HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:29:21 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <-1363821639snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>The only extant examples of actual land resumption as such, have in
>fact only arisen where road widening or intersection development is
>considered appropriate for safety reasons (ie, to repair a traffic
>"hot-spot"). Of course the people most affected will campaign actively
>against having several metres of their front garden resumed to roadworks,
>and then having to live with trucks rumbling constantly by their living
>rooms.

As happens here...

>It is just that the courts are there as a last resort if the project
>cannot finally be settled, and even then only small sections of the
>final proposal may need a judgement handed down on them. Again, it
>is simply democracy at work, nothing more and nothing less. Exactly
>the same process is involved with any issue, including the siting of
>manufacturing processes and managing their emissions, or the special
>allocation of land for niche farming of emus or alpaccas, or angora
>rabbits, or anything at all. Whatever.

Pretty much as it happens here as well.  We typically call it zoning
ordinances, which dictate what types of construction can happen where
and to what standards the construction must be done.  Permits are required
for some uses, and large impact projects (such as the siting of a coal
fired electrical generating plant) may not even be permitted.
>
> > If it's not done often, and there is a court process, then your system is
> > very similar to ours.  I wonder, then, if that makes us communistic?
>
>Heaven only knows . . .

I think the point, if there ever was one, is moot.  Our systems are far 
more similar than they are different, labels notwithstanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:44:44 GMT

In article <28289@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>	And as for Greenpeace wanting to disrupt the process,I just have
>to say that I thought protest was one of these democratic rights.

Protest is a democratic right, but not all forms of protest are. Any
type of protest that endangers someone is not a legitimate form of
protest, and that is the heart of the matter here. Greenpeacers may be
unarmed, but they are still deliberately confrontational, injecting
themselves into places where they are very likely to become injured,
and then they can talk about how terrible someone is to injure unarmed
protesters. In the case at hand, it does not seem unreasonable to me
that they challenged the Japanese escort; something along the lines
of, 'we're going to harass this ship containing dangerous fuel, in a
way that could make an accident, which we abhor, more likely, and we
dare you to stop us'. The escort did, and so they whine.

Legal protest, IMO, does not permit endangering others, nor does it
allow one to interfere with legal activities. This includes blockading
nuclear power plants, abortion clinics, naval weapons stations,
whatever. You can yell and scream about the activity all you want, but
if it is legal, you cannot interfere with it.

And if you deliberately put yourself in harm's way, you have no one to
blame but yourself if harm comes to you. If you really have so few
brain cells that you deliberately stand in front of a moving truck,
you deserve to get run over.

Clay D.
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Road Usage Fees
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:14:05 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov20.084807.13539@cheshire.oxy.edu>, galloway@cheshire.oxy.edu (Gregory Wayne Galloway) writes:
>	I am currently researching the idea of implementing a Road Usage Fee
>program in the United States.  This is not a program such as Turnpikes or Toll
>Roads, but on in which people would be charged for using all public roads.

I see.  Presumably this new tax - excuse my stumbling tongue - this new _fee_
will be fairer and more properly distributed than previous attempts to get
people to pay for the public roads, and so any bill to implement would include
immediate repeal of all the Federal and State fuel taxes that are now presently
set up for the purpose?  The ones that provide capital for public transit, as
well as the road repairs?  And would you care to enlighten us how this new tax
- oops, I mean "fee" - will be applied to the trucking industry, which is,
according to several recent studies, responsible for upwards of 90% of the
maintenance requirements of our highway systems, and which are 100% responsible
for the vast increase in _engineering_ requirements the system is now being
held to?  Or are we really going to claim the reinforced concrete can no longer
hold up cars that are lighter now than they were 20 years ago, so we have to
use all-steel construction, and that the doubling of tire loading and the
nearly 1000% increase in trucking in the last 20 years are not factors at all?
Those numbers are from a recent Teamster lobbying effort.  I don't know how
that 1000% figure was arrived at, but they seemed really proud of it.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: lns@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: amber snails, Succinea sp., diet
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:40:55 -0500

Information regarding amber snails, Succinea sp., requested.  What is
the diet of this critter?  Thanks.
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:13:02 GMT

In <1992Nov19.145341.5393@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
>	[ stuff on the toxicity of Pu deleted ]
>
>Case in point:  Who will die quicker?  A person swallowing a gram of Pu or
>a person swallowing a gram of cyanide?  Think about it.
>
>Don Palmrose

But which would you prefer - drinking 10 micrograms of potassium
cyanide, or inhaling 10 micrograms of finely-powdered plutonium.
Think about it!
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================

Xref: sparky sci.environment:12878 sci.energy:5607
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:28:28 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov19.182350.20893@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
=In article <1992Nov19.145341.5393@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
=>In article <28409@castle.ed.ac.uk>, gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
=>>
=>> 	If Greenpeace wish to make the point that trying to ship large
=>> amounts of the most toxic substance known,which also happens to be

=So how is toxicology measured?  Is it the speed of death or the amount
=os [sic] a substance nexessary [sic] to cause death?

Take your pick.  Plutonium isn't #1 using either criterion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan)
Subject: Back of the envelope calculations of CO2
Organization: Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:32:58 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids,sci.environment 
Subject: Back of the envelope oceanic CO2 calculations
Followup-To: sci.geo.fluids
Organization: Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Hello everyone. Today in Chem class we discussed Henry's Law which relates
the vapour pressure of a gas to the amount that would dissolve in a fluid
solvent for a specific concentration and temperature. For kicks and giggles,
I came back and tried to calculate the amount of CO2 in the oceans, given
that the density was 1 kg/m3 (yep, just pure water) and the volume of the 
ocean was 1.35 x 10^15 m3 (Biogeochemistry, Schlesinger, 1992). I assumed a
CO2 concentration of 380 ppm, for a partial pressure of 0.288 Torr at a 
standard temperature of 298 K and pressure 1 atm. For CO2, the Henry's LAw
constant was 1.25 x 10^6 Torr in pure water (no data on seawater since it
is variable due to saline content), and Henry's Law goes like this:

     partial pressure (CO2)= Henry's Const. x mole fraction (CO2)

Furthermore, the mole fraction was defined as :  # moles CO2/ (# moles CO2  
                                                             + # moles H2O)

Working it all out, the answer I came up with was 1.52 x 10^5 metric tons.
Now recalling that the flux of CO2 into and out of the oceans is a bit 
larger than that... I'm curious as to whether this calculation is way off 
as a result of the lack of variance in temperature and salinity, or if it 
is at least in the neighborhood.

Anyone have any evidence of total oceanic CO2 content? 

***This is not meant as a legitimate estimate, so don't flame me for this!***
    (I'm just curious as to how good or bad this approximation is... I 
       have a big feeling that it stinks, but want to make sure.)

Bryan Hannegan
hannegan@halo.ps.uci.edu
Dept. of Geosciences, University of CA, Irvine

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:30:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.182350.20893@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes...
>>> 	If Greenpeace wish to make the point that trying to ship large
>>> amounts of the most toxic substance known,which also happens to be
>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> exceedingly fissionable,is a bit stupid,then their avenues are limited.

>So how is toxicology measured?  Is it the speed of death or the amount
>os a substance nexessary to cause death?

For whatever it's worth, I've seen it mentioned many times that the most toxic
substance (based on the amount needed to kill you) is the toxin produced by
the botulism organism.

Cyanide is very quick, but I don't know if it's the quickest.

-Mike
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Chemical mops (was Re: Ozone)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:05:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.124002.10191@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.180329.4931@netcom.com>, tomd@netcom.com (Tom Dempster) write
> 
>    Whist I think it's clear from previous postings that ozone replacement is
> not the solution, due mainly to it being a question of where the O3 <=> O2 
> equilibrium lies.  The position of this equilibrium has been (allegedly, for
> the sceptics) altered by the presence of CFC's .  Is anyone aware of any work
> which has been done which may aid removal of the catalysts - in effect a
> chemical mop, which will 'soak up' the halogen radicals, and pull them out of
> the system.   For example, one could notionally disperse sodium into the ozone
> layer, to form NaCl, which would be subsequently washed out without the
> possibility of forming further Cl radicals ( I am fully aware that this 
> wouldn't work in practice, but it illustrates the principle).
>     
 This idea occurred to some people a few years ago - it wouldn't work, because
 the resulting NaCl microcrystallites would catalyze the decomposition of HCl
 and ClONO2 (which constitute most of the Cl in the strat), producing Cl 
 radicals. It would actually be counterproductive.
 As Bryan Hannegan and I both mentioned, however, an idea based on the same
 principle - dumping hydrocarbons into the strat., which would convert ClO
 radicals back to HCl - has been put forward. There are problems with this
 one, too. But people are thinking about this sort of thing.
From: rovero@skye.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Alaska to shoot hundreds of wolves from airplanes
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:52:45 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

You don't have to be much of an environmentalist to oppose this plan.
I almost never agree with Alan M. and still think this is wrong.

The problem is people.

People who are wanton in their destruction of nature are bad.
People who think they know "better" than Ma Nature are worse.
  
When you consider that the Maori exterminated some 80-90% of 
South Pacific bird species by the time Cook arrived on the scene, 
without even trying, that the Easter Islanders transformed their
habitat to a barren, treeless wasteland, and that the Anasazi did
essentially the same in the Southwest, the scope of the problem
becomes clear.

Modern man and industrial society isn't the problem.  Indigenous
people with basic hunter-gatherer and beginning agriculture have
done plenty of environmental damage. 

It just gets WORSE when people try to "help" Ma Nature.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<28289@castle.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov17.184444.29099@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<28409@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Nov19.145341.5393@inel.gov>
	<1992Nov20.181302.3133@impmh.uucp>
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:53:42

Cohen didn't merely think about it.  He computed.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: ajk3@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Kibble;f110or89;[05306)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Request: Are Computers Green? Update
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:46:45 GMT
Organization: University of Brighton, UK


	I am currently studying for a BSc Computer Science degree at the
    University of Bighton. As part of my course I am writing a dissertation
    on the following subject.

	IT and the Environment.
        Are Computers as Green as seem ?

	I am at the reserch stage of the project at this time and would 
    welcome any information you could provide on any of the following.

	i) CFC's in the production of printed circuit boards.
	2) Plastic & foam packaging for computers and alternatives
	3) Halon based fire extingusters in computer rooms
	4) Recycling paper:
		i)   CD-ROM instead of paper.
		ii)  On-Line manuals.
		iii) Electronic Mail
	
	5) Printers and ground level ozone.
	6) Sending of old computer systems to less developed countries
	7) Safe battery removal
	8) Energy consumption of computer equipment
	9) Recycling of printer toer cartridges.

	If you could help me with any information on the above, I would be 
	very grateful. Including any areas you think I may have missed.

	Thankyou for your help.


	Amanda Kibble.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan)
Subject: Re: Ozone (A few questions I would like answered.)
Organization: Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:39:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.180329.4931@netcom.com> tomd@netcom.com (Tom Dempster) writes:
>A followup question:
>If the prospects of a global environmental disaster were to become an
>undisputeable reality, would there be any hope of the human race saving
>itself and the planet from the harmful effects of UV exposure by creating
>a replacement source of ozone in the atmosphere?
>
>Problems:
>	1) What amount of ozone molecules are we going to need?
>	2) What amount of electrical energy would be required to
>	   create this much ozone? (if corona discharge were to be
>	   the method)
>	3) If this artificially-produced ozone were to be created on
>	   on the earth's surface, how could it be transported to the
>	   atmosphere where it is needed?
>

There is an interesting arguement put forth in a Nature article by Dr. Ralph
Cicerone, and collaborators concerning the "environmental engineering of the
stratospheric ozone layer". I'm at home right now, but I have a copy of it
in my office and will post the citation if asked. The formation of ozone,
in the stratosphere and in the troposphere is an endothermic process, that 
is it takes energy to make it. In nature this energy comes from the UV light
the oxygen molecules absorb, and it is quite a bit of energy. 

Carl also made an interesting point in noting that the mere addition of ozone
won't do the trick, since the CFC's and such will continue to eat away
at the layer unless we limit their emissions. So depending upon the amount
of CFC reduction, the amount of ozone needed in such a repair would vary.

Transport is a tricky issue, something that the Cicerone, et al. article
attempts to focus on from an engineering standpoint.

In terms of addressing the problem, ozone depletion is not like hunger: The
problem is not as a result of a failure in distribution. Though they are 
the same chemical, tropospheric ozone and stratospheric ozone are two      
different issues all together, one bad, and one good. Reducing your emissions
of tropospheric ozone, will unfortunately, do little to help or hurt the 
stratospheric layer.

As always, I am open to comments, being only a mere grad student....

Bryan Hannegan
Dept. of Geosciences, University of California, Irvine
hannegan@halo.ps.uci.edu
 
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:37:21 GMT
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:54:55 GMT

drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker) writes:

>In article <28289@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>>	And as for Greenpeace wanting to disrupt the process,I just have
>>to say that I thought protest was one of these democratic rights.

>Legal protest, IMO, does not permit endangering others, nor does it
>allow one to interfere with legal activities. This includes blockading
>nuclear power plants, abortion clinics, naval weapons stations,
>whatever. You can yell and scream about the activity all you want, but
>if it is legal, you cannot interfere with it.

>And if you deliberately put yourself in harm's way, you have no one to
>blame but yourself if harm comes to you. If you really have so few
>brain cells that you deliberately stand in front of a moving truck,
>you deserve to get run over.

>Clay D.


	I don't think that it's clear that lives were in danger,and in
any case I don't think that that's the point.
	Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is ethical
or bearable.The classic example of this is British rule over North
America, which wasentirely legal under the laws operating at the time.
What it was not,however,was reasonable,and the overthrow of this was
entirely justified,even though it not only endangered lives,but directly
cost a large number.
	If Greenpeace wish to make the point that trying to ship large
amounts of the most toxic substance known,which also happens to be
exceedingly fissionable,is a bit stupid,then their avenues are limited.
Their usual tactic is to put their bodies in the front line,and this is
what they`ve been doing here.If you have evidence of them attempting to
injure people,why don't you tell us what it is? I can't really see how
it is that this differs from (for instance) their "occupation" of the
seas around French atmospheric H-bomb tests.


	G.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:12:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.201945.22219@meteor.wisc.edu>, tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.112926.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> 
> parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
>>
>> (discussion of mid-latitude ozone depletion)
> 
> Quite so, but actually a bit beside the point, since you are discussing
> ozone statistics for middle ond low latitudes, where a bit of care is
> required with the statistics. As far as springtime Antarctic column ozone
> goes, however, no such quibbling is needed. This was appromixately steady
> from 1956 (when measurement started) to 1970, and has dropped precipitously
> to about 50% of previous levels since then. This is not correlated with
> volcanos or sunspot cycles and is well correlated with stratospheric
> chlorine, which in turn is known to be mostly of anthropogenic origin.
> 
 Well, I was answering a question about global average effects. But your point
 is well taken. It is important to distinguish between _ozone depletion_,
 a phenomenon which is, _so far_, small compared to natural fluctuations,
 and _the Antarctic Ozone Hole_, which is far outside the range of any
 natural fluctuations or cycles. The evidence that halogen-containing radicals
 are the cause of the ozone hole is indisputable; the evidence that they
 are the cause of mid-latitude depletion is less direct, because the
 effects are smaller and harder to measure.

 Robert
Xref: sparky sci.environment:12803 sci.energy:5505