HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:17:25 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. 

>How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.

				.
				.
				.

>>Up to 27.5 million curies of radioactivity will then be 
>>released annually.  This may be compared with 
>>the approximately 50 million curies which, according to 
>>official data, were released at Chernobyl during the 
>>accident. 

Gee, Michael, why do you ask questions that are answered below ?

>Now why do I think that something in that paragraph smells fishy?

Because you read it with blinders on.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Greenpeace's lies
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:10:19 GMT

The following article appeared in Soldier of Fortune Magazine.  I think it's
worth passing on.
"Greenpeace sued filmmaker Magnus Gudmundsson for libel because in his film
'Survival in the High North' he accused Greenpeace and other extreme
enviromental groups of falsification in their propaganda.  The film called for a
serious re-examination of the aims and objectives of these organizations.
     "Recently, the Oslo Municipal Court confirmed that Greenpeace in guilty of
deliberate use of falsification in its propaganda, and that it used a film
scene in one of its propaganda films against seal hunting that was undoubtedly
false.  Gudmundsson's further claim that Greenpeace, against its better
knowledge, spread lies about seal hunters skinning animals alive was also
accepted by the court as proven beyond doubt."
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts)
Subject: GREAT LAKES INFO ON-LINE
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:36:25 GMT

THE GREAT LAKES INFORMATION SERVICE is now available for ftp!

Fact Sheets about various Great Lakes topics and issues, along with two
years worth of new stories from the Great Lakes Reporter, can be found
via anonymous ftp at nic.cic.net, in the subdirectory
/pub/great-lakes/cgl (where you'll find a readme.txt file which explains
and lists what's available in what subdirectory).

Topics covered by Fact Sheets include Great Lakes water diversion, water
quality, waterfront development, pollution prevention, regional and
international agreements such as the Great Lakes Water QUality
Agreement, and the effects of global warming on the Lakes.
There are Fact Sheets on many of the 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern,
which are the worst toxic hotspots as designated by the two federal
governments.

The Great Lakes Reporter, a regional newsmagazine published by The
Center for the Great Lakes, covers news, trends, and issues relating the
environment of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the economy of the region,
especially when they interact. You will find every major story that has 
appeared in the Reporter since the start of 1990, listed by subject area
with headlines for easy access and searching. Typical topics include
coverage of the historic regional public meetings held in Traverse City
in October 1991; trends in various key economic sectors around the
Lakes; analysis of current water quality planning and activities by
governments, industry and citizen's groups around the region; waterfront
development aroound the Lakes; "invader" species such as the zebra
mussel; the state and future of the Great Lakes' fishery; the status of
proposals to divert Great Lakes water, and so forth.

The Reporter is a part of the Great Lakes Information Service, a public
service of The Center for the Great Lakes. This ftp access is the first
step in a long-range plan to put the Information Service "on-line"; more
Fact Sheets on more topics will be added, Reporter stories will be
continuously added as they are published, existing Fact Sheets are
periodically updated by Center researchers, and other useful and
interesting things are being put on-line as we think of them
(suggestions are welcome).

For more information, or to receive this material by U.S. Mail, send
email to prb@chinet.chi.il.us. The Information Service also responds to
requests for information from researchers, inlcuding searches of our
library, and picking the brains of our brilliant, experienced and modest
staff. Call 312-263-0785 and ask for Paul Botts or Noah Eiger; be sure
and tell us where you heard of us, so we know whether this method of
making the service known is working!
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Date: 9 Sep 1992 08:21:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In reference to recent posting, same subject, by Patrick Chester,
sorry I do not have a text editor available so I cannot
quote excerpts.

I stand by the main point of my original posting, Space Poop,
that there is already too much debris spinning around the globe
and it needs to be thoroughly cleaned up before significant
efforts at additional launchings, etc.

Some of the facts may be under dispute, but no I am not posting
the space debris does present a hazard in a number of ways.

And finally, Mr. Chester, you might consider forwarding a
copy of your posting to the Acta Astronautica journal which
published the July 1992 entirely concerning this issue.
The various articles do not seem to agree with all of
your points.  At any rate it is worth reading.
The prediction of a Debris Belt essentially creating itself
by constant collisions is discussed in depth in one of
the studies.
This is another example of science or scientists not taking
the time to keep the clean-up technology abreast of the
research technology.
There are more urgent examples, such as all the radioactive
waste generated by research alone and what is or is not
being done with it.
I am not at all opposed to scientific research.  I have
some background in these areas, but there are certain
areas which seem to generate a hell of a lot of "poop"
which material tends to not disappear as conveniently
as some of us nature lovers would like.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
From: -Unknown-@iphase.UUCP (-Unknown-)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: RESOURCE: "More Than 40 Ways to Make Government Purchasing Green"
Date: 11 Sep 92  16:25:24 EST

Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line

[From EcoNet en.recycle Conference]

================================================================
=> From: ei@igc.org
=> Subject: Greening the U.S. Government
 
                    MORE THAN 40 WAYS TO MAKE 
                      GOVERNMENT PURCHASING 
                              GREEN 
 
A book by the Government Purchasing Project with an introduction
by Ralph Nader.
 
Discusses how government can be an environmentally responsible
consumer using energy-efficient lighting, obtaining cash rebates
for installing energy-efficient equipment, recycling, buying
reusable and recycled products, reducing the use of pesticides
and toxic products, using solar energy, source reduction,
composting, vegetable inks and more.
 
Describes examples of successful projects in federal, state and 
local agencies throughout the country. 
 
Lists sources of information, guides for establishing programs 
and other resources. 
 
$10 per copy. 
 
 Send a check or money order payable to the Center for Study of 
                       Responsive Law to: 
         Government Purchasing Project, P.O. Box 19367, 
                      Washington, DC, 20036 
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)
From: Marg_Meikle@mindlink.bc.ca (Marg Meikle)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: household appliances
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:33:30 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I'm  looking for some up to date information on household appliances and the
radiation they give off.  Tvs,  hairdryers, clock radios that sort of thing.  I
know about the big Harrowsmith article and a few others... is this the right
place to ask this question?   Does anyone know who is on top of this topic?

Thanks, Marg Meikle
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:45:42 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

Rick Adams writes
> Thus spake hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor): 
> 
> >>>The Sierra Club says that...
> >
> >
> >>	This has to be one of the worst researched, worst thought out,
> >>	and worst argued things I've seen this year.
> >
> >No doubt. Actually, I quit reading it after I saw ``The Sierra Club  
Says...''.
> >Nothing turns me off to an idea (unfortunately, even if it is an 
> >important one) quicker than seeing it associated with a bunch of  
extremists.
> >
> 
> 	Gee, that must mean you won't read anything that originates with  
the
> Republicans!
> 
> 	I would never have guessed that you were a Clinton supporter!

     Ghee, I can imagine this guy on the floor of the Republican yelling  
"Give em Hell Pat" when that right wing idiot gave his divisive speech!
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:54:13 GMT
Organization: WINCO

In article <1992Sep10.055251.23318@edsi.plexus.COM> grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing) writes:

>Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally 
>anywhere on earth.  If it is indeed plutonium, it was put there by 
>man.  Other radioactive elements with the exception of amercium 
>either self-decompose so rapidly they have no practical life, or 
>exist naturally in nature.

While the plutonium found in the Sellafield region is certainly
man-made, plutonium existed at least 1.8-1.9 billion years ago, having
been formed by neutron capture in the highly-enriched uranium deposits
in the Oklo region of Gabon during a "criticality" that may have lasted
for hundreds of thousands of years.

All this is unimportant compared to the blatant scare-mongering of the
GP release.  Ugh.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3708 alt.activism.d:3092 sci.environment:11348 alt.activism:16307 talk.politics.misc:45538
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:13:48 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <Jym.14Sep1992.2313@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>[Please note the "Followup-to:" field.  Mr. Friedman's heavily
>cross-posted reply went to a number of inappropriate newsgroups,
>including some that the original message didn't go to in the
>first place. 

Jym, if you think this is only appropriate in talk.environment and
alt.activism.d then why the heck was your post cross-posted everywhere.

>Mr. Friedman, if you feel you must involve an
>activism newsgroup in a discussion -- especially a cross-posted
>discussion -- please use alt.activism.d; that's what it's for.

So why didn't you?

I hate to break it to you Jym, but a lot of us feel that
alt.activism.d and your promotion of it and setting followups to it is
a way of attempting to get the last word by shunting people to unread
groups.  If you really feel so strongly about it then why don't you
post there instead of crossposting?

>Also, there is no reason to drag talk.politics.misc into threads
>that are already served by a specific talk newsgroup.]

Sure there is.  This is political.  If you disagree then why did you
post there?

>>> Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally
>>> anywhere on earth.

>> plutonium existed at least 1.8-1.9 billion
>> years ago, 

>=o= That's true, but what of it?  You've won the point but
>avoided the underlying issue.

What's the underlying issue?

>=o= The underlying concern is that the vast majority of the
>biosphere has had no contact with plutonium, and thus has not
>developed ways to deal with it.

Well, this isn't true either, what with nuclear testing and all.

>> All this is unimportant compared to the blatant scare-
>> mongering of the GP release.  Ugh.

>=o= Ugh yourself.  There was no scare-mongering in that release.

What about the part where they compare Sellafield's total release of
radioactives with Chernobyl's and conveniently forget to mention that
for Chernobyl they only counted the non-noble gas releases but for
Sellafield they counted everything?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: Danny.Keren@iphase.UUCP (Danny Keren)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
From: hagstrop@oberon.mathcs.carleton.edu (Paul Hagstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Colorless Green Ideas
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:58:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <_fpn57d.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> In article <Bu4p8B.D1K@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.  
Yoder) writes:
> "The colorless green ideas slept furiously."

Not to be a poop, but I'm pretty sure its famous form is present tense, no  
"the".  Oh heck, fine!  To be a poop, then.  I posted this specifically in the  
interest of being a poop.
--
schmotsignature.
Paul Hagstrom
(hagstrop@carleton.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,misc.legal,mi.general,detroit.general
From: shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:45:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Earth_Sciences_Dept.,_LLNL


 >... tobacco is very efficient at absorbing one of
 > these daughters (Po?)...

I'm aware of some of the earlier work on this, but I'm not completely up to
date, so take the following with a grain of salt (or snort of snuff)...

Alpha activity was first noticed in tobacco by Mardsen and Collins in 1963,
(Nature, v198, p. 962).  Following which, Radford and Hunt (1964, Science,
v143 pp247-9) measured the Po content of cigarets.  The fact that Po was
being transferred to smokers' lungs was demonstrated by Little et al.,
(1965, New Eng. J. of Med., v173, p1343).  Cohen et al. (1980, Health Phys.,
v39, pp619-632) recently assessed the increase in dose delivered to smokers'
lungs due to this source as between 2-12 mrem/yr.  Earlier assessments of the
dose were much higher (80-159 mrem/yr).

Ribs of smokers contain about twice as much Po-210 and Pb-210 as non-smokers
and the resulting total dose to the skeleton is about 30% higher (Holzmann
and Ilcewicz, Science, v153, pp1259-60).

Tobacco does not "selectively concentrate" Po-210; rather, it is likely that
the Po-210 is due to the decay of natural Pb-210 that is deposited on tobacco
leaves by atmospheric aerosols (Martell, 1974, Nature, v249, p215-7).  This
happens to all plants, and broad-leafed plants like tobacco pick up the most.

Po and Pb are relatively volatile elements, and when the tobacco is smoked,
they are partially vaporized and reprecipitate on small smoke particles, which
are inhaled and can lodge in the lungs.  This is basically the same mechanism
that causes damage to the lungs from radon exposure.  (It's not the radon per
se that is so dangerous, but its daughter products, which are scavenged by
dust particles in the air.)

-- 
Henry Shaw, Earth Sciences Dept., LLNL |    All opinions are my own.
Internet: shaw4@llnl.gov               |  
CIS: 76347,2523                        |
Fidonet: Henry Shaw at 1:161/55        |
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3633 sci.environment:11198 alt.activism:16089 talk.politics.misc:44349
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:59:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com> 
	mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>In article <Greenpeace.1Sep1992.8am1@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
>>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>
>>RADIOACTIVE SAND FROM SELLAFIELD PROVES NUCLEAR REPROCESSING IS 
>>UNLAWFUL 
>
>>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. 
>
>How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.
>
>>Sand from the shore 
>>in the area around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in England.  
>>Sand in which children play and families have their picnics.  
>

Beach sand near Jacksonville, FL has a very high natural concentration
of Thorium, and lying on the beach will give an alpha dose many times
higher than "background" radiation.  Not an artifact, mind you, a "natural"
phenomenon.  I wonder if "natural" radiation is embraced by the Greenbozos
with the same enthusiasm with which "man-made" radiation is villified.
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Recycling Used Motor Oil in New Jersey
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 11:16:14 GMT

In article <26064@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>I still have the 50-state list of recycling hotline numbers and will
>dispense it by E-mail upon request.  The folks who answer the numbers
>might be able to tell you where to file complaints as well.
>
>--Joe
>
>>I'd like to discover that the State REQUIRES service stations to accept used
>>oil for recycling and are not allowed to charge a fee.  
>

New York does.  In addition, used batteries can be dropped off at
service stations for free disposal.  However, with the $5 recycling
fee charged on new batteries, its better to take it to any battery
retailer and save the money.

Dave

>Some do, some don't.  


-- 

Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

Xref: sparky talk.environment:3704 sci.environment:11339 alt.activism:16287 talk.politics.misc:45459
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Followup-To: talk.environment,alt.activism.d
Date: 15 Sep 1992 06:14:03 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<8tsn3_#.sss@netcom.com>
	<1992Sep10.055251.23318@edsi.plexus.COM>
	<1992Sep10.145413.13950@pmafire.inel.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: russ@pmafire.inel.gov's message of 10 Sep 92 14:54:13 GMT
Originator: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu

[Please note the "Followup-to:" field.  Mr. Friedman's heavily
cross-posted reply went to a number of inappropriate newsgroups,
including some that the original message didn't go to in the
first place.  Mr. Friedman, if you feel you must involve an
activism newsgroup in a discussion -- especially a cross-posted
discussion -- please use alt.activism.d; that's what it's for.
Also, there is no reason to drag talk.politics.misc into threads
that are already served by a specific talk newsgroup.]

>> Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally
>> anywhere on earth.
> While the plutonium found in the Sellafield region is
> certainly man-made, plutonium existed at least 1.8-1.9 billion
> years ago, having been formed by neutron capture in the
> highly-enriched uranium deposits in the Oklo region of Gabon
> during a "criticality" that may have lasted for hundreds of
> thousands of years.

=o= That's true, but what of it?  You've won the point but
avoided the underlying issue.  These days, any phrase that has
"natural" or "naturally" in it can be rendered meaningless with
ease.  But of what use that?  If you'd read to understand what
your correspondent is trying to get at (rather than just look
for something to rebut), this discussion might actually be worth
something.

=o= The underlying concern is that the vast majority of the
biosphere has had no contact with plutonium, and thus has not
developed ways to deal with it.

> All this is unimportant compared to the blatant scare-
> mongering of the GP release.  Ugh.

=o= Ugh yourself.  There was no scare-mongering in that release.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:52:51 GMT

sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions) writes:


>Beach sand near Jacksonville, FL has a very high natural concentration
>of Thorium, and lying on the beach will give an alpha dose many times
>higher than "background" radiation.  Not an artifact, mind you, a "natural"
>phenomenon.  I wonder if "natural" radiation is embraced by the Greenbozos
>with the same enthusiasm with which "man-made" radiation is villified.
>-- 
>Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
>sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

>The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily

Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally 
anywhere on earth.  If it is indeed plutonium, it was put there by 
man.  Other radioactive elements with the exception of amercium 
either self-decompose so rapidly they have no practical life, or 
exist naturally in nature.

doctor@edsi.plexus.com
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3689 sci.environment:11311 alt.activism:16243 talk.politics.misc:45220
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:21:42 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <1992Sep10.055251.23318@edsi.plexus.COM:, grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing) writes:
: Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally 
: anywhere on earth.

Wrong, plutonium has been created by *NATURAL* reactors many times in the
history of the planet Earth.  Reference articles in Scientific American a
number of years ago.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3673 sci.environment:11290 alt.activism:16182 talk.politics.misc:44988