HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 21:51:56 EST

 
In article <1hvcjmINNd6p@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>I basically agree with all of this.  Extreme (media-oriented) activism
>has value when the cause is unknown.  When it is well-established, then
>such activism will not likely help.  While we may agree on some
>extreme examples, there may still be a dividing line.  Would you
>consider blockading a road to prevent an illegal timber cut to be
>extremist?
In most cases - yes.  If there has been enough time to rally a crew to
blockade the road, then there has been enough time to make the proper
authorities on the legalities(sp?) aware of the situation.  Even a "letter
to the editor" would probably bring enough publicity that the loggers
would be forced by public opinion to stop.  Here's how it works now:
a) Someone writes a "letter to the editor" and the logging company looks bad
in the eyes of the public, OR
b) People block the illegal cut and it makes the paper.  However, in this
situation, now-a-days, the activists look just as bad as the loggers.
 
Battle 1 - stop the timber cut
Battle 2 - prevent negative publicity regarding environmental preservation
 
Option A is a win-win or lose-win scenario.
Option B is a win-lose or lose-lose scenario.
 
Conclusion:  Option A will always gain a little, option B has the potential
             for total failure, and can't be successful in both endeavors.
 
Untouchable logic, well maybe not, but logic.  (Something that many
activists don't appear to have.)
                                   -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence . . .
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:38:58 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec19192129@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Admittedly I am making a generalization from the behavior of thousands
>of organizations in the past advancing their causes by making martyrs
>on whatever scale suits them.  The practice of provoking violence
>is so overwhelmingly common that it is more reasonable to demand
>evidence that Greenpeace is not doing it.  

John is presumably content, therefore, with the claim that is is "more
reasonable" to demand evidence that the government, the nuclear
industry and the United Taxi Drivers of Bohemia, Illinois are involved
in provoking violence.

Given that he has given no evidence of Greenpeace's "making martyr on
whatever scale suits them", his standard of judgement seems to make
the above claim perfectly reasonable.

-- paul
-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us? (Greenpeace and Research)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:21:15 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec19172552@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I believe the book advertised as follows was given as an example of
>Greenpeace research.
>
>=+= And their October/November/December 1991 issue contains this
>information:
>
>	_Playing_With_Fire_    $10.00
>	In theory, properly designed incinerators get
>	rid of toxic waste.  In reality, they create
>	more pollution and health problems.  This 63-
>	page book is a must for any activist fighting
>	a hazardous waste incinerator and for any
>	person living downwind from one.
>
>
>If a book is going to be advertised such a way, you can be very sure
>that no essay will be included that casts the slightest doubt on the
>total virtue of the Greenpeace position.  There will be no maybes in
>it.  It will have, however, a collection of remarks that can be lifted
>and spouted verbatim at hearings or copied onto posters or banners.

I have offered to make a copy of a portion of this report and mail
it to John so he can check it out without contributing any money
to Greenpeace.  He has apparently declined, preferring to judge
the report by its title and its advertisements.  It does not have
any catchy phrases that I remember and the many tables and graphs
would not work very well on a poster at a rally.  
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:53:56 GMT

In article <168C41048A.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU> DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes:
>The way I see it, is the problems with activist groups such as Greenpeace and
>others is there approach.  The environmental awareness that came about during t
>he 90's has created a much more educated population who realizes that strong
>activism is not the solution to every problem.  We now have educated politician
>s who are cognicent of the fact that the voters want environmentally sound legi
>slation, and are attepting to enact this type of legislation.  Whereas in the p
>ast, the only way to get publicity about environmental issues was to do
>something drastic, now it is much more common to find publicity about scientifi
>c developments in the area of improving the environment.  The activist groups
>are looking less and less like saviors and more and more like closed-minded
>terrorists.  The scientific community has viewed them this way for decades, but
>finally the public is starting to realize this.  Greenpeace and others would do
>much better to work within the structure of the government and avoid the negati
>ve publicity that they are receiving.
>                                 -Brad Porter
>DRPORTER@SUVM
> 

There are two sides to this story.  You seem to be much more optimistic
about politicians than most people.  While scientists may have a low
opinion of many activists, I would question whether their opinions
of policy-makers is any higher.

I think that somply presenting the facts is not necessarily enough
to get a corresponding policy.  There are two things that get in the 
way.  

One is that the complex systems that are being studied are a long way
from being fully understood so science cannot always give an absolute
yes or no to a question.  I have no doubt that if "smoking gun"
evidence were found proving the threat of climate change that policies
would be forthcoming.  What we actually have is a threat of
undetermined probability.  We are faced with a _value judgement_ on
how certain we need to be before taking action.  Science cannot
answer this question for us.  Can we then trust the politicians alone?

Secondly, there are people and groups who have money and power based
on the status quo and they will fight sensible policy even when
there is proof.  The proof may need to be overwheming to overcome
their opposition, and as mentioned in the previous paragraph, this
is not always available.

I agree that activism has been compromised by the press and by the
fund-raising process but trusting scientists and politicians alone
is not the answer, IMO.
-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: mmdd@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Pushing Plastic
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:32:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483100136:000:1717
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mmdd    Dec 20 17:32:00 1992


The Wall Street Journal 18 December 1992

Plastic Companies Try to Mold Better Image, By Frank Edward Allen

The Plastic industry is out to make a better impression.

The American Plastics Council plans to spend $18 million through
May on an advertising and public-relations campaign urging
consumers to "take another look at plastic" and to "think again"
about its many benefits.

Television spots developed by D'Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles are
running during such prime-time programs as " Murder, She Wrote,"
"Quantum Leap" and "America's Funniest Home Videos."  They are
being supplemented by network radio spots and display ads in nine
magazines, including Family Circle, National Geographic and
People.

One ad praises foam cups for "keeping sodas nice and cold" and
requiring "less energy to make than many other disposable cups."
Others commend grocery bags, carpets and car fenders made from
plastic.

The council says it also is funding "a program to place articles
and newspaper editorials by respected third parties" about the
environmental soundness of burning plastic.

Part of the gap may be industry credibility.  The council recently
decided to quit calling itself the Partnership for Plastics
Progress.  Before that, it was euphemistically known as the
Council for Solid Waste Solutions.  Critics say the new campaign
has a similar blind spot.  The ads discuss plastic in a vacuum,
they say, as if there weren't any consumer skepticism to
overcome.

"People don't dislike plastics," says Jackie Prince, a scientist
for the Environmental Defense Fund.  "They just don't like the
fact that they don't know what to do with them when they're done.


To get FREE plastics propaganda call:

1-800-243-5790
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, John McCarthy's Alleged Non-Violence . . .
Date: 22 Dec 1992 22:33:11 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<Jym.19Dec1992.1429@naughty-peahen>
	<JMC.92Dec19192129@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 19 Dec 92 19:21:29

>> You haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support
>> anything you've said about Greenpeace.
> Admittedly I am making a generalization from the behavior of
> thousands of organizations in the past . . . The practice of
> provoking violence is so overwhelmingly common that it is more
> reasonable to demand evidence that Greenpeace is not doing it.

=\= Two facts:  (1) A woman is beaten every 18 seconds in this
country, and (2) I haven't got a shred of evidence to support
the hypothesis that John McCarthy beats women.

=\= If I were to say that he was, admittedly I'd be making a
generalization from the behavior of thousands of men in the
past, but the practice of beating women is so overwhelmingly
common that -- using John McCarthy's own "logic" -- it would
be more reasonable to demand evidence that John McCarthy is
not doing so.
    <_Jym_>
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nuclear Witnesses--Dr. John Gofman, Medical Physicist
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 20:32:26 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>         John Gofman sits across from me on a wooden bench-sofa built into
>      the corner of the living room.  He lights a pipe and crosses his legs.

[stuff deleted]

>      cancer by "50 to 100 percent--which is a massive increase!"  Gofman
>      sits back and relights his pipe.  Then he continues, warming to the

Suprising that a smoker would be so interested in radiation-induced cancer.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:53:11 EST

The way I see it, is the problems with activist groups such as Greenpeace and
others is there approach.  The environmental awareness that came about during t
he 90's has created a much more educated population who realizes that strong
activism is not the solution to every problem.  We now have educated politician
s who are cognicent of the fact that the voters want environmentally sound legi
slation, and are attepting to enact this type of legislation.  Whereas in the p
ast, the only way to get publicity about environmental issues was to do
something drastic, now it is much more common to find publicity about scientifi
c developments in the area of improving the environment.  The activist groups
are looking less and less like saviors and more and more like closed-minded
terrorists.  The scientific community has viewed them this way for decades, but
finally the public is starting to realize this.  Greenpeace and others would do
much better to work within the structure of the government and avoid the negati
ve publicity that they are receiving.
                                 -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 21:59:52 EST

In article <1992Dec22.165356.23648@vexcel.com>
dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
 
>I agree that activism has been compromised by the press and by the
>fund-raising process but trusting scientists and politicians alone
>is not the answer, IMO.
I agree with all of your previous statements regarding speed of legislation
and definite answers to scientific problems.  I still feel activism designed
to gain high publicity through radical events is detrimental to the entire
process.  Much of the environmental awareness that has come about recently
is highly attributable to scientific realizations and grass roots campaigning,
not high publicity activities.  I'll admit - there are two connotations to
activism - the radicalist connotation must be dropped in order for activist
groups to succeed.
                                     -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM                  "Always check your speeling" -BP
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.energy,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Date: 23 Dec 1992 06:12:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


According to information i've received from a sympathetic source,
the maximum tolerated quarterly dose of inhaled Pu vs Po
is smaller on a microcurie basis:
 
From the 1991-92 edition of the CRC Hanbook:
Max tolerated quarterly doses of inhaled atomic:
 
Po-210 = 1.3 E-01 Microcuries
Pu-239 = 2.4 E-02 Microcuries
 
However, Po is approx. 64 times as radioactive as Pu.
 
I'd like to offer the following Hypothesis:
Po is a transition metal in the same group as O, S, Se
Is it possible that Po duplicates one or more of these
substances as utilized by the body (e.g. Selenium) and hence
may be more toxic because of the larger # of available
pathways?
 
Food for thought...
ned.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,misc.legal,soc.culture.alaskan,rec.backcountry,soc.culture.alaska,alt.activism
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Pushing Plastic
Date: 22 Dec 1992 07:08:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Okay,
I'm going to try another post here...
 
I don't know everything about plastics, but let me offer the
current argument:
 
While the Monomers of most plastics are nasty, once they are
polymerized into huge chains they are generally more on the
inert side.
 
Plastic items don't kill trees, but they do use up oil and
gas and leave a hole in the ground.
 
Most common plastics are "non-toxic" in the general sense
and break down into powders in less than 1000 years,right?
 
The chief pollution involved in plastics is involved in the
oil extraction and manufacturing processes.
 
Is it possible that pumping oil and making plastics causes
less environmental problems than cutting forests, and bleaching
cellulose and polluting water?
 
I don't know for sure, i'm just "supposing"
does burying old plastics like polyethylene pose a significant
environmental toxics problem?
 
Burning plastics unless you do it correctly (which is pricey)
is generally a bad idea.
 
What happens to Halogens like Chlorine and Fluorine used in
plastics when they break down? any one seen any data?
 
Once again, do not misinterperate this article as "pro-plastic"
I'm just posing some  " For instance " type questions, for the
purpose of discussion.
 
ned.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 05:03:51 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Run! I think the Power Plant's Gonna Blow!!
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <725228747snx@sound.demon.co.uk> Jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk writes:

>
> I have recently read of a fairly easy way to get rid of radioactive waste 
>permanently, which is in sight of today's technology. All you do is put the 
>waste in an accelerator ring and bombard it. It will then undergo some sort of 
>nuclear reaction - some of it will be turned into more radioactive stuff, but 
>some will be kicked into stable isotopes. You then extract the stable stuff 
>(how? I don't know - but there's sure to be a way) and put the still-
>radioactive stuff back in the accelerator, to kick it again. That way you 
>transmute the radioactive stuff gradually into harmless isotopes - and it 
>doesn't require any radically new technology.
>
Easier said than done.  Absorption cross-sections must be considered. 
The radioisotopes will only rarely be found in pure form, and everything
else gets "in the way".  A critical look at this would have to consider
how much additional waste (from any method of power generation) would be
generated to eliminate the original waste.

Since safe disposal is not particularly difficult, going through exotic
contortions may not be justified.














Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Bk Intro: "Secret Fallout, Low-Level Rad. from Hiroshima to TMI" [1/2]
Keywords: human exposure to low-level radiation danger greatly underestimated
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 03:42:10 GMT

The _total population_ dose from TMI was about 10 person-rems. Please show
how this dose, spread over a state-wide area, could cause the effects you
are claiming.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ecologycntr@igc.apc.org (Ecology Center)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: TV Illiterate (was: Re: GP rams)
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:46:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483100137:000:1496
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecologycntr    Dec 22 15:46:00 1992


[Author unknown but quoted by Jym] says;
r


Topic 45	Re: Greenpeace . . . Ramming of Boa
jym	talk.environment	 3:03 pm  Dec 19, 1992
(at mica.berkeley.edu)	(From News system)

> Too bad you only believe Greenpeace and no one else ...

=o= Not even remotely true.  There are things that Greenpeace
has done that I do not approve of, and I have said as much in
the past, in this very forum.

> As far as the ramming of Japanese fishing boats, it was
> televised on national TV in the US because my wife and I
> watched it.  The group who shot the video identified
> themselves as Greenpeace and that they were ramming "Japanese
> fishing veesels using drift nets in violation of International
> Law." . . . The clip was shown on some video show like
> "Totally Real Video"???? or something.

=o= I'll inform the folks at Greenpeace about this.  If you
(or anyone else) could provide a little more detail about this
broadcast -- when it was aired, etc. -- I would appreciate it.
-- Hit <RETURN> or <ENTER> for more (49% read) --
Conf? 
The show in question was _Totally Hidden Video_, and the boat in
question was the Sea Shepherd, captained by Paul Watson. I watched
the entire clip, and _Nowhere_ in the show was Greenpeace even
_mentioned_, let alone assigned responsibility for ramming ships.

Gee, if you pay this little attention when watching television, I can't
imagine your READING comprehension is too good. Maybe you should refrain
from posting until you are able to retain more.

Chris
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Pushing Plastic
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 07:09:29 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec21081029@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>$18 million is small potatoes compared to what Greenpeace spends.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


Oh, boy, let's do some arithmetic!  Greenpeace USA's 1991 budget was $50M,
according to the _1992 Earth Journal_ almanac published by _Buzzworm_.
18/50 = 0.36.  So the plastics industry will spend on imagemaking more than
a third of what Greenpeace USA does for all operations.
I don't have an objective definition of "small potatoes" handy.

Cameron Spitzer in San Jose.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Need "Chief Seattle" reference
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:10:51 GMT

In article <jchapin.725838752@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> jchapin@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (John M. Chapin) writes:
>I was at the San Diego Zoo last week and saw 3 or 4 of the "Chief
>Seattle" quotes on the front of an exhibit (the Lorikeets, if anyone
>is interested).  I want to write the zoo to encourage them to take the
>quotes down or at least properly attribute them.
>
>Could someone please forward me the name of the copywriter who made up
>the speech and a reference to some article which debunks it?  I
>checked for a talk.environment FAQ but didn't see one.  Thanks very
>much!
>
>-John Chapin
> jchapin@cs.stanford.edu
>
>
>-- 
>-----------------------
>John Chapin
>jchapin@cs.stanford.edu
>-----------------------

Are all Chief Seattly quotes wrong?  I have seen many and I thought it
was just the one that reffered to watching buffalo.
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com