HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: E-Link: Ticket America Campaign
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:18:02 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec15190148@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <7180@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>  References: <0f_BK9y00iUz03IWV_@andrew.cmu.edu>
>   Sender: news@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
>
>
>   Thanks for the posting.  If I see even one of these stickers on
>   a car or (heaven forbid) by the side of the road, I'll know who
>   to name in the complaint.
>
>   Here on the scenic Monterey Peninsula, there is a $1000 (yup, a kilobuck)
>   fine for littering.
>
>   -- 
>   Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
>   Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
>   Naval Postgraduate School              |              
>   Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
>
>Neither you nor the Ticket America people will have to pay a littering
>fine if their "ticket" ends up on the road.  The Supreme Court has
>decided, correctly in my opinion, that free speech generally takes
>priority over littering laws.  You'll just have to suffer it.  You
>will get used to it, and they will get tired of pestering us.

If people are willing to spend 29 cents complaining, I recommend
they sent the tickets to Jeremy Rifkin, the brainchild for this
silly (IMO) action.  Then they can fill his waste dump.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: soapbox preaching
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:04:26 GMT

assmus@rocky1 (Bayne Assmus) writes:



>Why do so many "so-called" environmentalists preach against   
>nuclear energy, an industry with a low fatality history (yes, 
>we know about Chernobyl, a tragedy, but the only real source 
>of fatalities in the industry) when thousands of miners a year 
>in the United States alone die of black lung disease (an average
>of 4000 deaths/yr during the seventies).  These deaths occur in
>a modernized country with safety regulations.  How many deaths
>occur in less developed countries that heavily rely on coal power
>(and we can't deny them the rights to cheap energy that has given us
>the standards of living we've enjoyed and abused)!

Well, I'm a "so-called" environmentalist, and I think nuclear energy
has a place in the world.  Not as a panacea, but part of an overall
strategy.   I know many environmentalists who are of the same mind.

In response to one of John McCarthy's posting in which he ranted and
raved quite irrationally agains Stephen Schneider, I read the book,
Global Warming.  In it he comes out as favouring nuclear energy in
combintaion with other tecnolgies -- wind, solar, and natural gas.

But the impact has to be assessed all the way from the mining of ore
to the end disposal.  Unfortunately the nuclear industry has shot itself
in the foot with all their hype.
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:43:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.180254.29270@adobe.com> jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:

> Natural gas *is* non-renewable, but it's several steps in the right 
> direction, which is toward hydrogen.  First, natural gas is quite a 
> bit less polluting than gasoline.  Second, it will take awhile to run 
> out, we have good reserves of it, and the world's reserves aren't 
> concentrated in the Middle East.
>
> Why hydrogen?  Solar cells are rapidly becoming economical, and solar 
> electric plants can be used to "renewably" generate hydrogen from 
> seawater.


Current cost of natural gas in the US: about $2/GJ (and there
are places in the world with much cheaper natural gas.)

Current cost of electricity from PV cells: about $.20/kWh, or about
$55/GJ.

Cost of hydrogen if electrolyzers are 70% efficient, ignoring cost of
electrolyzers themselves: $80/GJ.

Even with $.05/kWh electricity, the contribution of the cost of
electricity to hydrogen still is about $20/GJ.

Solar-PV-hydrogen has a long way to go before it can compete with
fossil fuels.  Even among the renewables, gasified biomass is
projected to be a less expensive source of hydrogen as long as the
electricity costs more than about $.02/kWh.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Australia, farming, and kangaroos
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:16:09

In article <1466601998@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

   Naturally, McCarthy will support anything that sounds like an
   expression of nationalism. 

   Division is the very essence of ultraconservatism. It attempts to
   prevent cooperative arrangements from emerging at every opportunity.
   The more divided we are, the more unchecked are the most powerful.

   ------------
   Alan McGowen

Oh, I'm all in favor of co-operation and unity - only it should be
around my ideas, not Alan McGowen's.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: toxic spill remediation
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:53:38 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <JMC.92Dec16113429@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>How was mercury used in making hats?

It was a part of the process for creating felt.

>Was it heated?

I think so.

>Did it get ionized?

I don't know.

>Probably the answers to these questions are not easy to obtain.

You could ask a librarian for help in finding a book that deals with the
historical methods of making felt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: toxic spill remediation
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:43:27 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec16113429@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> How was mercury used in making hats?  Was it heated?  Did it get
> ionized?  Probably the answers to these questions are not easy to
> obtain.  The Minimata disaster was caused by mercury that was
> methylated.
>
 Solutions of mercuric chloride and nitrate - in other words, Hg++ ions.
 These salts are almost as bad as methylated mercury.
> 
> I suppose it should be possible to make a realistic assessment
> of the amount of poisoning produced by playing with the stuff
> in junior high school.  Maybe it was trivial.  Maybe it was
> harmful though not directly observable.
> 
 Harmful effects of mercury vapor are usually due to repeated, prolonged
 exposure.  If the mercury was sitting out in an open tray in a poorly-
 ventilated room there could be problems. If it was just taken out of
 a jar for a few minutes, probably not. The main hazard from playing with
 the metal is spilling it - the liquid runs into cracks and is very hard
 to clean up without special equipment (e.g. vacuum cleaners with special
 filters).

 Robert
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13519 sci.systems:190
From: ks3y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kenneth L. Simons)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.systems
Subject: Re: free Beyond the Limits program
Date: 14 Dec 92 11:14:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.If=DZ8S00WBOA5Dm0T
	<JMC.92Dec12115854@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec13.200501.21769@vexcel.com>
	<JMC.92Dec13145900@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Doctoral student, Social & Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

John McCarthy writes,
>I don't know what this claim means.  _Limits to Growth_ had no
>scales on the axes of its graphs, so we don't know whether the
>predicted catastrophes were supposed to have occurred by now.
>Perhaps they are referring to some scales they kept secret from
>the public.

This is incorrect.  Y-axis scales are often left off to emphasize that
it would be erroneous to think of numbers coming from the model as exact
predictions; rather, the model shows possible trends.  Time (x-axis)
scales are included.  Exact numbers can always be seen using the model
in Dynamo and STELLA.  _Limits to Growth_ predicted a population and
industrial downturn beginning around 2030, IF people took no action to
solve these problems.  Using the Dynamo and STELLA model with either its
original formulation or its slightly-revised 1991 formulation, you will
find that half-hearted policies to curb population and industrial
growth, and to develop and implement relevant technologies, can delay
the downturn by a few decades.

And one more comment on the previous postings:  It is easy to dump a ton
of plutonium into the ocean, but it is not at all easy to get that ton
of plutonium back out.  Similarly, a ton of DDT can easily be dispersed
over the ground, but it is very hard to subsequently remove it from
soil, groundwater, rivers, and the ocean.  While miracle technologies to
remove the plutonium and DDT are always conceivable in the abstract, I
personally see no signs that any such technologies will be developed
within the next century.  The idea that we will be able to clean up
today's waste tomorrow seems to me a dangerous idea.  We need to
concentrate on reducing emissions today, not wait for a miracle cure.

- Ken
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:24:36 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1992Dec17.160109.6457@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.015017.756@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
>>>No, I think it's due to the irrationality of the environmentalists.
>>
>>What is wrong with wanting a better future for this planet. In most of my
>>studies of 'humanity' the most appalling constant found is the destruction 
>>of nature. Men have been at war with this planet for as long as history
>>tells of their struggle to dominate all things, including other men. It
>>is time for humanity to be welcomed into the 20th century with
>>technology. Most problems can be solved if one question is answered
>>before every action taken. That question is .. Will it bring harm to 
>>another person or animal. If the answer is yes, then it's wrong, don't
>>do it.
>
>Sorry, you've fallen into the "utopian environmentalist" stance. You say:
>
Really, cool man.

> "Will it bring harm to another person or animal. If the answer is yes,
                 ^^^^
>  then it's wrong, don't do it."
>
>By this argument, cars, planes, trains, chainsaws, toasters, etc. should
>be banned. 
>
Hey not a bad idea.

>There is a benefit vs. risk issue here. Commercial nuclear power plants in
>the U.S. have killed _0_ people, and we get about 20% of our electricity
>from them. That's DAMN good benefit vs. risk. 
>
I don't recall using the word kill... if you want citations of were
nuclear power has harmed people and the environment, I just finished
finals so I'd be glad to waltz over to the library and get you a few.

>By stating otherwise, you are being irrational.

Using one example is not to logical either pal.
-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: E-Link: Ticket America Ca
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:00:02

In article <2933451723.11.p00004@psilink.com> "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com> writes:

   Newsgroups: sci.environment

   >DATE:   13 Dec 92 06:26:00 GMT
   >FROM:   Paul Burnett <paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us>

   >Touching somebody's car even so much as to put a ticket on it is
   >technically illegal "tampering" in some jurisdictions - your operatives
   >may be subject to detention by the owner and arrest by the responding
   >officer; also you may trigger some cars' burglar alarms and get a panic
   >reaction by owners involving inappropriate use of force - i.e., from
   >those owners insured by Smith & Wesson.  Be careful.

   I've often felt that one of the worst things cars do to people is to make 
   them crazy: one more reason to get away from the damn things. This post 
   illustrates my point.

   --Michael Smith

In most jurisdictions people get away with putting advertisements
under windshield wipers.  I suppose irritation with this may have
caused laws to be passed.  I don't think the law is likely to
protect us from the pseudo-tickets of the self-righteous unless they
imitate real tickets too closely.  I also don't think it will impress
people much.  A little surprise the first time, and then people will
take it as similar to Jehovah's witness or Lyndon Larouche or some
random Indian guru.  There's a tire dealer around Stanford who is
very vigorous in his attention to people's windshields.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Carrying Capacity and Sanity
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 04:00:58 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec15.202330.2990@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:

 > In particular, I would hope that the tension between the greens and
 > the greenbacks might be mitigated by an honest concern for evidence.

YO!

 > |>When I began posting in the group, 
 > |> I decided I would be an idiot to play by their rules  -- so I 
 > |> haven't. 
 >  
 > What rules? This is silly. (This is also Hardwick's mistake.) There is
 > no room for rules in a discussion among a constantly shifting subset of
 > the several MILLION people who in principle have access to this discussion.

What mistake? Please do enlighten me a little on what I am supposed to
have done, of neglected to do this time?

 > There will always be room for rabble rousers like yourself and Prof
 > McCarthy. Unfortunately, the middle ground is not always so well
 > represented. Often the middle is characterized by cowardice: trying to
 > find a position on any matter that will be least offensive to the
 > various wings. Personally I hope for a sort of radical center which
 > feels free to adopt the best proposals of any stripe, even the more
 > extreme ones, without becoming incoherent or directionless, and while
 > eschewing the amply available nonsense. 

Then we agree wholeheartedly, yes? Except that if the "middle" are a
pack of bloody wimps whose fear of causing offense inhibits their every
act then IMHO they get whatever they deserve, like corrupt politicians,
incompetent bureaucrats, political activists, ideological ning-nongs,
loss of topsoil, failed crops, teenage kids turning to drugs in despair,
and whatever else arrives to blight them from time to time.

 > Everyone who can type can learn, I think, and almost everyone can be
 > offended or put off by an ill-chosen remark. In any case, I think
 > it is the better part of valor to act as if this were the case, and
 > to offer the general readership and lurkership the benefit of some
 > pointers to genuine evidence whenever possible.

The point will always eventually come when fear of causing offence is
overcome by a greater fear of poverty or starvation, like the gangs in
Somalia or on the streets of American cities. Your readership has not
acted because the shit has not yet hit their particular fan, as it has
so many others. In the meantime I am not here to edify the lurkers;
if they don't have the intestinal fortitude to face up to reality and
join a substantial discourse on the global environment, again, they
get what they deserve.

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: lbs@texhrc.uucp (Lindy Sisk)
Subject: Questions About Ozone
Followup-To: sci.environment
Summary: What's A Dobson?
Keywords: OZONE DOBSON
Organization: Texaco EPTD
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:27:47 GMT

Could some please define the unit "Dobson" for me?

Also, does being in a location on the earth's surface where there is
a quantity of ozone from manmade processes which exceeds the EPA's
limit necessarily imply that one is enjoying protection from the
ultraviolet component of the sun's rays in excess of what would enjoy
were one NOT in such a location, and, if so, how high would the level 
of low-level ozone have to be to compensate for ozone depletion in, say,
the Antarctic?  I can certainly understand if such quantization is
difficult, but I am curious to the relative magnitudes of these
phenomena.

Thanks!
-- 
Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk        | Voice: +1-713-432-3294   Ham: AK5N
Research Electrical Engineer  | Fax:   +1-713-432-6908 Bix: lbsisk
Texaco, Inc.  P.O. Box 425    | MCIMail: lbsisk    CIS: 72047,2645
Bellaire, TX 77402-0425       |        Internet: sisklb@texaco.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Development policies
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:32:27 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec15225022@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>Evidently the World Bank isn't always right.  Is it always wrong?

It's track record is appallingly poor. Remember it is a political body
first, an ideological body second, and a financial institution a distant 
last. The World Bank has yet to apply sound business principles to any
of it's loan projects.

Gary
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Labeling of Environme
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:51:00 GMT
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085

TO: casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU

  >     With systematic deliberation, environmentalists have been
  >labeled "extremists" or "terrorists"

You left out the incompetence and foolishness that makes many
environmentalists no more than laughingstocks.  Granted, there are many
good-hearted but ignorant folks out there who "want to save the planet",
but most of them are "limousine liberals" with no experience in the real
world - their claims and proposals are simply not based on reality.

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
From: klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Chill out, and swim the waters near Victoria, B.C.
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 23:38:11 GMT

On Wednesday, December 16, 1992, the Capital Regional District chairman,
Frank Leonard (telephone: 1-604-360-3000) said:
 
  I invite any Washington-state mayor put down the _National Enquirer_
  style editorial or cartoon they may be reading, and join me for a swim
  at any time at any one of our beaches, because they are all clean.
  In fact, if a Washington-state mayor wants to take up my invitation,
  we can start with a polar-bear swim at Ross Bay, which is right next
  to the outfall, and is now safe for swimming.

Greater Victoria has been under fire from federal, provincial and Washington-
state officials since residents turned down sewage treatment in a non-binding
referendum on November 21.  Currently, raw, screened, sewage is pumped through
deep ocean outfalls in Juan de Fuca Strait.

Leonard said Victoria's sewage debate has to be put into context.
He quoted an article by scientist Peter Chapman, whose $250,000 study
of the sediments around the two sewage outfalls concluded the environmental
effect is minimal, not of consequence beyond the immediate discharge area,
and "certainly not of environmental concern to Washington state".
Leonard said "I am afraid that not many of our political counterparts
or government officials stateside will even consider our scientific evidence,
because they have invested billions of dollars in their programs,
and cannot afford to admit they may have been wrong, that there may be
circumstances where secondary treatment is not required".

He questioned how much of Washington's coastline is safe for swimming.

"Could it be as bad as Hawaii, where beaches were closed 106 times
last year, attributed to sewage?  Let's see if a polar-bear swim
can chill down the hype."
From: webink@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:20 EST
Subject: Re: Arctic ozone Hole? (Re: ECO Geneva 
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec12.160659.1@cubldr.colora:-774344591:peg:277800095:000:106
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!webink    Dec 14 10:20:00 1992


It s nice to see people in the North being so complacent shame we
share a planet. season greetings Mik P.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Development policies
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec15.155026.11786@vexcel.com> <1992Dec15.155957.12052@vexcel.com>
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:50:22

If a comparative advantage disappears, then a country relying on it
must change what it produces.  Note, however, that Israeli agriculture
also relies on high value exports, and Israel also has shortages of
water.  The Green Revolution in general has worked to the disadvantage
of countries relying on agricultural exports, because countries that
formerly imported have become self-sufficient.  The European Common
Market has also worked to the disadvantage of non-European agriculture.

Evidently the World Bank isn't always right.  Is it always wrong?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: assmus@rocky1 (Bayne Assmus)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.systems
Subject: Re: soapbox preaching
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:26:11 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Reply-To: assmus@rocky1
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocky1.usask.ca

From article <1gm3bcINNaia@access.usask.ca>, by assmus@rocky1 (Bayne Assmus):
> 
> 
 Why do so many "so-called" environmentalists preach against   
 nuclear energy, an industry with a low fatality history (yes, 
 we know about Chernobyl, a tragedy, but the only real source 
 of fatalities in the industry) when thousands of miners a year 
 in the United States alone die of black lung disease (an average
 of 4000 deaths/yr during the seventies).  These deaths occur in
 a modernized country with safety regulations.  How many deaths
 occur in less developed countries that heavily rely on coal power
 (and we can't deny them the rights to cheap energy that has given us
 the standards of living we've enjoyed and abused)!
 
 Maybe Greenpeace should start intercepting coal shipments
 
 
just to piss you off twice, check the new snazzier signature!

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cranky geoeng's doing grad studies in the tundra   
         "  remember, strip mining prevents forest fires " 
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy