HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:06:29 GMT

>In article <1992Nov18.213351.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
> "Second hand opinions from magazines"?  Michael cited a monograph and a 
>  technical review article by two of the leading figures in this field,
>  Guy Brasseur and Susan Solomon. 

 You're right dumb thing to say, however articles in the past from magazines
such as Discover, Science, Popular Sceince, and National Geographic have
twisted the facts in order to use them in their articles. (Then again
doesn't every scientist due this in some sort of the way?)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                         |  "I'm your ice cream man stop
School of Nuclear Engineering         |   when I'm passing by!! They say
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory |   all my flavors are guaranteed 
c/o Purdue University                 |   to satisy!!" Van Halen 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:40:14 GMT

In article <1dkuq6INNeh6@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.203220.5129@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> What we want is to arrive at optimum useage of resources, not neccessarily
>> at maximum use of resources, with the people gaining the benefits paying
>> the costs. Clean air, for example, is not free. To gain that benefit for
>> some, others must forego actions that would benefit them, such as closing 
>> a factory and losing their jobs. This cost must be distributed fairly to
>> those who benefit.
>
>You're assuming that we start with the position that eveybody has a right to
>pollute.  Were we to start with the position that everyone has the right to
>clean air, then we'd take the position that those who've been polluting owe
>those who breathe the air compensation for the theft they've been engaged in
>all along.  Remember Coase's theorem.

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.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: The Browning of America
Summary: Can our topsoil be restored
Keywords: Human Feces, Composting
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:09:50 GMT

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.

Just a Gardener



Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.fluids
From: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan)
Subject: Re: Back of the envelope calculations of CO2
Organization: Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:29:16 GMT

In article <dhalliwe.722033167@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>   One factor is that CO2 doesn't remain as CO2 when dissolved in water: it
>combine with OH- to form various forms of carbonic acid (depending on pH).
>Does this affect the use of Henry's Law? (A chemist I ain't.)
>
I knew this going in, yes the fact that it isn't an "ideal solution" does most
certainly hinder the application of Henry's Law here. I simply threw this out 
to see if anyone knew of measurements that have been taken. A similar 
calculation in Harte's "Consider a Sphereical Cow" takes into account the 
various non-ideal reactions that take place and it does a "better" (how ever
you may wish to define it) job.

Thanks to all who wrote by e-mail or post. I appreciate it.

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


Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:53:41 GMT

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.
> 
> 
> 	G.
> 
> 

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.

Don Palmrose




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov19.145341.5393@inel.gov> <1992Nov19.182350.20893@vexcel.com>
	<1992Nov19.210054.13062@inel.gov>
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:50:37

Physics Prof. Bernard Cohen of Pittsburgh University and Chairman of the
Health Physics Society once offered to eat a gram of plutonium oxide
and to breathe a liter of plutonium oxide particles that would stay
suspended in air for one minute.  He estimated that the reduction of
his life expectancy would be equivalent to taking a six month sabbatical
in Denver Colorado, which has more cosmic radiation than Pittsburgh
because of its 5,000 foot altitude.

Note that he said plutonium oxide.  Were the plutonium methylated,
he would expect to get heavy metal poisoning.

Needless to say, the U.S. Government was unlikely to be sporting
enough to supply the plutonium oxide.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:29:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.213351.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>,  I wrote:

>  Sure, ozone levels track the 11-year solar cycle (more or less). 1964 was
>  a solar _minimum_. 1989 is well on the way towards the 1991 maximum. 
>  You are comparing the low point of one cycle to a point past the middle
>  of another. All this shows is that the _net_ ozone depletion (of the order
>  of 3-5% per decade) is smaller than the total excursion during the cycle
>  (~10%), a result that is well known. To get meaningful numbers you have
    ^^^^^
>  to fit the data to the solar cycle, as well as to the annual and bienniel
>  cycles, and extract the net trend. Take a look at Stolarski et al., 
>  _Science_ _256_, 343 (1992).
> 

 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).
 
 Incidentally, this also detracts from the credibility of Mike Vandeman's
 assertions that ozone depletion has *already* led to skin cancer and blindness.
 
 Robert ("that's what I get for posting from memory")
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:58:20 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov21.012848.24173@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > The people of NYC have several alternative strategies to deal with this
 > type of situation. If they value clean air highly, they can boycott your
 > facility, depriving it of things to burn. If you persist and import waste
 > to burn, they can offer a subsidized clean disposal facility to *compete* 
 > against you at rates that would be ruinous for your business. They don't
 > even have to locate this facility near yours, or use incineration. As
 > long as the waste is disposed of, you're out of business. Lastly, they 
 > could simply buy you out, but that would be undesirable since it would 
 > encourage others to emulate you. That's market action at work. If there's
 > a need for an incineration facility, somebody will supply it, and if it
 > isn't clean enough, somebody else can go into competition with a cleaner
 > one at a clean air subsidy.

I agree with you here, Gary, except that perhaps what you refer to as
"market action" is the very same process others are referring to as
"collective action". If the empirically identifiable processes are the
same, such that each contributor to the discussion is actually talking
about the same real social dynamics as everyone else, any differences
are merely putative, yes?

--
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 * *
Xref: sparky sci.environment:12794 sci.energy:5494
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:22:13 GMT


	Well,there's an awful lot of self-indulgence going on here,isn't
there? Wouldn't it be nice if someone addressed the issues for a change?
	Would anyone,for instance,like to challenge the view that
reprocessing spent fuel is expensive and polluting? If so,I think that
they should argue with Scottish Nuclear,who don't want to reprocess fuel
from their shiny new Torness reactors because it'd be silly to do so.
	As far as I can tell,the only reasons that people want to
reprocess the stuff are the old "Strategic" ones.That was certainly the
only reason Britain wanted to.
	And as for Greenpeace wanting to disrupt the process,I just have
to say that I thought protest was one of these democratic rights.
Certainly,in the event that one of these plutonium shipments did come a
cropper -in a storm,on rocks,to a terrorist/freedom fighter/government
action or whatever,I'm sure everyone will be eager to say that it was a
silly idea.At the moment,we just don't know what the risks are of this
happening.

	Also,to paint the French and Japanese Governments as holy and
pure is a bit much.Neither have exactly shied away from getting their
hands dirty in the past.


	G.
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:27:03 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov13.061824.8598@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>It depends on how badly that one person wants the resource and how strongly
>other individuals want to preserve it. That's where the market can set a
>quanitative valuation. If 100 million people want to preserve a resource,
>but are only willing to spend a penny each to do so, and one individual
>is willing to expend 10 million and *one* dollars to use the resource,
>then the market says that his voice wins the decision.

So, if I decide to build a waste incinerator upwind of New York City, and
I live in oh, say, Denver, I should be allowed to feed the waste stream into
my cheap furnace and dump the toxics into the air?  Unless of course, the
good people of NYC want to protect their clean air and *pay* for a high-
tech furnace that doesn't emit significant toxics?  And, hey, suppose I
just don't _want_ one of them new-fangled devices that always break down -
that 40's vintage stuff works just fine, thank you very much, but I'll
pass on your kind offer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Wolves vs. Caribou
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Nov 92 10:11:32

Someone wrote that the Alaskan decision to shoot wolves is playing God.
One can reply, "No, it's just gardening on a moderately large scale."
Is there a difference?

So far as I have seen of the discussion, it is about on the level of
a Bambi movie, and I'm not sure that much more is involved than a
clash of sentimentalities.

The idea that keeping down the wolves would cause herds of caribou on
the scale of African ungulate herds seems unlikely on the basis of
climate, but maybe the advocates have done their homework.

On the other hand, maybe it's the people from a pioneer culture
annoying the sentimental environmentalists for the sheer pleasure of
it.  In that case, I'm for it.  They certainly deserve some revenge
for all the meddling.

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

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
	<1992Nov6.213704.26864@vexcel.com>
	<1992Nov10.022142.11566@meteor.wisc.edu>
	<1992Nov13.061035.8506@ke4zv.uucp>
	<JMC.92Nov17025507@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Nov17.175327.5373@ke4zv.uucp>
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:31:57

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?
Haven't they already adopted some advanced technologies?  They all
have motor vehicles, radios and telephones, for example.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Alaska to shoot hundreds of wolves from airplanes
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:24:01 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Nov20135129@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > I think public opinion is unbalanced in the matter of caribou vs. wolves.
 > What is needed is a movie Dances with Caribou or a remake of Bambi
 > with Bambi as a caribou whose mother is killed by a wolf.

With little Johnny McCarthy playing Red Riding Hood to lighten the
drama . . .

--
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 * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:24:27 GMT

In article <Jym.12Nov1992.0901@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:

>=/= Greenpeace's version of events is that the Shikishima has
>been bullying the Greenpeace ship (the SOLO) during the voyage...

Greenpeace has a long history of ignoring international law of the
sea when it suits them and then whining about it later. Their efforts
to halt a lawful US Navy missile test is a recent example. 

Greenpeace also insisted they did nothing wrong then which calls into
serious question anything they say now. They lied then, why trust them
now?

>=/= Actually, it is *Greenpeace* who has made the first step
>toward legal action against the Japanese government.

Readers with good memories will also recall they they said the exact
same thing during the trident test. They said they would sue the US
but so far it doesn't look like they have. This is just part of the
whining process, full of sound and fury, signifing nothing.

I still want to know where was Greenpeace when Saddam was dumping oil in
the Gulf and setting the fields on fire? But then, Greenpeace always
looks the other way when anti-US dictators do the dammage.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------159 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:23:50 GMT

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.
>> 
>> 
>> 	G.
>> 
>> 
>
>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?
>
>Don Palmrose
>
>
>
>
>========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
>
>Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
>Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
>implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
>information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
>privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
>endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
>Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
>opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
>United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
>and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Request info on homemade eco-friendly cleaning products
Date: 22 Nov 1992 02:43:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Well, you could make soap from wood ashes and lard. After all, 
the world lived with that for at least 2000 years.
 
I think it unlikely that you could make an effective synthetic
detergent -- a step in the manufacture of most anionics involves
concentrated or fuming sulfuric acid, which no one should handle
outside of a properly equipped factory. Making most nonionics
also requires handling (other) dangerous materials.
 
I know of no _environmental_ negative to enzymes. One should
avoid breathing the dust of such materials lest you become
sensitized (allergic) but this only happened to factory workers
in the early days before the risk was recognized -- very few if any
_consumer_ cases have been known.
 
I would reommend avoiding volatile solvents where possible. This means
not using paint thinner or kerosene or turpentine or Citrasolv or
other cleaners which are or contain volatiles which can cause smog.
Good liquid detergents with water can do almost all such jobs
(remember "DAWN" cleaning the crude oil-soaked birds in Alaska).
 
If you are connected to a properly-operated public sewage treatment
works, most if not all of today's household detergents (but NOT
the solvents) can be properly handled by the treatment plant.
If you have a septic tank or a Cavitette, you may wish to 
minimize the amounts discharged, because neither of these systems
give really good treatment, and effluent can leak to streams.
 
Hope this helps.
 -Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org
Newsgroups: sci.environment