HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Anti-Greenpeace Scenario From Thin Air
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<Jym.22Dec1992.1516@naughty-peahen>
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:36:22

Perhaps we can base our decisions about whom to believe about the
collision of the Greenpeace ship with the Japanese escort on
figuring out who gained by the collision and its resultant publicity.

It seems to me that Greenpeace got even more publicity than it otherwise
would have gained.  It probably got even more donations from individuals
and foundations.

Does Jym think that the Japanese gained by the collision?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:17:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec24.161708.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <58003@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.163445.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>>Wrong bud, the lands of Alaska belong to the citizens of Alaska, which I just
>>happen to be a member.. Only reason why you all the FED own any land here is
> 
> Not legally. The land is held by the US government in trust for the
> population of the entire United States. I see no advantage for us in 
> just making a gift of the land to you.
> 
>>because you have the might to make right.. I do not want a hand out. I would
>>not mind some land to make my place like my ancestors did, and the right to do
>>with that land what I wish to do with i, with out having to worry about some
>>Eco-Freak having a say in what I do with it.. Basically what is coming down to
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the supply of land has dimished and the demand has
> increased. I'd like some land too, but I don't believe that the other
> citizens of the US have an obligation to give me acreage. Like I said,
> if you are down and out, go to the welfare office. 
> 
>>the argument, is does the land we own in the US/States belong to the owner or
>>are we borrowing it from our Land Lord the FED in a semi-feudal relationship.
>>Are we nothing but vassals of the FED. It is getting harder to do anything with
>>the land that we own, with more paper work necessary to do anything.. In part
>>what I am trying to say in my original message is if you all in Mass (sp) want
>>a park, then condemn your own land and make it so.. Turn Wall Street and the
> 
> We have. The alaskan parks are our land. There's plenty of private land in 
> Alaska, why don't you park yourself on some of that?
> 
> 
> -- 
>

Problem with what you are saying about land in trust and all that stuff, is
that is either fedalism in the old Norman model or god I hate to say it
Socialism.. Problme is we are supposed to be a democracy based on free person
and the ability to make wealth. Why would I go to the Welfare office? Im not a
brain dead pan handler from some parts of the US.. I work for my bread.
You must have me mistaken with some who lives back east.. As far as I know most
of the people I know work and find welfare a sad solution.

Okay, if I go with what you are saying, next time you want to buy or
sell property (land I mean) all US citizens have the right to stop it.
Or at the minimum you need to get the Federal Governments okay to sell or buy
it.. Hum, maybe that is what we have, state feudalism.

When the founding fathers started our nation is was becuase of economic
reasons, they were all land owners.. Do you think they would liek it that they
did not own the land, but were only borrowing it.. Read up what feudalism is
and you find what Im talking about..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14233 sci.energy:6592
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 3 Jan 93 15:06:08 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <63tr1p-@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>In article <51736@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>
>>>Why not take a chunk of vessel to a lab and see exactly what annealing
>>>treatment will restore ductility?  Then simply design new reactors with
>>>an installed annealing system - annealing could be performed as part of
>>>regular maintainance every few years.
>
>>This would not affect the projected lifespan of current reactors, and
>>might not provide an accurate indication of how weld points or different
>>topologies  or larger chunks of metal will behave in situ.
>
>Hi Rich.  I don't think I've seen you in these threads before so 
>I thought I'd warn you that debating with Yackadamn is like yelling
>at the wall.  He's a classic armchair critic who gets all his energy
>information from the Union of Concerned Scientists Book of the Month
>Club.  Us regulars over in sci.energy regard him as a sparring partner
>who aids in keeping our debating skills sharp.  You'll also note another
>of his tricks and that is when the heat gets too high, he'll redirect
>followups away to some more friendly group and away from the experts.

Hi John, the quality of your wit and information remain at their
standard shoddy level, but I'm impressed to see you extend your 
combination of ignorance and dogmatism to the subject of internet
news systems. FYI, Rich's note contained a followup field that is
used by my post-news program without human intervention. 
If you'd like, I can make sure a copy of my every post gets put on
Sci.energy for your edification. On the subject of in situ annealing,
my information comes from NRC and UCS scientists at the public hearings
at Yankee Rowe. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, the
economic and engineering advantages of this process are not at all
settled, and the decision by Yankee Rowe management to shut down rather
than attempt to fix the reactor vessel is an indication. The
facts are that the NRC ordered Yankee Rowe shut down because of
embrittlement, and neither the utility nor the NRC
seemed interested in   trying a costly and experimental repair. NRC
scientists at the hearing told me that they were attempting to get data
on Soviet military reactors where annealing had been tried and that
there was no solid information available on how well the process might
work in a US plant.  In light of this, your assertions about extending
the lifespan of nuclear plants seem  as factual as many of your
previous claims.





-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Anti-Greenpeace Scenario From Thin Air
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 23:59:34 GMT

In article <Jym.22Dec1992.1516@naughty-peahen>, Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
> 
> > Now add in the fact that a clearly hostile ship (don't go and
> > tell me that the GreenPeace ship was out there to protect the
> > Japanese ship) . . .
> 
> =+= The Greenpeace ship was out there to (1) draw attention to
> the shipment and (2) find out the route that the shipment was
> taking (since such was being kept from the public).
> 
> =+= This isn't being there "to protect the Japanese ship" (not
> that anyone ever claimed it was), but neither is it "clearly
> hostile" to do so.
> 
> > The bottom line . . . is that GreenPeace was testing the
> > Japanese escort ship much like the old Soviet Union naval
> > ships would test the US Navy's carrier defenses by trying
> > to purposely get their ships in our carrier's way.
> 
> =+= As I said before, this is a scenario pulled from thin air.
> Repeating it over and over doesn't add substance to it.
>     <_Jym_>
> 
> 

Boy, talk about pulling things from thin air!  Jym, you conveniently leave out
all of the revalent items from my original posting.

THE BOTTOM LINE WAS THAT THE GREENPEACE SHIP HAD NO BUSINESS BEING 3 NM FROM
THE JAPANESE PU-CARRIER!!!  IF IT WAS TO CARRY OUT YOUR ITEMS 1 AND 2 ABOVE
IT COULD HAVE DONE IT AT A DISTANCE OF OVER 8 NM!!! 

AS I SAID BEFORE (AND YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN SINCE IT IS NOT IN YOUR REPLY) THAT
BY ANY ACCEPTED STANDARDS FOR OPERATING LARGE SHIPS, BEING WITHIN 3 NM WITH
KNOWN INTEND OF CAUSING TROUBLE PLACES THE BLAME SOLELY ON GREENPEACE!

One more time:  what I have stated is based on several years experience of 
being involved in the day-to-day operation of a large ship.  Needless to say,
Jym does not like to beleive anybody who is more knowledgeable about
a subject than he is.  I stand on my experience and knowledge, and THAT is 
not pulling anything from thin air.

Remember experience and knowledge win out over you just saying "not so, not
so".

My, my, next thing you will probably state is that you were actually on the
GreenPeace ship.  So my last comment is:  OFFER SOME PROOF OR SHUT UP!

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,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: NYT article on Japanese breeder
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:41:03

Today's (1992 Dec 20) _New York Times_ has an article by David E.
Sanger entitled "Japan's Nuclear Fiasco" wishfully hoping that the
Japanese plan to build an experimental breeder reactor will fail.  It
is featured in the business section with an enormous cartoon,
superimposing what I take to be a nuclear reactor on what might be one
of the 49 views of Mt. Fuji.

The author is rather thin on his reasons for expecting the project to
fail.  The only solid reason is that the fact that nuclear energy has
not expanded as fast as was expected makes expanding the effective
uranium supply by a factor of 140 less urgent than it seemed it would
be 20 years ago.

The language is cribbed from the anti-nuclear literature, e.g.
"True, the breeder reactor project woudl require Japan to find
a safe way to harness one of the deadliest substances on earth -
and persuade the rest of the world that it was safe."  Of course,
the Japanese don't have to convince anyone but themselves that it
is safe.  

Perhaps this represents _The New York Times_ joining the Greenpeace
campaign to bully the Japanese into abandoning their breeder project,
or perhaps it is just a one shot aimed at soothing the businessmen
worried about Japanese competition.

Anyway I hope the Japanese will remain steadfast, but unfortunately
they don't have much a record recently of standing up to political
pressure.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Corp Control, Shareholders.
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:49:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec29.034938.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

If people want to control the MEGA-Corps, then spend your money and buy some
voting stocks and become a SHARE-HOLDER.. After all who does the corporations
respect other than a high government official (maybe), the shareholders..
At least when they vote. I have one share in ARCO, and I can vote for that one
share.. IT might soon mean more than being able to vote in the US elections..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Politics and Environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:06:58

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:47:35 GMT

	I confess that I sometimes feel annoyed by Mike Vandeman's
posts, because he sometimes sounds too much like some howling anti-car
extremist. And this is despite my agreement with him on several
essential points.

	I personally would prefer to try to make cars unnecessary for
a large proportion of urban traveling, and to set up alternatives that
are as clean, safe, fast, convenient, punctual, and jam-free as
possible.

	I personally think Mike Vandeman and others like him could do
a lot better job by pointing to successful public-transit systems
rather than by doing little other than saying how bad the car is.
Without presenting good alternatives in appropriately gory detail, the
car is going to seem the lesser of all the evils.

	This is what I'd like to see:

	Comparing traveling between San Francisco and Oakland by BART
and by car across the Bay Bridge. Which is more pleasant and less of a
hassle? Since Clinton & Co. live in Washington, DC, now, one might
think of some Washington Metro example for them.

	I must concede that a lot of public-transit systems have a
host of unpleasant features. It is rare to find a city bus that has a
pleasant ride, for example. Too many of them seem like some
car-company conspiracy to make the alternatives seem utterly
unpalatable.

	Rail vehicles are usually much more pleasant to ride in than
buses, at least in my experience. But the problem with rail-transit
systems is that the rail lines have to be built, and they usually have
to be separated from all that flat-road traffic in some way to avoid
being caught in traffic jams (the trolleys being stuck in traffic jams
was the nemesis of many a trolley system, and it is not surprising
that GM & Co. managed to get away with their scam of replacing
trolleys with buses for as long as they did). And that requires
_expensive_ construction if the rail vehicles are to travel any faster
than buses. But once it's built... just to take one example, consider
what some CalTrain champions propose as their service model: BART,
despite their complaints about BART's cost.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Sacrifice (was Re: Save the Planet ...)
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:04:16 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Wed, 30 Dec 92 07:00:39 GMT
>FROM:   Gil Hardwick <gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au>

>It is starving people who would kill the last creature left on earth,
>not wealthy people with full bellies, yes?
>
>Gil
>

Actually, the wealthy will do it too, if they're allowed to, and with 
far less justification. The only individual I know personally who ever 
knowingly killed an member of an endangered species was a disgustingly 
rich trust-fund airhead (and close personal friend of the Bush family, 
incidentally). 

Of course, if your point is merely that it would be a good thing if 
people now starving had full bellies instead, I agree. Indeed, I suppose 
nearly everyone would agree, except perhaps for some Dr. Pangloss of the 
Chicago School who thinks that if people are starving it must be their 
own fault, or that it's necessary for some people to starve (on the margin) 
in order to maintain the Best Possible World of market equilibrium.  

Yours for a full belly,

Michael Smith
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Concern For Ozone Depletion Clear, Knowledge of CFCs Mostly
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:35:01 GMT
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec25.232107.3357@en.ecn.purdue.edu> ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) writes:
>In article <1713@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>I have seen A/C hoses on a 4 year old Dodge Omni which
>had turned to powder and crumbled in your hand.  Somebody trying to save
>a few cents someplace.

Those plastic liquid lines? Ugh.

>"green" O-Ring + self-sealing refrigerant (GHG R-12 substitute, sealant

Yeah, I've heard of your R12 substitute. I'm interested to hear more. It's
nice to know that it can be used in existing R12 systems.

>If you don't mind 1.5 lbs of hydrocarbons in your A/C system, one can

I'm no chemist. Why might I mind?

>use 79% propane, 21% isobutane (by weight) as a drop-in substitute for
>Freon-12 (CFC-12) in your auto-A/C.. I ran a car that way for 3 months,
>no problems.  

No worries about the existing refrigerant oil?

> Look at that 20 gals of gasoline on the tank.

Eh?

>73% propane, 27% isobutane, but hey, it is close 'nuff.  Don't use
>straight propane, or the pressures will be too high.

So what are the cons? I imagine that combination is a tad flammable.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:34:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec23.163445.1
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <57990@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.194319.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>>I have lived in Alaska for the last 22+ years and I don't appreciate anyone
>>telling me or my friends what to do or what we can do with our land..
> 
> It's *our* land, bud. Belongs to the people of the USA, not to you. If you
> want a handout, go to the welfare office. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu


Wrong bud, the lands of Alaska belong to the citizens of Alaska, which I just
happen to be a member.. Only reason why you all the FED own any land here is
because you have the might to make right.. I do not want a hand out. I would
not mind some land to make my place like my ancestors did, and the right to do
with that land what I wish to do with i, with out having to worry about some
Eco-Freak having a say in what I do with it.. Basically what is coming down to
the argument, is does the land we own in the US/States belong to the owner or
are we borrowing it from our Land Lord the FED in a semi-feudal relationship.
Are we nothing but vassals of the FED. It is getting harder to do anything with
the land that we own, with more paper work necessary to do anything.. In part
what I am trying to say in my original message is if you all in Mass (sp) want
a park, then condemn your own land and make it so.. Turn Wall Street and the
whole eastern seaboard into a park and leave us in the west alone to enjoy the
land that we have found for, died for, married for (im part indian). Russia did
not sell all of Alaska only the coastal region (from the Aleutians to SE
Alaska) and not the areas in the interior, the Russian Czarist Government
hardly knew anything about the Interior of Alaska.. 

Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14002 talk.environment:5276
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:04:58 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1hnh05INNnna@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.225740.20062@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
>>You are right. I admitt error. However, I still have a problem with the
>>large build up of waste. Until there is a working solution to this
>>problem we should consider an alternative, and I don't mean the burning of
>>fossil fuels.
>
>Well, fine.  Then do us a favor and die.  After all, that will reduce *YOUR*
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wow such an angry young man.

>use of resources.


-- 
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: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 16:43:50 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Dec30.213217.28678@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>I do think that biodiversity problems are concentrated in these
>countrues.  Part of this is due to presures to supply exports to
>consumptiojn in the developed countries but I do not know how this
>component compares to that driven by poverty.

This is at least partly true in Burma.  Several years ago, after some severe
mud-slides, Thailand heavily limited logging.  The trade in this timber has
apparently moved to Burma where the military government is desperate for
foreign currency.  It may also be occurring for the same reasons in rebel
controlled areas. This logging is presumably unregulated and poorly managed.
I would guess it is a significant part of Burma's environmental problems.

The restoration of peaceful democratic government would make addressing
Burma's environment problems much easier.

Andrew Taylor
From: Charles W. Elliott <celliott@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:35 PST
Subject: Re: has anybody heard of this letter?
Nf-ID: #R:misty.boeing.com:115110001:cdp:1466602015:000:1258
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!celliott    Dec 22 07:35:00 1992


     If the "open letter" to which you refer is the same one I am
familiar with, the facts are as follows: the Union of Concerned
Scientists ("UCS"), a Mass. based organization sponsored or co-
sponsored a "Scientists' Warning to Humanity" which "describes the
most serious threats to the quality of all human life and
highlighting the steps that must be taken to avoid human
devastation of the natural world". UCS says that "over 1600 of the
world's leading scientists" have signed the statement, including
the majority of the living winners of Nobel science prizes. 

     Copies of the statement are available to the general public in
a brochure format that opens up to an 11" by 17" poster. For single
free copies, send a self-addressed stamped business size envelope
to UCS Publications Department, Dept. N, 26 Church Street,
Cambridge, MA  02238. Multiple copies are available at below UCS'
cost as follows: $3.00 for 50 copies, $5 for 100 copies, $16 for
500 copies. For the scientific community, UCS is making available
a special packet with 25 copies of the statement and 25 signature
forms for circulation among your colleagues and return to UCS. For
a packet, send $2 to UCS to cover postage.

     Hope this helps. 

Charles Elliott (UCS member)

Newsgroups: sci.environment