Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:54:40 GMT
Scott Nudds (af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: (Tooie) wrote:
: : I find it interesting that Dudds would (or has) dismiss claims from
: : others (global warming, etc.) based upon the fact that their source was a
: : lone individual going against the "mainstream" consensus but is eager to
: : trot them out when it serves his purpose.
:
: First let me say that I am pleased to see Tooie finally admit that
: those who oppose global warming are in the minority, and oppose the
: consensus view among scientists.
When have any stated otherwise?
: Let me also state that by Tooie's form of conspiratorialist logic, the
: west can not be trusted to honestly estimate the depth of the Chornobyl
: tragedy since they are being asked to help pay for repairs. The more
: they can minimize the damage done, the less they will need to pay the
: victims.
Specious reasoning at best Dudds. My point is that given reaserch done
by a large diverse group and an individual I would tend to go with the
group barring any other factors. Using your jibberish, we can not trust
the locals since they have a vested interest in getting our money.
Beaten by your logic (I use the term loosely)
: Fortunately, I am not a conservative, so I will not resort to the
: invention of lunatic conspiracy theories.
But Dudds, in another post you accuse the nuclear industry of coverups
and murder, sounds like "the invention of lunatic conspiracyy theories".
: Tooie, does however ignore the fact that radiation levels received by
: the tens of thousands of liquidators who stabilized the site, were never
: adequately recorded. The same can be said for the population
: surrounding the reactor.
Is there a point here?
: Personally, I trust scientists who live in the area more than I trust
: american propagandists.
Dudds shows his inherent bias yet again by claiming that the OECD is
american puppet. Oops, more "lunatic conspiracy theories"
: (Tooie) wrote:
: : Gee, *Ukranian ambassador*, sounds like a politician.
:
: Like most conservatives, Tooie's hate dominates his thinking pattern.
Flailing about Dudds diplays his ignorance by assuming I am a
conservative and then proceeds to tell me how I must think based upon his
faulty reasoning. Dudds must have neglected to accompany me to voting
booth on Nov. 5 to check ballot.
Like most of Dudds posts - when confronted by facts/reasons, sidetsep the
issue, construct faulty arguements, and as a last resort, call your
opponent a conservative (mentioning hate or death).
A month or so ago there was a thread about Dudds and someone called for
killfiling the misfit and then said that supporters of Dudds flooded his
mailbox with support. I am genuinely interested in seeing the depth of
support Dudds has on sci.* (e-mail or posted, I don't care)
tooie
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:25:20 -0700
Mike Asher writes:
>
> The difference between GNP and GDP concerns ownership of production
> sources. GNP adds good produced outside the country if produced by a
> domestic entity, and excludes domestic goods produced by foreign-owned
> entities. GDP reverses this.
>
> They have different uses surely; GNP is a more accurate indicator of total
> affluence, while GDP better reflects internal productivity. GNP is falling
> out of favor for political reasons, among others. A Japanese conglomerate,
> producing autos in the US and employing union workers is seen as better for
> the country than Intel raking in profits on overseas chip production.
>
> In any case, something as ubiquitious as IS technology would be expected to
> affect both similarly; a particular choice becomes a personal matter.
I reply:
According to the U.S. News, the GDP 'essentially totals up the final
purchases in every sector of the economy. Essentially the more
Americans spend, the better their lives are getting.' Certainly a
rather non-technical definition. The article goes on to say 'Consumer
electronics has been a major growth sector, for example, skipping
along at 23%. Even though most boomboxes, video games, and the like
are made abroad, they still contribute mightily to the retail
market,...'. We can add to that children's toys and games, sprinkler
heads, air matresses, & etc. By the way, we can add a tape player
made in China to my earlier list of foreign made products which have
failed or contained design flaws.
Subject: Re: Stone Age Economics - part two
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 03:43:49 GMT
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
>: Mark Friesel includes:
>: > I will believe it when I see sdef! abandon his computer and his net
>: > access and go out into the plain, forest or jungle and live this "life
>: > of leisure".
>: Friesel responds:
>: Can't do it. Too many predators - and I'm not talking about
>: wild ones.
>: I'd bet Friesel has nothing specific in mind about predators.
>: The Canadian Northwest Territories had a population of 35,000 not too
>: many years ago. You can be a hunter-gatherer there if you can take
>: it.
>: I should think this population density would be low enough for
>: J.D. Weiner also.
>Try that in the US and you will find that all the land is owned, and you
>will be in the tank for tresspassing.
>Friesel's predators are the obvious ones: humans. Lots of them with
>guns.
And a few with title deeds to massive amounts of unused land. The
reason we had chattel slavery in the South and not the North is
that we had harsh winters in the North. Southerners, although
armed with title deeds to land they had never seen, could not
oppress the indigenous population very well, for when they found
someone living on "their" land, the squatters simply scampered
off (to land "belonging" to some other state-issued title holder)
rather than pay tribute.
In the North, however, a December eviction was a death sentence.
Thus, with land monopoly issued by each state, and an influx of
landless immigrants, the landless of the North were economically
poorer than were the slaves of the South. They enjoyed the
freedom to choose between masters, but the choices up North were
economically inferior.
As for the noble savage metaphor (beginning with Adam and Eve in
the Garden of Eden), one cannot gauge their conditions by the
plight of today's savages who have been pushed back to the most
inhospitable lands. Surely technology has made our lives better,
but institutions of land monopoly have worsened the lives of
those pushed to marginal lands or pushed off the land entirely.
Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:07:04 GMT
On 10 Nov 1996 05:57:57 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>We have not nearly run out of fish. Some argue that we have nearly
>run out of the possibility of expanding the catch of wild fish much
>beyond current levels without fertilizing the ocean. The harvest of
>tame fish is expanding rapidly.
>
>The overfished North Atlantic stocks are now recovering. Some resumed
>cod fishing will be allowed next year.
>
>In response to someone's comment, my Web site
>
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
>is aimed at showing that 15 billion are supportable at American
>standards. While it is probably possible to go much higher, I picked
>15 billion, because with present trends in population, world
>population is unlikely to reach 15 billion. The fact that 15 billion
>can be supported at American standards means that the main world
>problem is increasing general progress, not redividing scarce
>resources.
I haven't seen McCarthy's web pages, but if you want an interesting
look at how many people the world can feed see Gerhard Heilig's "How
Many People Can Be Fed on Earth?" in "The Future Population of the
World: What Can We Assume Today" edited by Wolfgang Lutz and published
by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis which has
worked with the United Nations and the FAO on various projects
relating to food and population (the IIASA did much of the work on the
early 1980s UN study on potential crop levels summarized in the "Land,
Food and People" report available from the UN).
Heilig is (sensibly IMO) in the middle of the road. He rejects the
"we're all doomed" message from the likes of Ehrlich/World Watch, but
also explicitly rejects the arguments of individuals like Julian Simon
that ag. resources are limitless (though there might be a way Simon
could wriggle through, but that's beyond the scope of this post).
Heilig's conclusion is worth quoting,
"But could we feed 10 or 15 billion people? Most likely, if we can
prevent (civil) wars with soldiers plundering harvests or devastating
crop fields with lan mines; if we can stop the stupidity of
collectivization and central planning in agriculture; if we can agree
on free (international) trade for agricultural products; if we
redistribute agricultural land to those that actually use it for
production; if we provide credits, training, and high-yield seeds to
poor farmers; if we can adapt the modern high-yield agriculture to
agro-climactic and sociocultural conditions of arid regions and use it
carefully to avoid environmental destruction; if we implement optimal
water management and conservation practices. If we do all this during
the next few decades, we would certainly be able to feed a doubled or
tripled world population" (Heilig 254).
For those who think this is a pipe dream, Heilig points to areas like
Sudan which with high yield farming could easily feed over 1 billion
people (twice the actual population of all of Africa). But of course
today Sudan can't even feed its own people because of the 40-year long
civil war there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell http://www.carnell.com/
brian@carnell.com
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 19:19:40 -0700
Mike Asher wrote:
>
> Agreed, nature coerces us to eat on a regular basis.
No, you misread. We do not agree, since nature acts without intent.
Mike continues:
>
> The argument is over freedom, not coercion.
I interject:
No, the discussion is about whether buying food at the supermarket is
done voluntarily.
Mike continues:
There are two ways one can
> define the word freedom: 1) the elimination of coercion of action by other
> humans, or 2) elimination of coercion by man or nature.
>
> In Definition 1, the dairy does not coerce you into paying their price for
> milk. You can buy other food, you can produce your own (barring all-too
> prevalent government regulation to the contrary), or you can go without.
> You are free.
The issue, as far as the example of purchasing food goes, is whether
such interaction is free from coercion. Regardless what food you
purchase you will pay the price set by the owner of the market you buy
it from whether it's milk or pineapple, nor is it possible for most
people to produce a sufficient amount of their own food - in fact this
is a resource-intensive activity which requires some fairly extensive
resources. There are those who are able to produce their own food,
and for them buying something at a food market is a voluntary act.
Going without is called 'starvation' and is hardly an option. Your
argument is the same old argument used by pirates and loan sharks, but
coercion it is regardless.
Mike continues:
>
> In Definition 2, you are not free, you have been forced to buy their milk.
> You have lost freedom.
I interject:
Because nature lacks intent, gravity, hunger, and other such forces
are not coercion. Because it is based on a conceptual error, most of
what you write for your definition 2) is beside the point. For that
reason I didn't copy the nonsense here...
Mike continues:
> If a nation of a
> million people has food only for one, whose "right to eat" shall be
> violated?
I note:
There is no right to eat inherent in nature. 'Rights' are established
by societies for the purpose of defining acceptable behavior. If you
kill a man for food you will get the food and nature will do and say
nothing. Society, however, will have you arrested and jailed.
Mike continues:
> Nature cannot be legislated. Those that define "freedom" as
> freedom from the laws of nature, are attempting to escape reality.
> Disneyworld, dressed up in a political smock.
I note:
Exactly, but no-one has brought up 'freedom' in the context of nature
except you. My only statement was that nature does not coerce because
nature lacks intent. It's very simple.
Mike continues:
>
> A definition with internal contradictions is no definition.
I interject:
The contradictions arise because you have decided that nature
'coerces'. If you can overcome this prejudice you will see that the
contradictions you encounter no longer exist.
He continues:
> Far better to
> use Definition 1, that we are free unless forced by others.
I note:
I don't recall anyone using or proposing any other definition except
yourself, and I have to admit I find your definition 2 rather murky.
Nature is not an 'others' either, so I can agree with your last
statement.
Continuing:
> In this case,
> a good and just government can mandate freedom for everyone.
I interject:
I doubt it. Society exists because of the compromise of individual
freedom. One of the reasons we're in such trouble today or any day,
I'd guess.
Mike continues:
> And, should
> this just society deem it improper to allow its members to starve, then it
> can feed them. But this is correctly labelled as a desire, a benefit, or
> even a duty. But not an inalienable right.
I note:
The above, of course, is mostly true. The last statement is an
attempt by Mike to appropriate for himself the power of society to
decide what constitutes the 'inalienable rights' of its citizens. I
at least do not grant him this priviledge. It is all somewhat beside
the point however.
Mike finishes with:
> Starving men can be free, and
> a Free Man would starve before becoming a well-fed slave.
I note:
Although society may feel differently about it, for my part I think
that you are free to starve if you like. Nature remains unconcerned
one way or the other and I sort of feel the same way. But your
statement seems to imply that if I don't want to starve I must become
a slave, non-starving men cannot be free...coercion, as I said. Or I
can be free from coercion and starve...again, entirely consistent with
my view that nature does not coerce, but note you contradict your
earlier supposition that nature somehow coerces you to eat, i.e. you
die or something if you don't eat. How impertinent of her, don't you
think?
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: Bob Falkiner
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:04:14 -0500
Harry - I think you've missed the point of these postings....
New cars are clean, and tend to stay clean because of the computerized
controls.
Old cars are dirty, and tend to get dirtier with age without computer
controls.
2 cycle engines are very dirty and tend to get very very dirty
so.... if you own a brand new car and an old lawn mower, they are now
about equivalent in the overall pollution equation.
or ... if you own an old van delivering things 10 hours per day, it is
the equivalent of about 5000 new cars in a typical commuter driving
cycle.
This is just one of many consumer beliefs that will have to be accepted
as the typical automobile becomes so clean that it removes itself from
the urban pollution equation. The consumer and government demand has
been for reduced tailpipe emissions. Now that 20 years of government
bureaucracy has been built around this, how do we declare success, even
after that we've achieved it??
This is going to be a case study in government rivalling the US space
program!
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> J Aggarwal (saggarwa@direct.ca) wrote:
> : Harry H Conover wrote:
> : >
> : > If you really want to fix the pollution problem, you're going to
> : > have to focus on the major source of pollution, which isn't
> : > lawn mowers!
> :
> : Why do we have to fix the "major source of pollution" only?
>
> Because fixing the 'minor' problem (even totally) cannot solve the
> mainstream issue since it isn't the cause. If I cannot go to work
> because my car is broken, fixing my lawn mower is not a solution!
>
> : It seems to
> : me that testing new "environmentally friendly" solutions on power lawn
> : equipment would show more direct results than putting DIRECTLY into
> : cars. It makes no sense, to me at least, why either of the problems
> : should be ignored. It should be easy enough to work on both problems, as
> : their engines work on the same premise (burn fuel -> turn crankshaft).
>
> Do you realize that the pollution control features on a modern car cost
> more than the basic engine itself? (Doubt this? Price a replacement
> engine against the combined cost all your car's pollution reduction
> adders, including the catalytic converter, air pump, engine control
> computer, multiple sensors, egr valve, etc.)
>
> Now, how much cost do you estimate that the addition of features
> like these would add to the cost of a basic $300 lawn mower? (Of
> course, the stores and manufacturers would simply love it...and
> rental firms would boom since many people could not afford the
> purchase price of such a product.
>
> Then too, consider maintenance. We already have a generation of
> cars on the road in poor maintenance, since few mechanics are
> capable of fixing them properly. Why not add an entire fleet of
> poorly functioning lawn mowers as well?
>
> Harry C.
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:37:08 -0800
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. The use of
> wheeled vehicles off of paved or gravel-covered surfaces is extremely
> damaging to the land. I have observed this myself, and I am not a crazed
> environmentalist. I am a conservationist who supports the rights of all
> sportsmen including hunters, fisherman, hang gliders, and hikers. I do
> not support the destructive erosion caused by ATVs, off-road 4-wheelers
> or mountain bikers. Hike it, walk it, fly over it, but don't drive your
> vehicles on our beautiful natural areas!
Well said. This just shows how few people have the guts to tell the truth,
especially when they can expect to be instantly attacked by hundreds of
nasty mountain bikers.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:58:56 -0800
Mike Edgar wrote:
> >The problem with your statement is that the true owners of the trails,
> >wildlife, are not considered -- only the human users. Wildlife, OF COURSE,
> >would vote to keep you out.
> >---
> >I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> >humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
> >fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
> >
> >http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
> >
> >
>
> ......... of course it would, but under your 200 (?) year old
> constitution the true owner has no acknowledged rights. Time for another
> amendment.
I agree. If we even have any JURISDICTION over wildlife whatsoever, which I
doubt.
> Mike Edgar "the line between human and nonhuman is, like all lines,one
> that should be drawn in pencil, so that it can be moved to accommodate
> moral evolution and the realization of moral reality." Prof Gary L Francione
I don't think we have ever succeeded in drawing such a line. Every time we
think we have done it, wildlife prove us wrong. Well, given that we & the
chimpanzee are 98% IDENTICAL genetically, it's not surprizing.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 05:24:39 GMT
In <328508CB.B93@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>John Moore wrote:
>>
>> The party called for tax reductions, which is not the same thing as
>> debt unless you believe the economy is static in response to law
>> changes. Under Reagan tax receipts rose significantly, in
>> contradiction to those who forecast that his tax rate reductions
would
>> reduce tax revenue. Unfortunately so did spending - partly because
the
>> democrats in congress larded lots of spending onto bills that Reagan
>> considered vital for national security, and partly because Reagan
was
>> unwilling to tackle the real problem which was social security and
>> mediscare.
He was not quite unwilling; there were interparty
negotiations, and Republicans did float the possibility of
reducing COLA (cost of living hikes). The Democrats,
who had set them up, immediately stabbed them in the back;
(or maybe Lucy, Charlie Brown and the ball make
a better metaphor.) So the Republicans lost seats, but
Reagan survived, because
the presidential elections were not due yet.
After that the bipartisan commission was
created, and "saved" Social Security by raising
taxes: more than that, having
the FICA tax go up automatically each year
after that.
Anyway, Reagan did what he politically could -
entitlements proved untouchable: the "third
rail" of American politics. In 1995, Congressional
Republicans, flushed with victory and misled
by polls, which said the public is ready now,
touched the rail again - ever so
slightly, and not SS, but only Medicare.
They did not quite die, but they were badly burned.
The smart course for them now is to avoid
the issue like the plague - and withstand
any temptation to be bipartisan and
"save" Medicare; or, for that matter,
temptation to cut the deficit. Balancing the budget
was a wrong priority, imposed on the Gingrich
revolutionaries by the old bulls, the
moderates like Dole, Simpson and Domenici.
Reagan was quite right in *his* priorites.
His economic promises were: cut taxes; reduce inflation;
reignite economic growth (almost impossible
while reducing inflation, but he did it);
bring down interest rates;
hike defense spending; *and* balance the budget.
He fulfilled five out of six - an excellent
record! - as for the sixth, he needed congressional
cooperation; and he did not want to endanger
the other five goals to try to get this and
probably fail.
His idea was that if you hold down taxes, expenditure
cuts will sooner or later follow. He compared
this to reducing allowance to a profligate child.
In the *long* run, he proved right: Washington
agenda eventually changed, and FDR's tax-spend-elect era
finally came to a close.
Meanwhile, RR restored US morale;
trashed regulations by the truckload and
revived what was left of American capitalism;
restarted growth of small private business;
launched a long period of economic expansion;
and then, as a bonus, won the cold
war and saved mankind. He did it all without a
congressional majority, almost alone, with
few loyal aides. He did it with grace, patience,
tolerance, good humor.
Hardly anyone in all history did more.
Mt. Rushmore is too small for this man.
Subject: Who can say about "Biofilm"?
From: ryu@mail.hansol.co.kr (Ryu sungho)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:56:04 GMT
Hello.
One of many method accessing toward uprising new environmental
technique, that which use "biofilm" as a carrier for biological waste
treatment is heared as a proper technique to keep up with recent
trend.
I have known just a little about process which using representative
biofilm, such as CAPTOR, RINGLACE, LINPORE, etc,.
I worked as a researcher as HANSOL paper company, studied waste
water treatment.
The reason why I write this is to get some information about this
"biofilm" tech. and its charactics.
Maybe our team make an attempt to adapt 'BIOFILM" technique on our
paper mill, but , as said on above, we have no career about operating
this process.
If you have abundant experience about this tech., please give me any
note for connecting information pool.even if your URL.
Waiting your reply.
Thank you for readind.
Subject: Who can say about "Biofilm"?
From: ryu@mail.hansol.co.kr (Ryu sungho)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:56:11 GMT
Hello.
One of many method accessing toward uprising new environmental
technique, that which use "biofilm" as a carrier for biological waste
treatment is heared as a proper technique to keep up with recent
trend.
I have known just a little about process which using representative
biofilm, such as CAPTOR, RINGLACE, LINPORE, etc,.
I worked as a researcher as HANSOL paper company, studied waste
water treatment.
The reason why I write this is to get some information about this
"biofilm" tech. and its charactics.
Maybe our team make an attempt to adapt 'BIOFILM" technique on our
paper mill, but , as said on above, we have no career about operating
this process.
If you have abundant experience about this tech., please give me any
note for connecting information pool.even if your URL.
Waiting your reply.
Thank you for readind.
Subject: Re: Christmas Wish List:
From: seaseal@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 06:17:02 GMT
As stores begin putting up traditional Christmas decorations, I wish to
share a delicious discovery with you. I have found how to give a Christmas
gift by not doing something and hope you will join me this December. When
you don't buy a slowly dying tree, you will give quite a gift-you actively
will be reducing deforestation, soil erosion, flooding, and
desertification. You will be raising air quality, reducing CO2, increasing
oxygen production and saving space at the dump. What a present!
I read that over a hundred million trees may be cut down for Christmas
celebrations in the U.S. alone. You may contribute to this mass
destruction and be a part of this wasteful practice or you can say, "No!"
Make this the season you make a commitment to your environment. An even
stronger action is to buy live trees for your season's celebrations, tell
your family and friends why, and then plant these trees in your yard or
donate them to a local park or roadside area.
Start a new tradition in your community. You will be saving the trees,
saving space at the dump, and protecting the quality of soil, air, and
waterways. What a great gift! Isn't that a nice way to celebrate
Christmas? Make this the year for you.
Cecile Mills
seaseal@cruzio.com
The digital convergence is almost here.
Subject: Environmental Planner Position Sought
From: jobworks@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 06:44:35 GMT
W. Jay Grinols
19312 2nd Street KPN
Lakebay, Washington 98329
Telephone 206 884 5297
Phone/Fax 206 884 5296
email nuclear@harbornet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE: To utilize my natural systems/environmental
planning expertise at the regional level for a
governmental, research, or corporate entity.
KEY WORDS
GOVERNMENT: REGULATION AND PROGRAM INTERPRETATION -
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LIAISON
NUCLEAR: RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL - RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
HANDLING - RADIATION MONITORING - HAZARDOUS WASTE
HANDLING - DOSIMETRIC EVALUATION
NATURAL SYSTEMS SUBDIVISION AND ZONING CODE ADMINISTRATION - CENSUS
PLANNING: PLANNING - SEPA COMPLIANCE - COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE - PUBLIC HEARINGS - INTER
AGENCY LIAISON - FOREST PRACTICES ACT - MARINE,
ESTUARIES AND LIMNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS - BIOLOGICAL AND
CHEMICAL LOADING - PARAMETRIC DATA ACQUISITION AND
INTERPRETATION - LANDSAT GROUND TRUTH - RESOURCE
CONSERVATION ACT - AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
PROGRAM
DATABASE GEOCODING - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS DETERMINATION
MANAGEMENT: - DATA ANALYSIS - LABORATORY ANALYSIS - REPORT
WRITING
OFFICE MULTI MEDIA PRESENTATIONS - EMPLOYEE SUPERVISION -
MANAGEMENT: TECHNICIAN TRAINING
EXPERIENCE
1995 to Present:
Retired from DOD employment in August of 1995. Since then
have been persuing management of a small Resume and Job
posting service on the Internet. Fully functional at HTML
scripting, Web page generation, and Internet Navigation as
it pertains to employment and career issues.
1984 TO 1995:
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL: Involved 1 1/2 years additional
education from the Federal Government in NUCLEAR HEALTH
PHYSICS to allow for the determination of Radiation fields,
Areas of Neutron Flux around operating nuclear reactors, and
handling material contaminated with radioisotopes.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL of nuclear grade materials, radioactive
material, and control of personnel working with, on and in
radioactive equipment. HANDLING RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL within
guidelines which require verbatim compliance of Nuclear
Power Manuals and NAVSEA instructions. Interpretation of
governmental regulations and oversight of trades procedural
and actual shop work practices to guarantee compliance with
nuclear industry regulations. Worked on over 15
deactivations, multiple overhauls of Cruisers, Carriers, and
all classes of Nuclear Submarines, except Tridents. Fully
108 Qualified as a Lead Technician and have overseen the
work of up to 10 lesser qualified technicians.
I also operate(d) my own business writing Resumes and cover
letters for persons in the Nuclear Industry and assist those
individuals in their employment search.
1969 TO 1978:
SAMPLING: Water quality sampling within the Puget Sound
region in streams, lakes, estuaries, and marine waters.
Sample site determination and land owner approval for
sampling site acquisition. BENTHIC BOD and COD loading.
Nutrient, chemical and biological sampling methodologies for
marine waters, urban and rural point and non-point runoff.
1969 TO 1984:
WATER QUALITY: Ability to evaluate existing chemical,
bacteriological, and other parametric data for various
studies in Puget Sound, estuaries, lakes and streams in the
Puget Sound basin. Trained Water Quality technicians in DATA
AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS. Rendered WRITTEN, ORAL, AND
MULTI-MEDIA REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS to agency managers,
committees, special interest groups, and elected officials
in formal and informal situations.
1975 TO 1978:
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA BASE: Set up the data acquisition for
SNODOB a land-use/hydrological model used in long range
planning for the Snohomish County SNOMET Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan [section 208 (B) (e) of PL
92-500,the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, and section 40 CFR 131.11(P) pertaining to
environmental evaluations of Water Quality Plans.]
SUPERVISED the GEOCODING of an area of 36 miles by 50 miles
with 178 variables for every 2.5 acre pixel. LANDSAT GROUND
TRUTHING the agricultural and urban areas involved 1.1 acre
pixels. This effort took 7 people approximately 3 years or
21 man-years.
Preparation of reports and evaluation of ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS to urban and rural development for inclusion in
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE HYDROLOGY MODELS.
1975 TO 1984:
LONG RANGE PLANNING: Setting up the environmental database
for Snohomish County laid the groundwork for long range
planning within the Snohomish River Basin and the
Stilliguamish River Basin. The detail of the database
allowed for prototype plans such as EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
SENSITIVE AREAS and LANDSLIDE INVOLVEMENT AREAS. Soils
evaluations led to development restrictions for "SEPTIC TANK
FAILURE SENSITIVE" soil profiles. BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL
LOADING FACTORS became important in developing long range
agricultural guidelines for NON-POINT POLLUTION mitigation
and STREAM BANK SET-BACK regulations.
1975 TO 1982:
NATURAL SYSTEMS PLANNING: Development of the Natural Systems
data for the refinement of the Gig Harbor Plan required the
ability to look at whole drainage basins for their growth
potential within the constraints of the land to accept
additional urban growth without degrading the existing
levels of environmental quality. DATA ACQUISITION AND
INTERPRETATION during the evaluation of proposed land-uses
was done with considerable attention to the effect on
existing environmental quality. Even with careful attention,
the problem of incremental encroachment and eventual
environmental degradation to levels less than acceptable to
the community continued to be a problem and is to this day.
Evaluation of water supplies data for Vashon Island gave
good indications for constraints on development, but these
constraints are being engineered away. Areas, such as
University Place, could get around these water problems
because the import their water, but the poisoning of
municipal wells with contaminants may prove to be a growth
limiting factor.
1981 TO 1982:
CENSUS PLANNING: Set up Census Summary Tape files for Pierce
County and The City of Tacoma on an IBM 370 mainframe
computer using SPSS, a statistical package. SPSS uses
Fortran IV, and a functional knowledge of this was required
to operate the program to generate reports and data files.
The primary thrust of this project was to determine from the
preliminary Census data those areas which qualified for
block grant funds by meeting low income or other qualifying
criteria. This was done to develope the required proposals
as quickly as possible to get advance federal approval of
needed projects.
1975 TO 1982:
PROJECT PLANNING: As Project Planner for a medium sized
timber company, it was a primary responsibility to work with
local, state and federal officials with regard to developing
the land for housing. Starting with the layout of the
logging roads, preliminary plat approval, environmental
checklists, SEPA, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, ZONING,
SUBDIVISION and land division WAC's and RCW's; total
responsibility rested with the Project Planner. Additional
responsibilities lay with designing utility line layout,
easement and set asides for well and storm water runoff
collection systems; Power, Water, and Sewer AGENCY LIAISON.
At issue, was often GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND PROGRAM
INTERPRETATION which was tested before quasi-judicial bodies
or legislative councils at PUBLIC HEARINGS.
1984 TO 1995:
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL: In conjunction with radiological
control it became evident that there was considerable mixed
radioactive and hazardous waste being generated, so
cross-training in asbestos, lead, and PCB handling was
undertaken.
EDUCATION:
1972: Associate of Arts and Sciences
Bellevue Community College
Bellevue, Washington
1978: Office Management; County Executive Director
6 month Management Training Course
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture
Spokane, Washington
1980: Bachelor of Arts;
Major: Geography
Minor: Environmental Studies
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
Urban and Economic Geography with emphasis on water
quality, urban planning, population demographics
and environmental constraints.
Courses include: Statistics, Cartography, Drafting,
Zoology, Invertebrate Zoology, Inorganic Chemistry,
Fortran, Computer Cartography, Pacific Northwest
Geography, Quaternary Geology of Puget Sound,
Geology of the Pacific Northwest, Marine Biology
and others.
1984: Nuclear Health Physics; 1 1/2 year program
Radiological Control Technician Program
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Bremerton, Washington
PROFESSIONAL STUDIES:
* RIBCO Streams; water quality assessment
* RIBCO Lakes; water quality assessment
* Water Resource Management Study; water availability and
feasibility study.
* CATAD --- Computer Augmented Treatment And Diversion--- storage
and in-line treatment of storm water run-off / combined sewage
prior to diversion to receiving waters.
* SNOMET 201 SEWER FACILITIES STUDY
* SNOMET 208 AREAWIDE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY
* METRO 208 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
* METRO - LAKE BALLINGER REHABILITATION PROJECT
* PIGEON AND WOODS CREEK'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATION STUDY
* FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ACT
* GIG HARBOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
* UNIVERSITY PLACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 07:15:07 GMT
In <32872091.3350879@news.midtown.net> alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
>
>On 10 Nov 1996 01:57:37 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>
>>The "we" and the "billions" are the *same people* here; naturally,
>>it is easier for 6 billion to do the job than for 300 million.
>>
>>When there are 30 billion, they'll do better still.
>
>What "job" are these people trying to do, aside from keeping pace
>with their own population growth?
The "job" definition was contained in the lines (not mine)
that you snipped...
As I recall, it was said there that people in the 12th
century were starving (an exaggeration, but in
some years they were); the "job" would then
be feeding the global population. More people
can do it much easier - even though there are more
mouths to feed. This is due to various effects of cooperation.
Four hands can do *more than twice* the work of two hands -
for many, many reasons. One of them is division of labor;
another is economy of scale; still another is
that *two heads are better than one*.
E.g., suppose each of the two heads has an idea
that could increase the output 20 percent.
They pool the ideas - and the output increases
by 44 percent (1.2*1.2 = 1.44).
I.e., *per capita* output is 20 percent more
than it would be if there was one person with
one idea. But it may well be that each of the two
ideas could not be implemented *at all* by
one person.
>Growth-addiction never allows us
>to stop and breathe (as a society), and it prevents us from truly
>refining the quality of our economy, since so much effort is put into
>growing it. It's like Sisyphus forever pushing the stone up the hill.
Growth or no growth, daily bread has to be always produced
again. This fact of life is not at all due to growth.
Getting up, brushing your teeth are also among
such cyclical, Sysiphus-like tasks. If you feel tragic about
it, perhaps writing a tragedy would help.
>
>You claim we need more and more people to "live better", yet you
>offer no lucid explanation for why this is so.
I think I do. See above.
> If you inherited a
>pristine desert island, would your first order of business be to pack
>it with as many people as possible so you could "live better?"
Of course! This is what _Robinson Crusoe_ is all about:
yearning for company. First he is all alone, going half-crazy,
but surviving by prayer and hard work;
then Man Friday appears; then
others; then return to civilization follows - and
each step makes life more worthwhile.
(As I recall, Crusoe's real-life prototype, Alexander Selkirk,
actually went mad from loneliness.)
>How is the Earth any different except for the scale?
Same thing. The more the merrier.
>As for more people doing a job better, how well would a team of 90
>baseball players do, vs. 9? The old adage "too many cooks in the
>kitchen" comes to mind.
But more kitchens can be built - a restaurant - a chain
of restaurants.
> Every time a fly ball was hit, a dozen
>players would collide trying to catch it, and most of the players
>would not have anything to do except yield to the better ones.
Then split into many teams; or invent a new game.
>A team (and an economy) will cease to function unless it respects
>the physical limits of the playing field.
One can do better than respect the physical limits:
expand them. People choose their
playing fields - and make their playing fields -
and their games, too.
It is all a matter of what is assumed to be constant and
what is variable. If you count mouths and forget to
count hands, or if you hoard your seed grain, instead of
sowing it, then you are a neomalthusian.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 05:47:18 GMT
In <32851B86.812@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson
writes:
>
>jw wrote:
>
>-> *If* a hypothetical team went from 3 members to 4, 5, ...9,
>-> then to 10, 11, ... 89; and gained in performance
>-> each time it increased, *then* a reasonable
>-> (though not infallible) extrapolation would predict it
>-> doing even better at 90.
>
>If you define "gained in performance" as:
> "Filling the dump truck with dead babies faster",
> then you are right. See:
>http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/zaire_goma_dead_30.mov
>
>Do we get some sort of prize if we fill the truck faster?
Two points:
(1) you are missing the logical thread.
Past gain in performance was not the issue:
extrapolating it was.
(2) as for your horrible phrase
"Filling the dump truck with dead babies faster" -
you couldn't be more wrong factually.
Infant mortality has been *falling* as population
increased.
It is one of the proudest indicators of our wonderful
progress.
E.g., in India, infant mortality declined
from 146 per 1,000 live births in 1961 to 74 in 1993:
thus, it has been cut in half in 32 years!
*This* is what I mean by "gain in performance"!
Let us stay on course - and fill the dump truck
faster with dead malthusian prophecies.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:48:20 GMT
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>In article antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) writes:
> > [re the (in)famous Limits to Growth book, addressing a fan of the latter]
> > Are you suggesting that the effect of the book was more important than that
> > of the resource-price hikes and the subsequent drop in demand (absolute and
> > relative to unit GDP) and increased exploration turning up new resources ?
>Only a few of the minerals mentioned had price hikes. The five
>involved in the Ehrlich-Simon 1980-1990 bet all had price decreases.
I suppose it all depends between what points in time. Occasional jumps
of price provide great incentive for conservation and exploration even
if followed by a decline, for they remind us of the uncertainties involved.
Specifically, the price of the favourite bugbear of doomsayers, oil, shot up
twice, in 1973/4 and in 1979, and has been pretty low for some time now.
Still, those events have transformed the energy efficiency of industries
worldwide, triggered an exploration boom, and contributed to the eventual
fall in price.
George Antony
Subject: Re: Polyurethane recycling.
From: ka@roka.se (Kristian Adolfsson)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:01:33 GMT
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:32:56 +0100, Gerald Dibarboure
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm searching for everything known about the recycling of polyurethanes
>(chemical, physical, heat, enzymatic treatment, or else).
>
>Any help or hint is welcome.
>Please answer by Email.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
> Claire.
> (dibarbou@supaero.fr)
We recycle it and use it as a sorbent for oil and chemicals. You can
see what can be done with on
http://www.roka.se/purabsan/epurabsa.htm
It's one way of using it.
KrA
Kristian Adolfsson
ROKA Information, Tel/fax +46-40-18 21 33
Nobelv�gen 147 M:22, 212 15 Malm�, Sweden
-----------------------------------------
E-mail: ka@roka.se
Homepage: http://www.roka.se
-----------------------------------------
Webmaster: http://www.algonet.se/~skof/eindex.htm
http://www.roka.se
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:10:33 GMT
jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <55tf6r$26mg@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce
: Scott TOK ) writes:
: >Not so fast. Many people have woke up to the fact that our present
: >system is one in which people have to work twice as long and twice as
: >hard to attain the standard of living their parents did,
: Twice? No, most of them do not work 80 hours a week.
: Some do, but some of the parents did.
: And their standard of living is much higher.
: They live several years longer, on the average,
: than the parent generation. Did the parents have the Internet?
: VCRs? Cellular phones? FAXes? Could they afford as
: much air flight? What percent of the parents'
: generation went to college? The parents paid as much
: for a calculator as the children pay for a PC,
: more powerful than the mainframes of the parents'
: generation. How much would the parents' gasguzzler be
: worth now - except possibly as an antique? The parents' air
: and water were more polluted. Etc. etc. Life is improving,
: whether people notice it or not.
Life is much more than just consumerism.
Gadgets are pretty irrelevant considering how badly millions of people
in the US are housed, clothed, and fed. Even if by some stretch you can
argue that the middle class has held ground -- you have to face the fact
that in most locales two wage earners are needed to hold down a house
for the family.
That is a doubling of household working hours even if the number of
hours/week/worker is constant.
Then you get to mention the millions of people who hame no home at all,
and the growing numbers who have no food or heating in the winter.
--
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/