HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Date: 24 Dec 1992 05:58:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I have been reading the subject thread on "nukes as stop-gap"
etc.
 
All of the articles missed one crucial point, technology.
The reference cited from the 70's is within reference of the
cost at that time for building plants. 
 
If one looks around at current nuclear plant technology,
aside from advances in computer controls and the like, the
basic Nuclear plant design has not changed much since the
first one was built way back (i think it is the shippingport
plant near Pittsburg)
 
I have read articles on new plant technology and am familiar
with some of the new designs. For instance there is a new design
using ceramic encased plutonium spheres as fuel. from what i           
understand, utilizing the inverse square of the radius distance
properties so that you can fill up a chamber with these spheres
and all the fuel is kept at an optimum distance so that even if
water cooling is lost, the reactor can only get "so hot" and won't
tend to "melt-down" as readily. Is this correct? (recalling from
memory by the way...)
 
Another article cited this design and yet another, but went on
to mention that lobbying by existing Nuke engineering companies
has convinced the NRC to stay with the tried and true (not to        
tried, dangerous and obsolete maybe?)
 
Isn't there still a new plan on long Island that public pressure
has kept from opening?
 
From what I understand, the Japan is the only country seriously
giving these new technologies a try.
 
I still firmly belive in moving toward a replaceable energy source
however I think serious R&D can make nuclear energy a superior
alternative to fossile fuels, at a lower cost.
 
Am i right? am i nuts? anyone else have anymore ideas?
 
ned.
 
Disclaimer: this article represents my Opinion on nuclear energy
based on "light reading" i have done on the subject and mentioned
here. and what I was able to recall off the top of my head. It is
soley for discussion purposes only and should not be taken as 
gospel fact.
I have stated the truth to the best of my knowledge any errors
are purely unintentional! 
 
P.S. have a happy holiday (and avoid an abundance of alliteration
                           in the new year!)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:44:47 GMT

In article <1hvcjmINNd6p@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <168C812FFB.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU> DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.165356.23648@vexcel.com>
>>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> 
>>>I agree that activism has been compromised by the press and by the
>>>fund-raising process but trusting scientists and politicians alone
>>>is not the answer, IMO.
>
>>I still feel activism designed
>>to gain high publicity through radical events is detrimental to the entire
>>process. 
>
>I have to agree with you.  Everyone is free to express their beliefs however
>they want (consequences of such expression aside), but I do feel that
>antagonistic action isn't the answer.  For example, the Israeli government
>recently made media martyrs out of the Palestinian terrorist-suspects the
>evicted and sent into exile.  Public opinion is so influenced by the
>media, it is important to use it wisely.  Will the public find more
>sympathy for environmental radicals who use near-terrorist tactics or
>for those who demonstrate appealing to human compassion and thought (no
>oxymoron intended).
>
>Furthermore, I have no repect for hypocrites like the Hollywood personalities
>who use their voice to back up recycling and conservation programs, and
>yet live in huge mansions, drive in gas-guzzling cars, and subscribe to
>the ultimate consumer lifestyle.
>
>greg

I basically agree with all of this.  Extreme (media-oriented) activism
has value when the cause is unknown.  When it is well-established, then
such activism will not likely help.  While we may agree on some
extreme examples, there may still be a dividing line.  Would you
consider blockading a road to prevent an illegal timber cut to be
extremist?
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Witnesses--Dr. John Gofman, Medical Physicist
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:52:53

Gofman has been an anti-nuke for a very long time.  I believe his
epidemiological studies are not accepted by the health physics
community.  I sometimes use his book _Poisoned Power_ as supplementary
reading in a course along with Bernard Cohen's pro-nuclear _Before
it is too Late_.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Pushing Plastic
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Dec 92 08:10:29

$18 million is small potatoes compared to what Greenpeace spends.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:55:38
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 23 Dec 1992 06:12:03 GMT

In article <1h8vvjINNdqb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:


   According to information i've received from a sympathetic source,
   the maximum tolerated quarterly dose of inhaled Pu vs Po
   is smaller on a microcurie basis:

   From the 1991-92 edition of the CRC Hanbook:
   Max tolerated quarterly doses of inhaled atomic:

   Po-210 = 1.3 E-01 Microcuries
   Pu-239 = 2.4 E-02 Microcuries

   However, Po is approx. 64 times as radioactive as Pu.

? Pu 239 has half-life about 75000 times longer than Po 210
which is a U 238 daughter. Both decay mainly by \alpha
emission and I think both have energies of about an MeV,
so the activity should scale like the decay time...

   I'd like to offer the following Hypothesis:
   Po is a transition metal in the same group as O, S, Se
   Is it possible that Po duplicates one or more of these
   substances as utilized by the body (e.g. Selenium) and hence
   may be more toxic because of the larger # of available
   pathways?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec20.211510.14050@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au>
	<Jym.22Dec1992.1432@naughty-peahen>
	<STEINLY.92Dec22145701@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:40:07

Also the French already built enough nuclear plants to supply 75 percent
of their electricity and a substantial amount left over to export.  Their
per capita GNP is less than that of the U.S.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:43:00 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec22174007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Also the French already built enough nuclear plants to supply 75 percent
>of their electricity and a substantial amount left over to export.  Their
>per capita GNP is less than that of the U.S.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

To build power generation capacity (of any type) to follow growth needs
is very different from replacing existing capacity that has not 
finished its usefule life.  Those nuclear advocates who want to
replace existing coal plants with nuclear power for whatever
reason are dreaming.  I don't know that this was John McCarthy's
point but I think it was the point of the original poster who
spoke of supplementing rather than supplanting.
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: ad376@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patricia Dedula)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: pollution from neighbor's fireplace
Date: 27 Dec 1992 03:18:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


My neighbor has a woodburning fireplace and the smoke from his 
chimney is polluting the air around my house and gets into my
house.  He uses his fireplace from about 6:30 a.m. to about 9:00
p.m.   It smells terrible and is a nuisance when it gets into my
house.  Why does it get into my house?  What  could be causing 
tjos strong smell (I can hardly breathe when I am outside).  What
can I do about it?
-- 
Pat Dedula 
May you have Peace, Love, and Happiness forever ...
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us? (Greenpeace and Research)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:05:46 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec21121927@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I didn't recognize the offer to make part of Greenpeace's _Playing with
>Fire_ available to me at no cost.  I hereby accept it.
>
>John McCarthy
>Computer Science Department
>Stanford, CA 94305
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

I will mail it of within the week.  And I will await your net.response to it.
-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:56:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec21.045654.38203@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) wrote:
> In article <ksand-191292144210@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sand
> vik ) writes:
> >Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
> >the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
> >when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
> >out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
> >existing theories.

>     Well, the theory of creation goes like this:
>         In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  And the earth
>         was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep;
>         and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.  Then
>         God said, "Let ther be light"; and there was light.  And God saw that

If this is a *theory*, then it's one of many creation based mythologies,
where my favourite ones are the Nordic and the Finnish 'creation' theories.

A scientific theory requires *much more* than a good story.

>         That is the theory of Creation to whoever asked.  Someone had
>         mentioned something about the fact that the world was created so
>         perfectly gave them the creeps or made them feel uncomfortable.  The
>         thing is, it was not created perfectly; God did not make man as a
>         robot, He gave him freewill, to choose what to do. 

Do you imply that this creator did a bad job when he couldn't even
create a place where people had free will, but they don't/didn't starve
to death?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Profound disappointment
X-Sender: newtout 0.03 Dec 29 1992
Date: 29 Dec 92  02:25:00

I have been telling people that this group had three factions: conventional
science, creationism, and velikovskiism. Alas, the Tedster has revealed his
true colors, he's not the third force, he's just a somewhat weirder
creationist :( And like all creationists, when he can no longer trade punches 
under the queensbury rules of science he whips God out like a derringer and
attempts to blow away his opponents.

Dammit Ted, i thought you at least had some originality. Guess i made a Jumbo 
error.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Xref: sparky talk.origins:15975 talk.religion.misc:24808
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:42:58 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <MMEYER.92Dec30130453@m2.dseg.ti.com>, mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
|> 
|> 	Thought y'all might like to look at this thing that showed up
|> in talk.religion.misc.  Seems right up your alley.
|> 
|> 
|> ================================ BEGIN ================================
|> From muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu Wed Dec 30 12:37:16 1992
|> Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
|> From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
|> Subject: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
|> Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
|> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 04:45:38 PDT
|> 
|> _GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT_ from Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God"
|> 
|> I hope this isn't too illegal... My comments are in [].
|> If you read this and like it please buy the book!
|> 
|> ==============================================================
|> Summary
|> -------
|> The "higher critics" of the last two centuries have badly
|> misinterpreted the first two chapters of Genesis, and by their error
|> led many astray.  Establishing the correct point of view and initial
|> conditions for the Genesis creation chronologies yields a sequence of
|> events in perfect harmony with modern science. .....etc

So the guy can look at Modern Science *first*, and then take the
Bible, and munge it around a bit, and make it compatible, and then....

|> The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he
|> were given the events are 1 chance in 40 million.

What "correct order" are we talking about here?   The "correct order"
after Ross munged things around to be compatible with Modern Science?

How surprising is that?

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:53:17 GMT

news (news@fedfil.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec21.135734.20632@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
:  
: As I've noted before, Mitre is PLENTY close enough.
: 
: Any time.

: -- 
: Ted Holden
: HTE
: 

	You guys are in the Washington D.C. area?  We really ought to have a
nice chat over coffee sometime.  Maybe in the Natural History museum, where
we can look at Pre-Cambrian stromatolites and dinosaur skeletons.

	I'll be sure to wear my armor.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Probability of Life
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 23 Dec 92  15:51:24

Who: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
ID: <1992Dec20.223129.25238@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
 
[probability arguments, firing-squad analogies, etc., omited.]
 
ES> "Yet Mr. Isaac's observation was made in the context of discussing
ES> the 'Tunian' claim that, in effect, the probability of life
ES> existing in the universe is so remarkably low that we must infer
ES> a supernatural agency to have brought it all about.  [large cut]
ES> Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the (antecedent)
ES> probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
ES> so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake
ES> in judgment.
 
The Tunian Logic (tm) is greatly flawed because he has failed to show
that abiogenesis is highly improbable. There are many schools of
thought who believe that life is LIKELY to occur.
 
We are living proof that evolution occurs, so the probability is 1.
 
ES> Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
ES> esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance. 

--- Squish v1.01
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:09:10 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Eww, what a pathetic empty shell of a being.

Many people need no Cosmic Fuehrer give meaning to their lives. 
Free your mind. Find your soul. Join us.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: "Worlds in Collision"--is it the real Necronomicon?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 08:12:05 GMT

Point:  it has been claimed that a copy of "Worlds in Collision" was open
        on Einstein's desk at the time of his death.

Point:  in honor of the christmas season, somebody took my parking space
        and I slipped in the snow walking to the office from the street
        and broke and/or dislocated just about everything below my right
        knee.  When this ocurred, a copy of "Worlds in Collision" was on
        the bookcase next to my bed.

Coincidence?  I think not--"Worlds in Collision" is obviously a book of
great evil power, capable of causing grave physical harm or diving mad
anyone who possesses it.

Trygve   (Maybe I should sell my copy; it's autographed by Hastur.)
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Posting from other groups: Solar system stability
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:44:30 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Dec30.194725.1076@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
^>From: ref@CS.CMU.EDU (Robert Frederking)
^>Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment
^>Subject: Solar system stability (Was: averting doom)
^>Message-ID: <C031Kx.7CL.2@cs.cmu.edu>
^>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:22:09 MET
^>Article-I.D.: cs.C031Kx.7CL.2
^>References: <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
^>Sender: news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System)
^>Reply-To: ref@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Frederking)
^>Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University
^>Lines: 9
^>In-Reply-To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 29 Dec 92 21:10:51
^>Originator: ref@DHAKA.MT.CS.CMU.EDU
^>Nntp-Posting-Host: dhaka.mt.cs.cmu.edu

^>The latest issue of S&T mentions some recent work done using chaos
^>theory and large computers to see whether the solar system is stable.
^>Their finding (I forget who it was now) was that millimeter
^>perturbations in the orbits of the planets do cause chaotic changes in
^>the long run.  The good news (for people who don't like chaotic
^>orbits) is that the amount of time it takes for something ``really
^>bad'' to become probable is on the order of a trillion years [i.e.,
^>longer than the solar system will exist in its present form anyway].
^>``Really bad'' is for a planet to be ejected, a collission, etc.
^
^Of course, this is uniformitarianistical bullshit; Velikovsky knew better,
^without needing computers or any knowledge of the subject...
^(S&T is Sky and Telescope, I guess)


^thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany

Robert Bass DOES know better.  You are assuming a stable system to begin with;
The scenario which Velikovsky, Talbott, Cardona, and others propose begins
with an unstable system.  Bass demonstrated that an unstable system such as
Velikovsky proposed having existed 4000 years ago and back, could very easily
devolve into our present system in a few centuries, and leave no trace, i.e.
it would appear to anybody wishing to so believe that the system had been
as we see it now for "billyuns and billyuns of years...".


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 17:24:51 GMT

JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON (jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu) wrote:
> It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!

Actually, it takes no faith at all.  Superstitious belief is more
than adequate.

> What does it take to believe in evolution?

Willingness to look at hard facts.  In other words, honesty.

> The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
> creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.

I don't understand this attitude.  What do your relatives have to do
with how you value yourself?  Does this mean you get your self-confidence
by comparing yourself to others?  That is a very unhealthy attitude.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment
Date: 30 Dec 92 02:41:46 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <n0a44t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
|> I have been telling people that this group had three factions: conventional
|> science, creationism, and velikovskiism. Alas, the Tedster has revealed his
|> true colors, he's not the third force, he's just a somewhat weirder
|> creationist :( And like all creationists, when he can no longer trade punches 
|> under the queensbury rules of science he whips God out like a derringer and
|> attempts to blow away his opponents.
|> 
|> Dammit Ted, i thought you at least had some originality. Guess i made a Jumbo 
|> error.

I know what you mean.   The Third Force was the only thing that
gave meaning to my life, and now, Phhht!   Gone.   Just like that.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins