HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.environment,cmu.misc.environmental-health-and-safety
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:29:59 -0400 
From: Milind Kandlikar <mk49+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Talk by Dennis Hayes, Founder of Earth Day 

Dennis Hayes, founder of Earth Day will be speaking on  "A Deeper Shade
of Green: The Politics, Economics, and Culture of Environmentalism" on
Tuesday September 22nd, 8-9:30 p.m. in the Skibo Ballroom at Carnegie
Mellon University. 

Dr. Hayes, who is best known as the founder of Earth day heads the
Bullitt Foundation of Seattle, one of Northwest's largest environmental
organization. Till May 1992 he was the head of Green Seal, a Palo Atlo
Calif., based environmental labelling and consumer education
organization. He was also the international chairman of the 1990 Earth
day. He holds degrees from Clark College and Stanford University. 

The event is sponsored by Student Pugwash at Carnegie Mellon, the
Political Speakers Forum Board and CMU's Heinz School of Public Policy
and Management.
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: population load question
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:00:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep6.160027.11632
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep4.165811.9405@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.171421.5807@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.160709.11059@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:

>>> Whatever the population carrying capacity turns out to be, we can say
>>> with some certainty that it is less than the current 5+ billion. Certain
>>> very visible events around the world in the last years have made it
>>> clear.
>>
>>I hope you display more rigor in your physics than you do in this
>>posting.  For starters, define "carrying capacity".
>
>Carrying capacity, n. Number of people who can live in a sustainable way
>in arable land areas of the earth's surface in reasonable comfort with
>reasonable nutrition.


Ah.  With *what technology*?  Only current technology?  Technology of
1000 years ago?  1000 years from now?  Your definition of "carrying
capacity" is so imprecise as to be useless.

As I said, I hope you display more rigor than this in your physics.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: dhembrow@eoe.co.uk (David Hembrow)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Bicycle-Generated Electricity
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:53:15 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <JYM.92Sep9164719@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
: 
:  this bit due to jmccarthy I believe:
:    > All those people who operate stationary bicycles for exercise
:    > could be generating electricity and feeding it into the
:    > network.
: 
:    =o= I've often thought that would be a fine arrangement for
:    powering a television set.  Or a home terminal & modem set up
:    for writing Usenet news . . .
: 
: Any clue what the power consumption of a TV set is?
: Still, might have a socially redeeming value, radically
: altering the ratio of time exercising/time wathcing telly...
: 
:    =o= I don't imagine one could add much to The Grid with such
:    a setup, but there are plenty of home energy systems that could
:    contribute to it.
: 
: Why don't you figure it out? It's a 30 sec task...
: 
: 
: - for those arithmetically challenged: the human body produces
: about 100W - you might get a couple of hundred watts of power
: for a couple of hours out of a fit marathon runner (easy way is
: to figure food intake per day) - call it a very generous 100W of
: usable electric power for 2 hours. A 25" tube TV requires several hundred
: watts to operate, a small TV might last long enough for us all
: to watch Murphy Brown :-) but not, alas, the season premier,
: unless you save up for a few days - or use one of those
: dinky watchmen thingies. 

I read a book earlier this year all about muscle power. There was a picture
of someone watching TV and pedalling a generator at the same time.

Mind you, this was a 12" black & white portable TV, I think you'll find that
the power consumption of those is in the low 10s of watts.

Would people still think TV watchers were couch potatos if they all had to
pedal ?

: 	Now, a laptop and News feed might just be doable...
: easy if solar augmented ;-)
: 
: |  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
: |  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
: | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
: | "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive? (Gatorade results)
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:21:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Earth_Sciences_Dept.,_LLNL

In article <136289@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, I, shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645) wrote:
 
|> The human body contains about 140g K (for a 140kg person), so a typical
|> body burden of K-40 is about 4326 decays/s, or about about 0.12uCi.
|> 

The 140g K figure is for a ~140 *lb* person, not a 140 *kg* person.  Other than that, the calculation 
is correct.  To within about 10%, we contain 1g K per pound of body weight.


-- 
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        |
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:22:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <6195@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>The extra 4 watts per m**2 of radiative flux will be incorporated by
>climate modelers in sub-grid scale processes which are parameterized,
>not directly calculated. ... 

>IMHO, neither the synoptic or climate NWP modelers have sub-grid scale
>processes "just right" yet.  

I agree with this statement, but fail to see its relevance. I did not
ask how the 4 watts would be treated in a model. I asked what the response
to the radiative imbalance would be in the real physical world, and how
you can reasonably postulate that the change at the surface will be small.

Since you claimed that the concerns are political rather than scientific,
you have put yourself in a position where your hypothesis of the new
radiative balance had better be very secure.

However, you acknowledge a 4 w/m^2 radiative imbalance in a doubled CO2
scenario at current temperatures, and you argue that the state of the art 
in climate prediction is uncertain.

I'm afraid I find these positions inconsistent.

mt
From: vanover@bcsaic.boeing.com (Jann VanOver)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:22:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu> kim@.cs.umass.edu () writes:
>An FAQ?
>
>Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
>
The Politically Correct answer to this question is:
   "Neither - I've brought my own, reusable cloth bag!"

<I keep one of these near my front door, but ALWAYS forget to take it
with me to the store!>
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
VanOver@atc.boeing.com
       "Why don't y'all go home?"     Bette Davis in The Little Foxes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nol2321@dsacg4.dsac.dla.mil (Jim Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:27:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus

In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu> kim@.cs.umass.edu () writes:
>
>Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
>I'm a novice environmentalist.

Hmm, I would venture a guess...  The PAPER...  It burns better!  :-)

I'm NOT one!
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Summary: theory vs. obsevation
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:06:53 GMT


In addition to political or ideological biases in the discussion of
climate change, I have noticed among some a distinct bias against
theory.   If I understand the discussion, there are rather strong 
theoretical reasons for believing that a significant change in the
Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will result in
significant changes in climate, most likely in significant global
warming in a relatively short period of time.  On the other hand,
the observational data to date, while consistent with this theory,
do not yet verify it beyond any reasonable doubt.   The theory
invovled, while not at the level of engineering calculations of
load from Newton's laws, is part of standard physics and not really
in question.   Yet some people continue to argue that the theoretical
predictions have no value whatsoever until completely validated by
observation.  Others, while basically accepting the validity of
the theoretical discussion, argue that the magnitude and timing of
climate change are not clear until we collect more data.  There
is also some argument about the details of the theoretical discussion
with optimists arguing that feedback mechanisms are likely to keep
down the magnitude of the change and pessimists arguing the reverse.
There is also considerable disagreement about appropriate
responses to possible global change.   The general public
has little understanding of the meaning of different `theories' in
science.  Hence, it is important to discuss both the theory and
obverational data and the reasons for believing both.  
and

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Neutralizing hurricanes
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:19:26 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep10.174052.27119@ole.cdac.com> ssave@ole.cdac.com (Shailendra Save) writes:
>
>  Yes, if you could mobilise 300,000 troops in 24hours, why is it 
>not possible to do the same in moving out 1/2 the number of civilians
>out of an area in twice that amount of time?

Yes, if you *could* mobilise 300,000 troops in 24 hours it would be
amazing. It took 3 months.

>  If we can afford to pay 60billion in one war over 15 days, why is 
>it taking twice that time to cough up 3 billion in getting aid to the
>hurricane disaster victims?

Maybe because we haven't found a way to make the Arabs pick up the
tab, and even turn a profit like we did in the Gulf.

Seriously, this is "if we can put a man on the Moon...." stuff. Military
mobilizations on the scale of 300,000 troops in 3 months are only possible
because they are trained to respond to orders, equipment is prepositioned,
and we spent $3 trillion dollars over the last decade getting the military
infrastructure in place to do so.

On the financial end, why should we be expected to pick up the tab for
people who insist on living in an area known for hurricanes who refuse
to buy adequate insurance to cover their *predictable* losses? If they
don't wish to incur the expense, they should live inland.

Gary
>
>  The world is a crazy place, just learn to live with it.
>
>  -S
>  ssave@ole.cdac.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parsons@hawk.nstn.ns.ca (Jay Parsons)
Subject: Clean up Programs
Organization: NSTN Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:45:56 GMT

Hello,

I am interested in finding out information on clean up methods and programs.
Specifically I would like information on toxic waste disposal, tar ponds,
and other companies involved in these.  Any clean up information would
be helpful.  Thanks!

Jay Parsons
parsons@hawk.nstn.ns.ca
Xref: sparky sci.environment:11151 talk.environment:3611
From: steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive? (Gatorade results)
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company
	<STEINMAN.92Aug24173740@hawk.is.morgan.com> <10503@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
	<STEINMAN.92Sep2084440@hawk.is.morgan.com>
	<STEINMAN.92Sep11100010@hawk.is.morgan.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:00:56 GMT

In article <STEINMAN.92Sep2084440@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
   In article <10503@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
      In article <STEINMAN.92Aug24173740@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:

      >Teach your children how to use a geiger counter!

      Good idea.  But do not stop there.  Suggest that they put a
      bottle of GatorAde (sorry you folks at UF, any of the
      "replacement" sport drinks) next to it.  <quite a nice effect,
      BTW> Compare to CF bulb.  Look for any warning label on the
      respective packages.  A learning experience!  Also might compare
      to a banana and your own body.

   I didn't think Mr. Carr knew what he was talking about, but was
   unwilling to reply without some data...

I counted Gatorade this weekend. Since I don't know offhand the decay
products of potassium (my college texts are 3,000 miles away), I
opened the lid and positioned the alpha window about 4 cm from the
liquid surface, in the hope of capturing as many ionizing events as
possible. The label claims it contains a total of 100mg of potassium.
Here are the results:

	Gator	20mg K	banana	normal	nuke	flight
day	14.74	15.23	15.71	15.69	56.11	404.1
night	14.35	15.09	15.39	15.36

Once again, no statistical significance, let alone "quite a nice
effect". My guess is that solar activity was lower while counting the
Gatorade than with the other samples -- over years of background
monitoring, I've found solar activity to be the greatest corelant to
increased bacground count.

(For those who have not followed: "20mg K" was two multi-vitimin
tablets, "banana" was an unpeeled banana, "normal" was free-air,
"nuke" was a timed measurement during a nuclear plant tour, and
"flight" was a timed count during a cross-country commercial airline
flight.)

Other possible problems: if the radioactive potassium isotope is
primarily an alpha emitter, only the K in the top few cm of the bottle
would produce alphas that could escape to be counted. Depending on the
energy, beta emissions might be counted from the entire solution, or
they might not.

Either way, I think this exposes Mr. Carr's "quite a nice effect"
statement as crude, uninformed eco-baiting. Anyone have dissenting
experimental data that can salvage Mr. Carr's honor and reputation? :-)
I'm willing to admit my counter or my methods are faulty, given
adequate proof...
--
: : Jan Steinman	   steinman@is.morgan.com		 Bytesmiths : :
: : 2002 Parkside Court				   West Linn, OR 97068-2767 : :
: : 503/657-7703					       212/956-8722 : :
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:00:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Sep8.180635.2157@merrimack.edu> gemmellj@merrimack.edu writes:
>In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu>, kim@.cs.umass.edu writes:
>> An FAQ?
>> 
>> Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
>> 
>> I'm a novice environmentalist.
>By all means, paper is better!!!!!

Politically correct answer: neither. Use a reuseable bag.

Logically correct answer: plastic. Uses less non-renewable resources,
consumes less landfill space, produces less pollution, can be reused
more times, can be used as a kitchen garbage bag if you have the 2 ft
rectangular trash bins.

Practically correct answer: doesn't matter. Devote your attention to more
serious concerns.

Wrong answer: paper. "Must be better since it is more primitive technology.
Use it because you are concerned about the environment, so when you
carelessly toss it out into the environment, it will cause less damage."
eh?

mt
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: This hurricane year
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:23:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 891


	Predictions for Atlantic hurricanes were for the year to be
below normal in terms of numbers, with 4 named storms.

	The El Nino in the Pacific has probably spawned more hurricanes
and allowed them to go further north this year.  This was communicated by
Roger Lukas of the University of Hawaii subsequent to Hurricane Iniki.
The El Nino was moderately intense, elevating average sea surface temperatures
by 1-2 degrees C.

	Unfortunately, no real trend in terms of long term average sea surface
temperature can be determined from hurricane intensity or frequency.
Intensity is a function of individual low-pressure system strength, and 
frequency is determined by steering currents and quasi-stationary atmospheric
features, such as the Bermuda High.

	For long-term elevated temperatures, coral bleaching events may
be an important indicator.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:58:18 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep9.234602.16498@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>OK, so, under ideal conditions, an ounce of plutonium can produce 10^13 such
>particles.  How many such particles are likely to be produced under the
>conditions in which the plutonium in question was released?  In what form was
>the plutonium in question, anyway, at the time it was released?  Elemental
>plutonium (which your "analysis" above assumes)?  Compounded with something
>other than oxygen?  Plutonium oxide?  Leave it to yet another ecoterrorist to
>take a situation and analyze it given worst-case assumptions, ignoring actual
>conditions.

Since we dont want to be eco-terrorists, perhaps you could fill us in on
the known facts as to how reprocessing waste poured into the sea will
distribute over time. Got some ready references to studies on how currents
and tides will carry the waste? Some idea on what happens to plutonium
wastes in beach sand? Does it get windborn? React with the atmosphere?
Sea salts? Water?  Does the waste get picked up and concentrated by
biological organisms? How long will it take to decay to something safe?
Will tidal organisms have different reactions than deep sea organisms?
We are discussing the open dumping of plutonium in the sea here, and
the Greenpeace results show that this plutonium is washing up on beaches.
Is there any reason *not* to find this a very worrisome result?

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ketil@due.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<1992Sep9.191832.18599@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:21:05

In article <1992Sep9.191832.18599@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de> SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer) writes:

   *  Global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC
      over the last 100 years.

Keep in mind that these measurements are very difficult to get, places
where temperature was measured 100 years ago may be different from the
sites used today, cities have grown (causing more local heat) etc. etc.

   *  The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of
      climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural
      climatic variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely
      due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and
      other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced
      greenhouse warming.

Remember we had ice ages (~7degC colder average temp than today, I
seem to remember, but that may be local) and that was before any
human-induced pollution.  Also, there used to be beech(?)-forests
where I live a couple of hundred years ago, and now there's mostly
pine and fir and the occasional oak.  So it has been warmer than it is
now. 

   *  The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from
      observations is not likely for a decade or more.

If unequiwhatever means what I think it does, I culdn't agree more.

Also, keep in mind that a moderate warming might *benefit* the earth and
most living creatures.  At least, I'd be very cautious of screaming
about armageddon, even if it can be shown that the earth *is* warming
up.

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Diapers (probably a FAQ)
Keywords: diapers,environment
Date: 8 Sep 92 08:51:58 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <1992Sep4.192825.9065@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> lattanzi@coos.dartmouth.edu (Stephen C. Lattanzi) writes:
>What are people's opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of cloth and
>disposable diapers?  I have heard arguments on either side of this issue
>(from an environmental perspective), but only vaguely.  I'd be interested
>in hearing what people have to say, as it will be an important issue for
>my wife and I sometime around 3/92 :-).

>Sorry if this is a FAQ.
Don't know if it's a FAQ, but.

The British Consumers Association recently released a report
about just this sort of thing.  The report concluded that
not only were disposables bad for the environment, but they
actually cost more than other methods tested/costed.

It was found that even using a nappy-valet service, where
someone calls round every other day and collects/launders/returns
nappies (diapers) was cheaper than using disposables.

Of course, using cloth nappies and washing them yourself (like our
mothers had to!) is the cheapest way, but who wants to do that!

Paul
-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin +  Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.  +44 442 230000x3357 +
+             +  Opinions expressed are mine! (Yours for a small fee) +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Date: 7 Sep 1992 16:16:32 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <JMC.92Sep5112633@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>1. Evidencce of conspiracy.  This is a legal term.  It requires
>several people getting together or several corporations getting
>together to plan something.  Is there evidence that several companies
>got together?  If they did and actually planned to abolish the
>trolleys, this was illegal as a conspiracy in restraint of trade.  Was
>this known before the statute of limitations ran out on the offense.
>
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

If I remember correctly GM and other companies were convicted of 
conspiracy and fined $5000.

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer