HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING AIRcraft
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 02:11:48 GMT

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>     
> 
>                        Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Air/Spacecraft
>                          or ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
> 
>                NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on 
>           U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [at least $3.00 per complete copy from 
>           U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA  
>           22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try getting 
>           it via your local public or university library's inter-library 
>           loan dept..], titled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A 
>           SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to Inventor 
>           Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971. 
> 
>                                         Robert E. McElwaine
>                                         B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
                                           \
                                            \
			 THIS must stand for SOMETHING!

Actually, the only ingredient missing to make this invention
economically viable is...
			PIXIE DUST!    8-)
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:19:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.112926.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
>
> Sorry, that figure is wrong. Solar cycle variation is ~2%. The 
> "quasibiennial oscillation", a 2-year cycle associated with stratospheric
> winds, gives another 3%. When these and the much larger seasonal variations
> are properly accounted for, one gets a net _global_ decrease of ~3%/decade
> (in addition to the above reference, see Herman et al., J. Geophys. Res.
> _96_, 17297, 1991, which describes the statistical analysis in full detail)
> for the period 1978-1990. The trend is larger (~5%) for middle latitudes,
> and smaller (a fraction of a %) in the tropics. It is still the case that
> the excursion is significantly larger than the trend - so far (don't forget
> the basic time lag - ozone depletion in the 80's is due to chlorine from
> the '60's and '70s).

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.

Rather than referring the skeptic to some obscure Air Force report I urge
him or her to look at page 33 of the January 1988 Scientific American
before blathering about cycles.
 
> Incidentally, this also detracts from the credibility of Mike Vandeman's
> assertions that ozone depletion has *already* led to skin cancer and blindness.

While all else being equal (in the behavior of the population) it is likely
that a significant skin cancer rate increase will occur, this business about
the blind sheep seems to be an isolated incident that has found its way 
into the green canon about ozone destruction, and is probably without
foundation. 

mt
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:21:11 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov13.074014.9157@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > No I'm assuming we start with a position that no one has a right to use
 > a resource they don't own, or lease, and that there can be no such thing
 > as effective collective ownership. Thus clean air freaks don't get their
 > lungfulls for free, and neither do factory owners get a waste receptacle
 > for their waste for free. Clean air implies opportunity costs. A free
 > market in air would determine how clean the air would be as those who
 > wished to benefit from pristine air compete with those who wish to make
 > other economic use of the air. We actually do that today, but in a very
 > indirect way through political regulation. The fallacy of that approach
 > is that the level of benefits is determined by coersion rather than free
 > choice, and that costs are distributed disproportionately. The guiding
 > principle should be that those who benefit most, pay most.

Are you actually trying to say that anyone can just come along and shit
in the public street, while other people who also use the street and
are being inconvenienced and caused to suffer by the filth deposited
there, are fallacious in their common endeavour to persuade the person/s
concerned not to do it, or in their imposing due civil sanctions when
the said person/s refuse to behave reasonably?

That we should abandon our culture and civilisation, to start all over
again from the barbaric assumptions you choose to impose?

Your premises are wholly preposterous. Indeed, bizarre.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: jannotj@pell2l22.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Request info on homemade eco-friendly cleaning products
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:24:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: pellns.1992Nov18.152418.19074
Organization: Allegheny College


 	I wish to find some information on making your own laundry  
detergent and home cleaning products.  I once had formulas for these  
things, but I lost them before I could try them out.  Is there a way to  
make these relatively inexpensive but still effective and environmentally  
safe?  What should you look for in store bought detergents and cleaners?   
I know that chlorine, phosphorous and enzymes are No-Nos - but I can't  
help feeling sick everytime I purchase these products.
	
	Thanks in advance
	jason jannot
	jannotj@alleg.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Nov17123157@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Nov21.022849.24681@ke4zv.uucp>
Date: 21 Nov 92 10:22:24

In article <1992Nov21.022849.24681@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Nov17123157@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Why shouldn't it be easier for these people to adopt advanced technology
   >than it was for the countries that developed it in the first place?

   Technically it should be easier, but economically these countries don't
   have the wealth of the countries who developed the technologies. That
   is a strong impediment to implementation.

   >Haven't they already adopted some advanced technologies?  They all
   >have motor vehicles, radios and telephones, for example.

   Not all by far, and few who do have access to these technologies can
   get full use of them due to poor infrastructure. Bad or non-existant
   roads hinder auto use. Poor network connectivity hinders telephone
   use. Some things are easier to implement than others. For example,
   radio communications and light aircraft are primary ways of communicating
   and travelling in many developing nations, and in some developed nations
   such as the Australian Outback. The reason is that these technologies
   require a less extensive infrastructure in place on the ground. Their
   use is limited to the more affluent, and to governments, for the most
   part, but full use can be made of them in an area with limited infra-
   structure.

   Gary

Can't they accumulate the capital to build the infrastructure by the
same methods used when the rich countries were poor?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: ecologycntr@igc.apc.org (Ecology Center)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Request info on homemade eco-friend
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:20:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov18.152418.19074@pellns.al:-662651657:cdp:1466601928:000:143
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecologycntr    Nov 21 10:20:00 1992


How about answering the person's question, rather than grabbing any
chance to make fun of someone? Some people need to get a damn life.

chris
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Ozone (A few questions I would like answered.)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:22:32 GMT

In article <Bxqy4z.KJu@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, 
klasmekj@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Kevin J. Klasmeier) writes:
>
> I have been studying ozone for several months now and have come up with
> some questions I would like answered. If anyone knows about ozone
> depletion, please respone to klasmekj@ucunix.san.uc.edu
>
 Carl Lydick answered most of your questions, so I'll just touch on a
 few points.
> 
> 3) Aprox. what percentage of Chlorine to humans omit into the
> atmosphere, and aprox. what percentage does nature itself omit into the
> atmosphere? 
>
 As Carl emphasized, what is significant is how much chlorine enters the
 _stratosphere_. About 3/4 of the chlorine presently in the stratosphere
 comes from CFC's and related man-made compounds. Most of the remainder 
 comes from naturally-produced methyl chloride, CH3Cl. These conclusions
 are based upon a large body of data collected over ~20 years, including
 measurements of the concentrations of various chlorine-containing compounds
 as a function of altitude. 
>
> 4) How long has there been an ozone hole, or do we really know?
>
 It was first reported in 1984-85. With hindsight one can extrapolate it back
 into the late 70's. (Antarctic ozone measurements go back to 1956.)
 One occasionally sees reports in the popular press that there was an ozone 
 hole in 1956-58; these reports are incorrect.
> 
 Robert
From: cgilbert@igc.apc.org (Claire Gilbert)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: David Brower Info Sought
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:32:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601908:000:263
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cgilbert    Nov 15 15:32:00 1992


How I can get in touch with David Brower, who is currently absorbed
in the "Restoring-the-Earth" movement and also building support for
holding a World Restoration Fair in 1993 in San Francisco?

I need an address or telephone number.

Thanks.

Claire W. Gilbert
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:00:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.055628.8407@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.172217.2590@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>I do reject the idea of collective property. A collective is an
>abstract fiction that can have no rights or responsibilities.
>Only individuals can have rights, property or otherwise, and
>only individuals are responsible for their actions. As far as
>I'm concerned, "public" property is a synonym for *unowned*
>property. Thus no one has a right to it, and no one has a
>responsibility for it. That's why it's so often and so easily
>abused.

Well, I am not going to spend time trying to convince you that
it is your perspective, not mine that is fiction.  Whether it
is the public statements of Thomas Jefferson (who believed that
private property is the creations of the state, and therefore
subject to the state), or numerous other historical
precedents, collective interest and property are well established.

When someone has a higher "opportunity cost", it means they are
trying to usurp a greater amount of collective property.  Just
remember that when people like me oppose your efforts to
capitalize everything on the face of the Earth, we view your
efforts as taking our collective property.
>
>Gary
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Keywords: the Enrico Fermi mix-master works again...
Date: 23 Nov 92 11:33:43 GMT


	Thanks for the corrections/information/whatever.Over the weekend
I had a look at some stuff on nuclear testing by the French.Between 1966
and 1974 they conducted 44 atmospheric tests in the Pacific,39 at
Muroroa and 5 somewhere else.Some of these were attended at (and delayed)
by Greenpeace.At least 2 people asked about that.
	Saying that what GP did was comparable to a war is to take my
point a little facetiously,I think.There are times when your conscience
may dictate that you break a law which is unjust:this happens all over
the world,and in some circumstances this involves putting yourselves in
danger. Only in extreme circumstances,of course,would this justify
endangering someone else,and no-one has quoted any source (that I've
seen, anyway) which shows that GP were doing this.Does anyone have a
detailed account of what happened? If GP purposely rammed the freighter
or placed it in a position where it couldn't evade,then this was
obviously wrong.I personally doubt that this is what happened.From my
following of events in this sphere,The most likely thing would be that
the freighter was for some reason not *willing* to give way.This kind of
thing has happened before,for instance when GP were harassing a British
vessel dumping drums of low-level (I think) waste at sea.The presence of
an inflatable didn't stop the drums being  dumped before,beside,
immediately behind or,in one case,on top of it.From their size,the drums
must have weighed several tonnes.This is on film,incidentally.
	So,does anyone have a detailed report? I haven't seen one,so as
far as I know this whole "debate" could just be speculation.
	Thanks again,

	G.

 
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:15:46 GMT

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
>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> exceedingly fissionable,is a bit stupid,then their avenues are limited.
>>
>>Gee, I didn't know that cyanide and nerve gas was fissionable?
>>
>>OOOOhhhhhhhhh!  You think that Pu is the most toxic substance known.  Well,
>>it looks like you need to take a course in toxicology because you are plain
>>wrong on this point.
>>
>>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.
>
>So how is toxicology measured?  Is it the speed of death or the amount
>os a substance nexessary to cause death?

As you probably already know dingo, there are several different measures.

1) The amount needed for prompt morbidity. In which case Pu is well down 
   the list behind several common poisons and toxins.

2) The amount needed for cumulative exposure to cause systemic collapse. 
   In which case Pu is behind Berylium and Lead as well as several organic 
   toxins.

3) Prompt radiologic poisoning. Pu, being an alpha emitter, is again down 
   the list behind beta and gamma emitters. You can hold it in your hand
   without fear of harm. In quanities of a few grams, it's warm to the
   touch.

4) Cumulative radiologic poisoning. If trapped in the lung, Pu is
   about on a par with Polonium, the suspected culprit in tobacco 
   smoke. If ingested, it doesn't stay in the body and the harm is
   statistically in the noise compared to it's chemical toxicity.

Compared to a number of industrial chemicals routinely shipped in
bulk, Pu is much less hazardous. Provided it doesn't get dispersed
in an aerosol, it's danger in an accident is minimal. Mad bombers
not withstanding, there's little reason to be concerned about 
shipments of Pu in secure containers.

Gary
From: joshb@panix.com (Josh Blackman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Environmental Organizations
Summary: Looking for environmental organizations
Keywords: environment organization
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:11:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Greetings!  I'm looking to immerse myself in the environmental field
and am interested in finding organizaitons I might become involved with
that would help me learn about what's going on, where the trends are,
how I might become involved.  I'd appreciate hearing from you about 
what organizations you belong to and how such membership has been
useful to you.  thanks. --josh
-- 
Josh Blackman                The day will come when life will not be
joshb@panix.com               a simple matter of bread and labor, nor
voice: 718 857-6072           of idleness either, but a work of art.
36 Plaza St #10e Brooklyn 11238                         -Marinetti 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:11:11 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov21102224@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.022849.24681@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>   In article <JMC.92Nov17123157@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>   >Why shouldn't it be easier for these people to adopt advanced technology
>   >than it was for the countries that developed it in the first place?
>
>   Technically it should be easier, but economically these countries don't
>   have the wealth of the countries who developed the technologies. That
>   is a strong impediment to implementation.
>
>Can't they accumulate the capital to build the infrastructure by the
>same methods used when the rich countries were poor?

In some cases yes, but in general no. Their populations are too high
to rape the land for wealth and still feed themselves. The Americas
got rich by exploiting the natural resources of a relatively empty 
land. Europe got rich initially the same way, and continued to be
rich by taking wealth from each other through wars and trade. Much
of the third world can't bootstrap the same way. Their best hope is
to exploit the one resource they have in plenty, people. But the
slave trade is dead, and they lack the capital to give advanced
schooling to their people so they can become highly productive 
workers in the information age. It's Catch 22. If American, European,
and Japanese companies can continue to export jobs and job training
to these countries, then they have a chance of reaching critical
mass and taking off as rich countries. But if restrictive trade
policies block this, then they are doomed to poverty and starvation.

Gary
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:50:59 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Nov21102224@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > Can't they accumulate the capital to build the infrastructure by the
 > same methods used when the rich countries were poor?

Well they can, but the present rich countries would not like it much.
When they were poor they themselves reneged on their debts, built up
the armies which still today underwrite their infrastructure, and went
out to plunder as much wealth from anywhere they could get access to.

That is how they accumulated the capital to build the infrastructure,
while in the process the infrastructure of the others was destroyed
and so they were impoverished instead. In those days it was called
"privateering", while in the present world climate it is referred to
more accurately as a zero sum game.

How about reading some history, McCarthy? The profound ignorance at
the core of your fascist political ideology does no justice to your
obviously considerable intelligence, which I find a great tragedy.

In different circumstances I would find myself personally quite liking
you and enjoying our various exchanges, in fact.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Browning of America
Date: 20 Nov 1992 23:43:00 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154
Keywords: Human Feces, Composting

In article <By0yCF.6oG@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
writes:
|> When non aboriginals started farming the Great Plains there was nearly two
|> feet of topsoil underneath all that waving grass. Most is gonzo now. Now I
|> have a serious question which only seems facetious:
|> 
|> 	Can we restore Americas topsoile by collecting human feces, and 
|> 	composting our leaves, grass and garbage.
|> 
|> 	How much would it cost to do so?
|> 
|> 	How long would it take?
|> 
|> I suspect if we don't do something like this now or soon, this continent
|> may become a famine area in a century or sooner.
|> 
|> Does anyone have any solid numbers on this.

Solid numbers?  Not me, but I expect that if you compare the compost
available from sewage sludge and yard waste, and the amount of annual
soil loss in the U.S., it will look like a drop in the bucket.
Furthermore, if you compare the cost of the composting, transportation,
and distribution, with the cost of non losing the soil in the first
place, you get lots more bang for the buck with soil conservation.
I'm all for composting, but its really a separate issue.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov 
Organization: Doctoral student, Social & Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.systems
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:45:25 -0500 
From: "Kenneth L. Simons" <ks3y+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: free Beyond the Limits program

Readers interested in Beyond the Limits can get a free Macintosh program
to use and learn about the "World3" model of Beyond the Limits.  (This
is the same model as in the book The Limits to Growth.)  Also available
is a Macintosh program about the Daisyworld model, which illustrates the
Gaia hypothesis.

These programs are available by FTP from "furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu";
use the user name "anonymous".  Look in the directory "global.models".

Descriptions follow:

The Beyond the Limits program uses the "World3" computer model of the
book Beyond the Limits.  It lets you use the model, change the model,
and see the consequences of your changes.  The model can help you think
about possible world futures, and help you investigate possible effects
of global policies.  Background information in the software describes
how to use the model, diagrams of the model, criticisms of the model,
how to get information about it and other global models, and how to
learn with it.  Use the program in conjunction with the book Beyond the
Limits.

The Gaia Hypothesis and Daisyworld program lets you use the "Daisyworld"
model, which illustrates the Gaia hypothesis.  The program includes an
introduction; detailed information about the Gaia hypothesis, the model,
and criticisms of the model; a simple animated version of the model; and
a more detailed version of the model.  You can change the model and see
the consequences of your changes.  Classroom exercises are included.