97@minster.york.ac.uk
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Fields.                                  phone:        +44 1904 433384
> Dept. of Computer Science,                   fax:          +44 1904 432767
> University of York,                          email: bob@minster.york.ac.uk
> York, Y01 5DD, UK                   http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~bob/bob.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to add news:comp.risks to your list for the conference call
for papers.
-- 
Regards, Rob Hooper, CSP				
Site Ergonomist/Safety Consultant	
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Site Risk Management			
1000 NE Circle Blvd.
Corvallis, OR 97330

  I saw a report on CNN about a woman from Earth First.  It seems a
car bomb blew her car up and seriously injured her.  I post this in
sci.env because of the environmental activity of Earth First.
  The thing is, the FBI evidently claimed that the bomb was set to go 
off from a motion trigger, and that _she_ was transporting the bomb
for terrorist purposes, and that it went off in her car by mistake.
BUT, what I saw in the CNN report indicated to me that something is
very rotten in this case.  It seems pretty clear to me that she was
the VICTIM of a terrorist car bombing, and NOT the terrorist.
1) As I understood the FBI story, the bomb was supposed to have been
   on the floor in the back where she could have seen it.  But even if
   so, how is this evidence of HER guilt?  Could it not have moved
   while she was driving?  And would it be a crime if she did not
   notice it when she got in her car to go somewhere?  Isn't she the
   VICTIM?
2) Am I supposed to believe that she would deliberately drive around
   with a live motion-triggered bomb right under her?
3) How is the investigation of this car bombing progreessing?  The FBI
   did not bring charges against her.  Have they identified the real
   bomber, or do they think she was trying to commit suicide?
  Any responsible comments?  Was there any reason to suspect her in
the first place?  Is this bombing investigation still open?  Etc.
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

In article <567ap7$ckj@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones  wrote:
>jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>I have no objection to solar energy, but I see it as enough more
>>expensive than nuclear energy that I don't expect it to become the
>>major source unless world-wide ideologically motivated stupidity comes
>>to dominate.
> 
>Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
>the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
>climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
>chase the squirrels out of the piping.
> 
>The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
>from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
> 
>                             -dlj.
> 
>

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
>to see:
>[deleted]
>>
>>unbelieveable. I haven't seen so much inventive chemsties since I was
>>a TA for a freshmen lab. By the way Beer's law for absorption is a log
>>function. Secondly the very nature of ozone(highly reactive) means
>>that any ozone produced in the lower atmo. reacts immediately and is
>>destroyed in the process.
>I am  not sure what you mean "immediately".  As a former Los Angeles
fair perhaps a better word would have been transient or short
term(week or month)
>resident, I recall that ozone is a serious health problem and was even
>occasionally reported in the TV News.  I have the thought that, if it
>was destroyed in what I define as "immediately", it would not have
>been such a problem.
partially correct. Ozone reacts with the hydrocarbons producing smog
was one of the removal reactions that I was refering to in my earlier
post. Now which is more harmful; the onreacted ozone or the smog fromn
the ozone reaction. Both are no good.
>Regards, Harold
>-------
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).

brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>felton@phoenix.princeton.edu (phil. Felton) wrote for all to see:
>>In article , jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you ascribe the Reagan era debts to Reagan and not to the
>>> Democratic congresses of the era - as we admirers of Reagan do?
>>
>>Would David Stockman's (Reagan's 1st director of the Federal Budget Office)
>>deliberate falsifying of the budget predictions be a reason?  
>First, I am delighted to see that Reagan's appointee has become a new
>guru of government finance.  I believe it was the MBO (management and
>Budget Office), by the way, not the Federal Budget Office.
>Second, I am interested if you have seen a director of the President's
>Management and Budget office who has *not* falsified budget
>predictions.  The office has always been highly politicized.  It has
thank you for admitting supply side eco. was nothing more than a pile
of shit.
>not been my impression that any of the people who occupied this office
>has ever told the whole truth about the economy.  I am a little
>surprised that anyone would advance the idea that this is even
>possible.
>[deleted]
>Regards, Harold
>-------
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>                           -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Don Ranck wrote:
> > 	A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about. 
> After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
> and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different.  The sad thing
> is that these holdovers from the 60's cultural revolution are desperately
> trying to find some remnant of their doom and gloom prophecies that the
> public will accept.  People of their ilk who call themselves scientists
> like the wackos at Natural Resources Defense Council and at Greenpeace are
> determined to disrupt progress in food production and distribution so that
> their predictions of "Famine 1975" will come true at some time in the
> future, even if they are off by over two decades already.  Global cooling
> predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have now become global warming
> predictions, and most of the gibberish about other crises are about as
> true and believable as Saddam Hussein's predictions of global disaster
> before the Gulf war.  These people are at the end of their rope.  Let them
> hang with it!
An entertaining polemic, but where is the criticism of the new book on its
merits? I guess entertaining polemics are the best you can do (note tht I
haven't said who I'm laughing at).
		Dave Braun
> 
> Don L. Ranck   B.S.,  Agricultural Education & Science, with Distinction
>                        The Pennsylvania State University, 1970
>                        Five years in development work in Northeast Brazil,
> '71-'75 
>                        Twenty years farming in Lancaster County,
> Pennsylvania
> dranck@cpcnet.com
> 
> 
> 

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!
>Your enemies are the enemies 
>of mankind. Give'em hell.
Yeah, us greenie black-helicopter pilots are a real plague, aren't
we?
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR 
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza

Dale wrote:
> 
> Rob Gray wrote:
> >
> > Mike, I disagree with you on this point. I do not believe that Mr.
> > Vandeman is extreme in his beliefs regarding mountain biking.
> 
> MikeV is presenting a view about mountain biking which is quite
> different from the views of most in this forum, and also different from
> most in society.  By definition, this makes his beliefs extreme.  Since
> you also agree with many of his beliefs about mountain biking then your
> beliefs would also have to be seen as extreme.
> 
> Dale
Consider this if you will:
I assume that we are all familiar with the bell-curve. Both the most
intelligent the least intelligent reside in the extremities. "Most in
society" should cherish the views of extremists as long as they
(collectively or individually) are capable of discerning to which
extreme the particular individual belongs.
Regards-j.

In article <01bbd002$ef605340$89d0d6cc@masher>,
Mike Asher  wrote:
>Same tactic Scott Nudds used, accuse me of fabrication.  However, the
>sources for all of Ehrlich's predictions and claims are given at the bottom
>of the post.
No, none of the references in the list at the end of you post contains
anything like any of the 3 claims you made.  Have you even read these
references?
I repeat, I believe all 3 of the claims are fabrications.    I doubt they
are yours, I expect you are just parroting someone else's fabrications.
Just are you were for malaria, DDT, asbestos etc...
To refresh your memory your claims were:
>Paul Ehrlich is a fraud and a charlatan.  He wouldn't know a scientific
>method if it bit him on the rump.   Every claim and prediction he's ever
>made has turned out to be 180 degrees out of whack.  But you like him
>because he spouts what you want to hear.   One of my favorite Ehrlich
>predictions is the one claiming US population would shrink to 22 million by
>1999 (that's three years from now).  Of course, that was after he predicted
>the starvation of 3 billion people worldwide by 1980.  And isn't he the one
>who also predicted that residual DDT (whether or not we stopped use) would
>kill all the algae in the sea, and deprive us of 40% of our oxygen?
And the (irrelevant) references you provided were:
Holdren, ]. P., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1974. Human population and the global
environment. Am. Sci. 62:282-292. 
Ehrlich, P. R., and H. A. Mooney. 1983. Extinction, substitution, and
ecosystem services. BioScience 33(4):248-254.
Ehrlich, P. R. 1986. The Machinery of Nature. Simon and Schuster.
Daily, G.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. "Population, sustainability, and Earth's
carrying capacity: a framework for estimating population sizes and
lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations."
BioScience 42: 761-71.
Meffe, G. K., A. H. Ehrlich, et al. (1993). "Human population control: The
missing agenda," Conservation Biology 7(1): 1-3.
Andrew Taylor

Nick Eyre (nick@eyrenenv.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <55l2h7$bu0@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
: >
: >In order for there to be "emissions" from a nuclear power plant, the
: >radiological hazard would have to be "emitted" into the environment, 
: >and this only happened once in the entire history of US commercial
: >nuclear power, and it caused no measurable health effects.
: >
: >So I think it's fair to say nuclear plants have "zero" emissions.
: 
: Nonsense.  All nuclear plants have routine emissions.  Go learn your
: facts before talking such nonsense.
Well Nick, I'm sure you will enlighten us with the total dose comittments 
due to "routine emissions" (I agree that plants do have such emissions) from 
nuclear power plants.  Since you're from the UK, I'll accept UK/European 
statistics.  I'm sure you have learned the facts and wouldn't post 
nonsense, right?  
tooie

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.  
Ummm...not to mention industry.  And why is industry less enthusiastic
about academic forestry than in years past?  Because academics in
the field, in places like the UW School of Forestry, have done much
of the seminal work on the ecology of forest systems that, among other
things, show the value and productivity of unmanaged forests.
Phrases like "New Forestry" (coined by Jerry Franklin of the school
mentioned above), which symbolizes academic acceptance of the notion
that traditional conversion of forests to even-aged, single-species
stands may not only be poor for conservation of our biological heritage
but for the sustainable production of timber, have pissed off industry.
For years, industry could proclaim that even-aged, single-species stands
managed for timber were more productive than the natural forest, confident
that academic foresters would back them up.  After all, these notions
came from an earlier generation of academic foresters.
No more, though.  
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR 
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza

tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>Scott Susin (ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>: If we were running out of oil, then the price of oil would be rising.
>: The price of oil is falling, so we're not running out of oil.
The amount of oil available is dependant, to a degree, on the price of
oil and the technology available.  If the price increases, previously
uneconomic pools may be developed under long term pricing contracts.
If enough of the new oil comes on, then it displaces old oil and drops
the price on the spot market.  Technology, horizontal drillng for
example, can reduce exploration and developmpent costs and increase
recovery (reduce the amount left behind in the ground) thereby
changing exploration and development projects from uneconomic to
economic under a constant commodity price.  
Then of course there is the politics of OPEC which has less to do with
reserves than deliverability - the amount that can be produced in a
given time.  There is far more deliverability than there is demand
which keeps the price down.  When deliverability is restricted by OPEC
or is predicted to drop due to political instability in a high
producing area - the price rises independant of the level of reserves.
>This isn't true, as a little contretemps between Iraq and Kuqait
>a few years ago shows. One of the many places that standard economic
>models ignore the actual reality of the world is the situation
>with petroleum and natural gas. This is not because they are energy
>resources, but because they are fluids!
>That is, if you own property with oil or gas under it, you'd better
>pump it out as quickly as you can, because the stuff doesn't care
>about property lines. So if your neighbor can tap a well into the
>same field, he'll get your share of the stuff as well as his own.
Most countries with an established petroleum industry have regulations
in place to protect against this.  Pools that straddle property lines
(mineral rights) are usually unitized so that each party owns a
portion of the whole pool equal to the proportion of the pool that
lies within their mineral rights (based on drilling, geological,
geophysical and engineering data).  One party is usually designated
operator of the whole pool and provides the infrastructure necessary
to produce the pool in an efficient manner.  One restriction is that
each party often has to prove that part of the pool exists within
their mineral rights by drilling - and the potential value of their
portion of the pool has to be high enough to justify the cost of
drilling.
>I don't want to be mistaken as friendly to Saddam, but it is nevertheless
>true that he had good reason to resent the Kuwaitis draining the
>oil field they held in common before the Iraqis could develop it
>effectively. 
These agreements are not always in place between countries (across
international borders).  But in some cases they are - such as the
disputed areas in the Timor Sea across the borders of Australia and
Indonesia.
>The same occurs on a less spectacular scale with
>private property delimitations within a country.
Not in countries with an established petroleum industry.
>As with many more obvious commons type resources, oil appears to be
>quite plentiful until very near the time where it's all used up, 
>because you get no private benefit from refraining from using your
>share - quite the contrary, your restraint is a huge competitive
>disadvantage. You don't own your inventory until you pump it up, and
>then it's quite costly and risky to hold on to it. So everyone who
>has any resources that aren't known to be confined to their property
>(a rare circumstance, I'd guess) is going to be motivated to pump
>and sell as much as possible, thus holding the price to near the
>extraction cost and failing to account for declining supplies. Thus
>steady or declining oil prices say very little about supplies one
>way or the other.
It is this motivation to pump like crazy that motivates governments to
enact unitization regulations.  Many governments also have formulae in
place governing the rates at which hydrocarbons can be produced.  This
is because production at extreme rates often results in a significant
reduction in recovery of the resource (waste). 
>I noticed this myself without reading about it anywhere, but I suspect
>it's well-known within the energy extraction industries. Can anyone
>who has some experience in that field comment?
>mt
Hope this helps!

Jay Hanson (jhanson@ilhawaii.net) wrote:
: Here is my working definition of carrying capacity:
: "Carrying capacity is the maximum load that can be exerted
:  on a life support system by a population of animals without
:  damaging the system itself.  When a population exceeds
:  carrying capacity it is known as 'overshoot'."
So if somebody, somwhere burns a single gallon of gasoline,
the system has been damaged?  You certainly imply this
below when you talk about "all technology."
It follows that you've defined carrying capacity to be zero.
: It follows that carrying capacity can not be raised by a
: technology that either results in a net draw-down of
: non-renewable resources or pollutes sinks faster than they
: can be naturally cleansed. (I think this includes nearly
: all technology.)
: Instead of actually raising carrying capacity, technology
: "temporarily" allows more animals to survive.  At some
: point, populations MUST fall to (or below) carrying
: capacity. (Populations MUST fall because of the way
: carrying capacity is defined.)
: Here is a particularly important point to remember --
:  it gets right to the heart of your question:
:  
:  CARRYING CAPACITY IS CALCULATED IN A SPECIFIC REGION
:  USING ACTUAL ANIMALS ACTING AS THEY NATURALLY DO --
:  NOT SOME  HYPOTHETICAL SET OF ANIMALS THAT MIGHT BE
:  SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ACTUAL ONES.
: In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
: now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
: Conversely, if humans actually DO manage to somehow
: change their behavior for the better, then carrying
: capacity goes up.  For example, Earth might be able
: to support 6 billion Amish.
: Jay
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> There is a substantial safety problem with the solar hot water heaters
> installed 20 years ago.
I reply:
If you want to base your opinion on what can be accomplished on 20 
year old technology, go ahead.  The demand for 'safety on roofs' by 
unions is irrelevant.  What you're telling everyone on the newsgroup 
is that your self-proclaimed foresight regarding sustainable 
resources, your faith in our ability to get trace minerals from rocks, 
fails utterly for as simple a task as a safe solar collector.  How 
impressive.

It is useless to complain about insult from Nudds and Friesel and
Mason.  They prefer flame wars to discussions of fact, as you can see
from the answers to your last post.
-- 
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.

In article <3288F7C1.13ED@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
 > 
 > Magnus writes:
 > > 
 > > Isn't David's point correct?
 > > It is dangerous to climb around on roofs, check any nearby statistics.
 > > 
 > 
 > I reply:
 > 
 > For someone who believes that modern technology and market response to 
 > need are the cures for so many social ills, it amazes me to think that 
 > he and you lack faith in the ability of some bright engineer to create 
 > implementable solar technology with a reduced risk factor if there is 
 > demand for it.  If there is no demand for safety, where is the 
 > problem?
There is a substantial safety problem with the solar hot water heaters
installed 20 years ago.  There is a demand for safety on roofs from
the unions of people who work on roofs.  Something has been done, but
there are still a lot of accidents.  Rooftop systems maintained by
householders will produce a lot more, especially if they require
regular visits to the roof.
-- 
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.

The green propaganda mills had a very effective strategy.  They rarely
argued about specific Republican proposals, but shrieked continually about
"gutting environmental protection".  One could see this on
sci.environment.  With the aid of a majority press it worked.
Gingrich is smart and may be able to work out a new strategy.
I think the Republicans should refuse to pass budget resolutions and
go back to the system of individual appropriation bills.  Then they
could simply refuse to vote money for programs they don't like.
-- 
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.

Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) wrote:
:   I saw a report on CNN about a woman from Earth First.  It seems a
: car bomb blew her car up and seriously injured her.  I post this in
: sci.env because of the environmental activity of Earth First.
Is this the event from a year or so ago or is it something new?
tooie

Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) wrote:
:   I saw a report on CNN about a woman from Earth First.  It seems a
: car bomb blew her car up and seriously injured her.  I post this in
: sci.env because of the environmental activity of Earth First.
Is this the event from a year or so ago or is it something new?
tooie

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> There is a substantial safety problem with the solar hot water heaters
> installed 20 years ago.
I reply:
If you want to base your opinion on what can be accomplished on 20 
year old technology, go ahead.  The demand for 'safety on roofs' by 
unions is irrelevant.  What you're telling everyone on the newsgroup 
is that your self-proclaimed foresight regarding sustainable 
resources, your faith in our ability to get trace minerals from rocks, 
fails utterly for as simple a task as a safe solar collector.

You, the man who propagates misinformation by choice, write:
> 
> It is useless to complain about insult from Nudds and Friesel and
> Mason.  They prefer flame wars to discussions of fact, as you can see
> from the answers to your last post.
> --
...and by so doing wastes more of others' time.  One might expect you 
to follow your own advice and quit complaining, but you've always 
proven incapable keeping your mouth shut.

CoastWatch@ecolink.avcnet.org (Ron Huber) writes:
>REQUEST FOR INFO: MARINE fISHERY rESERVES
>I am looking for information about Marine Fishery Reserves, also
>known as Non-Extractive Reserves (NERs).  These are areas of
>marine or estuarine habitat where commercial and recreational
>fishing is partially or completely banned. I have heard that
>Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have designated certain
>areas of their coastal waters as Marine Fishery Reserves, but
>have not been able to obtain any details.
In a recent newsletter the Marine & Coastal Community Network says they 
have copies available of Dr. Bill Ballantine's recent papers on how 
no-take areas benefit fisheries. Available through the Network on 
+61 3 9650 4846 or Tim Allen at mccnvic@peg.apc.org
Yrs,
Jon

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>
>It -- like anything known in science -- is a theory.  A theory well
>corroborated by the evidence.
>
No it isn't.  The theories of Molina and Rowland were for global
stratospheric ozone depletion from CFCs so slight that it can not be
measured.  On the order of one tenth of one percent per year.  This is many
orders of magnitude less than the *natural* variability of the ozone layer.
Molina and Rowland did *not* predict the increase in the seasonal Antarctic
ozone depletion. That turns out to requires PSCs and a polar vortex, which
occur nowhere except Antarctica and sometimes the Arctic.
Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com
------------------------------------------------------------
"What you have to understand, is that this is about money.  If there were
 no dollars attached to this game, you'd see it played in a very different 
 way.  It would be played on intellect and integrity.  When you say the 
 ozone threat is a scam, you're not only attacking people's scientific 
 integrity, you're going after their pocketbook as well.  It's money, 
 purely money." 
 - Melvyn Shapiro, Chief Meteorologist, NOAA - Boulder
   Insight Magazine, April 6, 1992  -
------------------------------------------------------------

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> Fact is, volcanic injections of chlorine into the stratosphere
>are insignificant compared to chlorine from CFCs.
False.  Only recent volcanic eruptions have resulted in relatively small
amounts of chlorine being injected into the stratosphere.  And eruptions
such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, while not containing much chlorine, had an
effect on the stratospheric ozone layer orders of magnitude greater than
CFCs could ever hope to have.
Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com

Here's one for you:
Prince Phillip of Great Britian: "If I were to be reincarnated, I would 
wish to return as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Andrew Russell
arussell@bix.com

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> Isn't David's point correct?
>> It is dangerous to climb around on roofs, check any nearby statistics.
>> 
>I reply:
>For someone who believes that modern technology and market response to 
>need are the cures for so many social ills, it amazes me to think that 
>he and you lack faith in the ability of some bright engineer to create 
>implementable solar technology with a reduced risk factor if there is 
>demand for it.  If there is no demand for safety, where is the 
>problem?
BTW, the dangers of working in high places, with rotating machinery,
has made the death rate for wind-generated power in the US similar
to (the occupational death rate for) coal-generated power.
	Paul
     Paul Dietz
     dietz@interaccess.com
     "If you think even briefly about what the Federal
      budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately
      realize that we are drifting inexorably toward a
      crisis"
        -- Paul Krugman, in the NY Times Book Review

Mike Vandeman  wrote:
>
> John A. Grossbohlin wrote:
> > I've carried handguns as large as .44 magnums on a belt holster while
> > off road bicycling with the intent of shooting deer during the season.
> > Under those conditions I wear my hunting tags. I can get it deep
> > quietly and quickly with the bicycle and have enjoyed little hunting
> > competition as a result.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point: the damage that bikes in the wilderness do
> is as much or more in MAKING ACCESS EASIER, than in ripping up the ground.
Hey, lots of hunters use ATVs with gunracks to get into the bush faster.

In article <32889C11.6C6F@ilhawaii.net>,
   Jay Hanson  wrote:
>charliew wrote:
>
>> you're taking up a lot of bandwidth with this crap.  
We've
>> all had ample opportunity to learn of your opinion about 
the
>> connection between entropy and food production.  Many of 
us
>> are not convinced, no matter how many times you post your
>> same senseless, extremely long document.
>
>charliew, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANYTHING I WRITE!
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>          PLEASE PUT ME IN YOUR KILLFILE!
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
No.  Your posts are intended for the 6 legged insects like 
yourself!
>
>I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
>
>That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
>
>Jay
Jay, read my post!  Entropy doesn't amount to a hill of 
beans relative to food production.  If you keep saying this 
often enough, you might start changing your mind.

In article <328859f9.9574361@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
   masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:33 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David 
Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>
>> Jay Hanson  wrote:
>> 
>> >My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
>> 
>> Jay, 
>> 
>> You owe jw -- and everybody else in this newsgroup -- an 
apology.  You
>> have no right to post this level of insult in this space. 
 You have
>> gone out of bounds.
>>  
>>                                  -dlj.
>
>From dlj, the master of insult: this?   Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, 
ha
>
I'll have to send some of you guys a sense of humor for 
Christmas!  Gee, some of you take yourselves *SO* seriously.

Sydney has a similar problem. The primary treatment plants are not suitable 
for the large quantities of influent. I work on a project in Queensland devoted 
towards Solid waste management. Our research revolves around the 
anaerobic degredation of MSW, which we initially started using raw sewage.
Another area we are looking at is the aerobic degredation of waste using 
worms. I'm not sure if i have really helped you, however if you wish to find 
out more, feel free to mail me.
Jeff
Jeff Hannam B Applied Science (Applied Chemistry)
CRC for Solid Waste Management and Pollution Control
Department of Chemical Engineering
The University Of Queensland
St. Lucia 4072
Ph  07 3365 4122 International 61 73365 4122
Fax 07 3365 4199 International 61 73365 4199
Jennifer Mills wrote:
> 
> I am doing a project on the condition of the St. John's Harbour in
> Newfoundland where I live.  Our harbour which is history known for
> it's stratigic location is in major trouble.  Approximatly 120 million
> litres of raw sewage and stormwater run off is dumped into our harbour
> everyday.
> 
> I am reasearching different methods of wastewater treatment and I am
> very interested in "Solar Aquatic Wastewater treatment".  The idea of
> using plants, fish, snails and bacteria to break down the sewage is
> very interesting.
> 
> I would like to know more about this and other methods of treatment.
> If anyone has a thought on this or can point me in the right direction
> for more information it would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jennifer

In article <32889C11.6C6F@ilhawaii.net>,
   Jay Hanson  wrote:
>My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
>
>That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
>
>Jay
At least you spelled "kennel" properly.

masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:33 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>> Jay Hanson  wrote:
>> >My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
>> Jay, 
>> You owe jw -- and everybody else in this newsgroup -- an apology.  You
>> have no right to post this level of insult in this space.  You have
>> gone out of bounds.
>
>From dlj, the master of insult: this?   Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
>
Mason,
You've tried this on before, and I challenge you now, as then: where
have I insulted people?  
Of my writings the things that strike you as insulting are things like
the above: "Jay owes jw an apology."  This is indeed a strongly
condemnatory judgement, but it is not an insult.
In somewhat the same vein I often ridicule positions, identify lies,
and laugh at self-contradictions.  Again, none of these are insults.
                                   -dlj.