HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: They're not just for propaganda anymore...
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.124254@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
> "An individual dose of only a few milligrams is sufficient, if inhaled, to
>cause
>massive fibrosis of the lungs and death within a few years.Much smaller
>quantities
>can cause lung cancer after a latent period of perhaps 20 years"
>So it seems that they should have said that one speck of plutonium WILL kill
>you
>if inhaled. 

Not without specifying the size of the speck.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:41:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.055834.2049@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.161732.12310@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>>Do you believe that waste incinerators meet the four-9's 
>>>>(99.99% incineration) requirement?  If so, why?
>>>Coal plants don't. 
>>Coal plants don't burn trash.
>>>
>>>I'm suggesting incinerators could reduce the amount of waste that needs
>>>to be buried while providing nominal electrical output.
>>Is it better to put the trash in the sky than in the ground?
>
>I'm suggesting that waste incinerators could operate within guidelines
>of fossil-fuel power plants to generate electricity, while decreasing the
>amount of land needed for refuse.
>
>Coal plants send a lot of nasty shit into the atmosphere, but I don't
>see Martin Sheen, et al. chaining themselves to railroad cars of coal.
>I suppose it depends on the utility vs. risk factor.

I fully agree that the way many environmentalists ignore the impacts
of coal power generation is inappropriate.  My complaint about 
incinerators is that they have not shown that they meet the criteria 
they claim (99.99%) and that they spread heavy metals.  I don't know
how this compares with emissions from coal plants.  Maybe coal plants
are getting a free ride from regulators (we know they are getting an easy
one from environmentalists).

>
>Tino
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec17212825@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec18.163105.7710@vexcel.com>
Date: 18 Dec 92 10:52:03

Perhaps there is little left to argue about here.  Greenpeace has a
perfect right to put out a collection of essays by scientists that
happen to support Greenpeace's proposals for dealing with an alleged
problem, global warming in this case.  This doesn't constitute doing
science.
--
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: 18 Dec 92 00:02:37 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 17 Dec 1992 18:05:24 GMT

In article <1gqfh7INNhi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:

   a previous message an individual states : One nanogram of          
   plutonium could kill you, to which another reader responds:
   "one Ciggarette could kill you, one glass of milk..etc.)
   " 
   that's not quite a fair criticism.

   Plutonium is perhaps the most toxic substance known,

No it is not. There are many organic compounds far
more toxic, by any definition of the word,
among the elements Polonium, for example
is about 100,000 times as toxic using comparable
measures of toxicity.

   one single atom can cause lung cancer and will a lot
   more often than one atom from a puff on a cigarette.

False. The puff from a cigarette is likely to contain atoms
of Polonium, a single one of which can (and probably does,
frequently) trigger lung cancers that kill.

Of course the same argument applies to any element with
(naturally occurring) radioactive isotopes - in fact the
air you breathe might contain that one molecule
of C^{14}O_2  which will decay in your lung and
trigger lung cancer that will kill you. Better
stop breathing - hell, eliminate all carbon (and potassium
and ...) from your body - it will do you about as
much good as getting rid of all chlorine compounds,
which Greenpeace now seems to want.

   Plutonium is bad news, plain and simple, and shouldn't
   be talked down or shrugged off.

Quite right, let's instead get hysterical and
spout uninformed crap.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
From: duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:16:37 GMT
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.environment

>/ hpfcso:talk.environment / steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>Now, what it boils down to is that bottles are worth reusing
>(assuming water is not scarce) if each bottle can be reused
>a little over seven times before being lost from the system
> - this is from a coke study about 10-15 years ago. The most 

I continue to be baffled.

Contrary to what common sense would indicate, it appears that making
a brand new bottle from scratch is cheaper than washing out an old
bottle.  I guess that there is a lot of labor involved in collecting
the old bottles and getting them back to the bottling plant.  If they
do another study like that today, I'll bet they conclude that the
consumer will need to pay an extra fee for the privilege of getting
a beverage in a reusable container.

When do we get the disposable cars?  Buy a clean new one with a full
tank of gas.  When it gets dirty or stops, get another one!
--
Duane Jacobson
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec16090218@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Dec18.044438@aifh.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:28:25

I asked some questions in relation to Dingo's claim that Greenpeace does
some good research.  I was referred to the _Greenpeace Global Warming
Report_ and told it was a collection of articles by scientists.  I
asked several questions about it including:

# Question: Did any of the essays in the Greenpeace Global Warming Report
# support nuclear energy, which does not contribute to global warming?

I got the following reply from James Hammerton:

     No, but there was an essay which convincingly supported the
     proposition that a substantial increase in nuclear
     power(replacing current coal & gas supplies) would NOT lead
     to a stabilization of CO2 emissions, and that investment in
     energy efficiency and renewables would be financially 7
     times more effective(ie 1 dollar spent on these would
     displace 7 times more carbon dioxide than 1 dollar spent on
     increasing nuclear power capacity).  Now you, the true nuke
     believer, may dismiss this, but it IS backed up with plenty
     of evidence on both the potential of renewables and the
     infeasability of nukes... after Xmas(when I have more time
     to do this) I will post some articles on this very subject,
     using Greenpeace's evidence in conjunction with others.

I now conjecture that all the essays, not just this one, were
buttresses for positions that Greenpeace took before it collected
the essays.

This is lawyers' science.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: Jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk (James Goldwater)
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: He who talks arithmetic is doomed to talk NONSENSE
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:41:41 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>1. Economic factors.  Dean Alaska raised the question of transportation
>costs.  Here's a relevant comparison.  There are 500 millions tons of
>trash, and the U.S. mines 800 million tons of coal per year.  On the
>average the coal is transported farther than the trash would have to
>be transported by rail and barge and ship.  Therefore, transporting the
>trash can be done at a reasonable cost to the economy when it has to be
>tranported long distances.

I also raised this question. Your comparison isn't very relevant since
when a shipment of coal arrives at its destination, the receiver is then
going to PAY to receive the coal. When a load of garbage arrives at
its destination the SHIPPER has to pay the RECEIVER to accept the
shipment.

>2. Various geologic factors.  Doubtless some sites will be unsuitable.

Doubtless many. Doubtless significant.

>3. Private land ownership.  Land for disposal should be bought at
>market prices.  The posted calculations show the amount isn't too
>large.

What if the owner doesn't want to sell their land? What if the neighbors
of the proposed land don't want a landfill in their backyard?

>5. Bacterial contamination.  There doesn't seem to be a significant
>bacterial contamination from landfills now.  Why would one be expected?

Depends on how well the landfill is contructed. Some are not constructed
very well. And there's always corruption to consider. I hear and read about
groundwater contamination from landfills all the time. I guess you just
don't listen to and read the same news and magazines I do.

>6. Laws concerning landfill location.  They will have to be obeyed or
>changed.

There was a reason to make the law in the first place. I doubt if you
can present a good reason to change it.

>8. Public opinion.  I am trying to influence it.  So are the other
>posters.  None very effectively.

Darn right, and I'm tickled pink.

>9. The amount of trash created will undoubtedly increase.  It might.

There's no "might" about it. The amount of trash which is produced is
relative to the number of people there are. Since the population is
growing, then the amount of garbage produced annually WILL grow. Unless
of course, recycling is practiced more.

Conserving landfill space is but one reason to recycle. There are many
others such as the conservation of natural resources.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:10:02

Is anything known about why polonium is so much more toxic than plutonium,
or is this entirely empirical?
--
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: Why do they hate us?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:59:33 GMT


>I'd be grateful for a specific citation if Dingo has the Greenpeace
>catalog in question.  Also is it their own research or just a summary
>of other people's?
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>
>
The report I was referring to is called "Playing With Fire - Hazardous
Waste Incineration", 63 pages, $10 from Sanjay Mishra, Information Services,
Greenpeace, 1436 U St. NW, Washington D.C., 20009.  It is not original
research, it is a collection from other studies and is well referenced.
-- 
==============================================================================

	Dean Myerson	(dingo in boulder)	(dean@vexcel.com)

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:31:05 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec17212825@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>I now conjecture that all the essays, not just this one, were
       ^^^^^^^^^^
>buttresses for positions that Greenpeace took before it collected
>the essays.
>
>This is lawyers' science.

John saves himself with this wording.  I don't know whether the essays
and studies were collected before a position was taken but I am most
interested in whether the results of these studies are accurate and
can be rebutted.  I think that the study James Hammerton mentioned
about CO2 emission control is probably from the _Energy Policy_ 
study that I have referred to.  I do remember that the costs of
nuclear power used for the study were highly favorable to nuclear
power: $1/watt capital cost, $.05/Kwh, etc.  There were assumed to
be no technical problems to solve.

>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 
==============================================================================
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: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Run! I think the Power Plant's Gonna Blow!!
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:28:51 GMT
	<1992Dec13.115015.25842@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <7077@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

Essentially any of the proposed solutions to the nuclear waste problem
work well enough for reasonable people.  However, the people developing
the methods have been coerced into accepting unreasonable requirements,
such as protecting people who dig after civilization has collapsed.
Here's what I mean by a reasonable requirement.  Imagine that all energy
was derived from nuclear sources - not just electric energy.  Allow
leakage of radioactivity large enough that after 1,000 years, people
will have their exposure increased by one percent of what they would
suffer moving from Boston to Denver.

I don't propose looking ahead more than 1,000 years, because long before
that our descendants will be far ahead of where we are technologically.

My idea of the best solution is a small variant of what is currently 
happening in lieu of a solution.  Let the waste be stored in
double walled tanks above ground with monitoring equipment between
the walls.  Build more tanks as necessary.  Sooner or later we
or our descendants will find what is now called waste valuable.

Someone asked where the plutonium the Japanese are shipping came from.
It came from used fuel rods in Japanese nuclear reactors.  These fuel
rods were shipped to France for reprocessing which included extracting
the plutonium.  Incidentally, shipping the fuel rods from Japan to
France was probably a far more risky undertaking than shipping the
plutonium back to Japan to be put back in reactors.  The rods were
bulkier highly radioactive.  Moreover, some of the rods ended up in
the ocean and dissolved, all that plutonium would have been released
just as it would if the current shipments of plutonium were dissolved.

However, Greenpeace quite correctly decided that there was more
publicity to be obtained from making a fuss about the plutonium
than about the fuel rods themselves.
--
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: The Recycling Myth
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:00:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.171011.1715@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <Bz7EDH.1EC@ccu.umanitoba.ca> naldret@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dana L. Naldrett) writes:

>I have a question:
>Since recycling is often not cost-efficient for communities, why isn't    
>incineration a viable option? With it, the landfill growth can be checked
>while electricity can be generated. 
>
>Besides having the environmentalists up in arms (as usual), what's the
>problem?

Do you believe that waste incinerators meet the four-9's 
(99.99% incineration) requirement?  If so, why?
>
>Tino
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.energy
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Notch another [sic] one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:50:06 GMT

In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1219@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=\= Indeed, the very title of this thread suggests that this was
>"another" incident of this sort caused by Greenpeace, when in
>fact there have been *none*.

So you are making the incredible claim that the Greenpeace ship was not 
intending to cause any sort of "incident"?  Come on, join reality.

>> In particular they do not have the right to maneuver however
>> they want in the vicinity of other ships on the high seas.

Does that include Greenpeace ships?  They have never let this stop THEM
in the past.  Why should they complain when others (at least supposedly)
do the same?

>=\= Greenpeace has maintained a three mile distance from the
>ship carrying the plutonium.  The escort ship, on the other
>hand, has harrassed and rammed a Greenpeace ship.  Why are
>you not complaining about the maneuvering of the escort ship?

To imply that the intent of the Greenpeace ship was anything other than to 
harrass the french ship is beyond credulity.  Quit your whining.  

--Brian
From: huss8397@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: WANTED: China Enviro. Data
Date: 13 Dec 92 11:19:45 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

        Hello.  I will soon be publishing a paper on the environmental policy
and condition of the Peoples Republic of China.  If there is anybody out there
who has information they can contribute please do so.
        I am not looking for unsubstantiated allegations.  I prefer to have
explicit data and information.  If possible, I would like copies of Chinese
environmental laws.  
        I am especially hoping that you GREENPEACE people will show your worth
and give me something that is helpful.  All other environment groups are just
as welcome to help.  
        If the data and information is yours, I will follow make sure that it
is properly cited.  The information may be sent to me via E-mail or posted.  I
would like the info in English, Chinese, German or Russian, but other languages
are acceptable.

        Thank You very much.

        Mark D. Huss

        University of Northern Iowa
From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:13:25 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Dec15.200618.16281@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
writes:
# In article <JMC.92Dec15105733@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
writes:
# >Dingo says Greenpeace does some good research.  I'm curious about
# >that.  Do they do any research?  Is there a Greenpeace laboratory
# >somewhere, and are there Greenpeace employees who do scientific
# >research?  I'm sure they do legal research, i.e. looking for
# >information and people tending to support their positions.
# 
# I suggest that John get a Greenpeace catalog and order a technical
# report.  I referred to research, but literature search might be a 
# more accurate term, for what I have seen.  Collecting the results
# of hard to find studies for the public is a useful activity.  The
# report I have seen collected information about incinerators,
# showing that the claimed four-9's level of incineration is not verified.
# Since the report included extensive tables and graphs, and was thoroughly
# referenced, I don't believe that context is an issue.  This is not
# to say that there is no valid criticism of Greenpeace.  Any organization
# that lives by press release publicity will inevitably become compromised
# in accuracy, IMO.  Nevertheless, it is a broad organization and the
# quality (or lack thereof) of some of its work does not necessarily
# mean that all of their work is of similar quality.

I have mentioned their Global Warming Report now in a couple of articles, and
believe
that this exemplifies just how good their science can get. I have so far read
the
introduction and first two chapters, which introduce the science of climate
modelling
and the possibilities of global warming. Not once is there a claim made
without a
reference to back it up. It acknowledges and explains the uncertainties
involved clearly
and again with plenty of references for those who wish to dig deeper. In my
opinion
it has so far given such a wide variety of sources and detail for it's claims
that only
a very comprehensive dismissal which takes their evidence into account could
counter
it. I recommend that people try to get this book from their nearest
library/bookshop/
whatever in order to see what I mean.At the moment I am compiling a couple of
essays
on some of the issues covered by this report which will quote the references
concerned,
I intend to post them after Xmas.

James

-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *