HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srgxbhh@grace.cri.nz
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:33:19 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Ltd., New Zealand.
NNTP-Posting-Host: grv.grace.cri.nz


John McCarthy wrote
>It is conceivable that we shall have to substitute
>for high quality wood, which is indeed being rapidly used up.  More
>likely, we will succeed in getting high quality wood from tree farms.
>As long as there is plenty of grain, there is no problem with meat.
>Should we need to devote the present grain land to producing food
>directly consumed by humans, then we can use synthetic carbohydrates
>and bacterial proteins to feed our cattle and chickens.  As for fish,
>note that a substantial fraction of the salmon sold is already farm
>raised.
>
>As for the inspirational message, when the content is mistaken,
>flowery rhetoric can't save the message.


This response to the challenge is very disappointing. The student
will _have_ to work hard this term. Three out of Ten. Perhaps the
student should consider alternative courses? 

Item 1. High quality wood.
       - no definition of "high quality", no assessment of the economics
         of tree farms for high quality wood, no numbers on plantation
         size, location, yield. No indication of the actual quantity
         required..
       
Item 2. Meat
       - Basic confusion. Meat comes from animals, grain comes from
         plants. They are not equivalent ( unless Triffids count :-) )
       - Grain is not a dietary substitute for meat. e.g. No Cholesterol
         and the fats and oils contain different fatty acids. 
         Grain also has different amino acid profiles, vitamins, and
         minerals, consider the need for vegetarians to balance their
         diets. 
       - Please identify the synthetic carbohydrates you intend to 
         squander on animals, and also the economics of manufacturing
         these carbohydrates and name the feedstock for them. 
       - Please identify the bacterial proteins you intend to squander
         on animals, and also the economics of manufacturing these
         proteins and name the feedstock for them.
       - I would suggest that grazing animals on genetically improved
         grasses in mild climates ( no indoor winters ) may be a more
         appropriate alternative, however you have not provided any
         numbers, so comparisons can not be made.

Item 3. Fish
       - I believe high protein diets are used in salmon farms.
         The protein fed to salmon comes from either fish or
         meat, and it is only the higher value of the salmon that 
         economically justifies the farming. Please provide your 
         source of information that indicates that fish farming could
         replace any significant % of marine fishing.       


  Bruce Hamilton      SRGXBHH@grv.grace.cri.nz
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: [energy source] pollution from electricity and nuclear
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:30:52

One of the radioactive minerals that goes up the flue in some quantity
when coal is burned is uranium itself.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:39:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) / 11:50 am  Jan 19, 1993 /
>All levels of debate have value, but I think internal G/green debates
>get the short shrift.  Greens of whatever stripe have much
>to gain by occasionally ignoring outside voices, especially the
>shrill ones, huddling together and then coming out with the result 
>of that discussion to the larger audience.  As long as we do not
>forget that the larger audience is the final field of debate,
>small-scale caucuses have much value.  It is really only up to
>the participants to decide the framework for a particular thread
>and then _stick_ to it.  

Very well put, Dean. And while we are at it, let's not forget that the
"larger audience" is *not* the posters in sci.environment, but the citizens
of the US and the international community. 

If I often seem to address my remarks mainly to the US readers, that is
because I do -- and because I feel we need to make some significant
progress in cleaning up our own national act before we can expect others
to take our "leadership" seriously again. I don't mean to exclude others
from the discussion, but I expect that I will often be talking about US
legislative initiatives. 

I also think, as I've said before, that the broad framework for our 
discussion here should be taken fron UNCED. This applies also when
considering US initiatives.

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

"By the faces we show each other and the world... we force the spring."
-- Bill Clinton.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ARES56@email.mot.com (Bill Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Climatic Change and Mussel shells
Organization: Motorola CMRC
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:53:44 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan25212745@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> 
> In article <1466602060@igc.apc.org> wilsonms@igc.apc.org (Wilson Middle School) writes:
> 
>    Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!sgi!cdp!wilsonms
>    From: wilsonms@igc.apc.org (Wilson Middle School)
>    Newsgroups: sci.environment
>    Date: 25 Jan 93 18:18:00 GMT
>    Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@igc.apc.org>
>    Lines: 23
>    Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466602060:000:1081
>    Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!wilsonms    Jan 25 10:18:00 1993
> 
> 
>    Paleoclimate Research With Freshwater Mussels.
> 
    <deleted text>

>    We would also like to add to our collection of freshwater mussels
>    from the world.  If you have shells from non-endangered species, we'd
>    love to recieve/trade shells.             Thanks,  Keith.
                           -------
> 
>    In case it matters respond on EcoNet.
> 
> Alas, collecting freshwater mussels from around the world is
> an extremely bad idea.  In fact it is illegal.  We just had
> a major infestation of European freshwater mussels into the
> great lakes, clogging power plant cooling intakes, etc.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 

I doubt that the requested shells will be able to infest any body of water.

Bill Hoffman
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
From: pascal@netcom.com (richard childers)
Subject: Re: Oppose Signal Synchronization Projects!
Organization: The Free State of Dis
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:00:37 GMT

karplus@ce.ucsc.edu (Kevin Karplus) writes:

>Mike Vandeman speaks out against signal synchronization, as an ineffective,
>pro-motorist waste of air polloution control funds.

>Joe Buck replies in favor of signal synchronization as an inexpensive,
>effective way to reduce air pollution.

>Who do we believe?


Also, don't forget that traffic synchronization could be applied to making
bicycle commutes much less painful. Regenerating the inertia that was lost
every time one has to come to a partial or full stop is a _major_ waste of
energy, and doing this every block or two is a real hassle. It makes it much
harder for people to arrive at work without working up a major sweat. If I
could simply get into 21st gear and stay there for ten or twenty miles, I'd
be at work much faster and I'd smell much better.	(-:

( Not that I bicycle to work but I'd like to. )


-- richard


-- 
	"It is obligatory, within the limits of capability, to commend the
	 good and forbid evil."     _Kitab_Adab_al-Muridin_, by Suhrawardi

		richard childers		pascal@netcom.com
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:34:22 GMT
Subject: Forcing the Spring
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

>/ hpindda:sci.environment / dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) /  4:05 pm  Jan 18, 1993 /
>In article <STEINLY.93Jan18154203@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>
>>It really will be sad to see when Alan and his ilk turn on
>>Clinton and Gore when they fail to live up to their 
>>expectations... 
>
>It will be truly sad, but probably not for the reason Steinn suggests.

We'll see. There are really only a few *concrete* things I hope for from 
Clinton in this area in the next 4 years, and they are not extremely 
unlikely to be achieved.

The most important thing Clinton could do by *far* -- and I'm certain
this is what he *wants* to do -- would be to change the terms of public
debate about the environment profoundly and in ways which put our 
responsibilities -- as individuals and as a civilization -- in the 
center stage. This takes the discussion out of the realm of the purely
utilitarian calculation of greed vs. fear and into a different moral 
realm altogether. That can only be done as part of a more general shift 
of attitudes in that direction; in *all* areas, not just for the environment.

I will be disappointed -- *very* disappointed -- if Clinton fails at this,
but my disappointment will not be aimed at Clinton -- rather at my country,
and at my species.  However Clinton has a better chance of succeeding
in *this* task than anyone else I can think of -- including Gore, whom a 
year ago I wished were running for president as our best hope. 

And if he does succeed, then when Gore is president in eight years, he and
we will be able to reap the summer's full environmental harvest, that began 
with Bill Clinton "forcing the spring", in ways that will ultimately matter
much more than any first-term environmental legislation.

Yes -- this does mean "putting people first". Not first before *life* 
(an insane idea anyway), but first before greed and fear and immediacy. 

That is *how* we shall force the spring.

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rivers in the sky?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 21:11:46 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 <1466602059@igc.apc.org>, cgilbert@igc.apc.org (Claire Gilbert) writes:
>warm equatorial regions to the cooler poles, but moving in narrow
>streams rather than spreading it out over a large area is what
>surprises Newell and others.
>     Four months of data were analyzed.  More analysis to follow.
>     Joining R. Newell in research were N.E. Newell of Arlington,
>Mass., Y Zho of MIT, and C. Scott of NASA Goddard Space Flight
>Center in Greenbelt, Md.
>
>
>Articles carried in _Blazing Tattles_ described "ribbons" of aerosols
>or particulate matter being transported without diffusing or spreading
>evenly throughout the atmosphere, and was heavily critized for not
>averaging out the particulate matter throughout the earth's entire
>atmosphere in order to determine concentration.
>
>Therefore, I find the above interesting.  CWG

I don't find that at all surpriing, since you're a sociologist with absolutely
no demonstrated capability to understand anything about weather or climate. 
Now, the facts that:
	1)  The "rivers" described above are moving at about 90 degrees to the
	    direction you're interested in;
	2)  They involve transport of water, which is much different,
	    thermodynamically, than the transport of the aerosols you want to
	    compare them to
couldn't *POSSIBLY* be at all important, now could they, Claire.

GODDAMNIT, Claire, if you're going to spend so much of your time on this issue,
YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF TO GET AT LEAST THE RUDIMENTS OF A DECENT UNDERGRAD
EDUCATION IN THE FIELD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: not in MY septic tank...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:07:38 GMT

yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>Since Sellafield is acknowledged to be pumping Pu into the Irish sea,
>on purpose, and since the British government has had to actually move
>some beaches near Sellafield, and since there was a major fire at
>Sellafield in the 1950's, we know that "tiny trace" quantities are not
>as issue here.

Once again, How Much Plutonium are we talking about?  How much is Sellafield
releasing every day?

-Mike
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Another ozone question
Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:53:06 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 <1466602062@igc.apc.org>, wandab@igc.apc.org (Wanda Ballentine) writes:
=
=I have a question I hope someone out there can answer.
=
=The facts as I understand them:  The beginning of life on Earth
=slowly evolved deep in the oceans, eventually creating oxygen
=that bubbled to the surface and then floated up to the
=stratosphere.  About 30 miles from the surface, ultraviolet
=radiation acted upon it to create ozone, and ultimately there was
=enough created to form a buffer between the UV rays and the
=Earth.
=
=Question:  As the UV rays were already bombarding the Earth, WHY
=did the reaction with the oxygen not create ozone at the ground
=level??

It almost certainly did, and continues to do so.  However, one has to look at
two reaction rates:
	O2 => O3 conversion
and	O3 => O2 conversion

The former is driven by UV radiation.  The more oxygen you have between the sun
and the place you're looking at, the more UV will have been absorbed in the
reaction before the sunlight reaches you.  Hence, the rate of formation of O3
would tend to be higher at higher altitudes.

The latter is, among other things, a surface-catalyzed reaction, and therefore
the greater the concentration of particulate matter, aerosols, and so forth,
the faster the reaction goes.  The concentration of these things is higher near
the ground.  Hence this reaction tends to go faster near the ground.

Combining these two facts:
	1)  The rate of ozone formation would tend to be slower at ground
	    level; and
	2)  The rate of ozone destruction would tend to be greater at ground
	    level;
we reach the conclusion:
	The concentration of ozone would tend to be lower at ground level.

Now, of course, there are other considerations.  In particular, one path for
formation of ozone involves the photochemical reaction of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides, so you find substantial ozone formation wherever you find a
mixture of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.  The Los Angeles basin is a good
example of such a situation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Markets Only? What Nonsense!
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:55:34 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Fri, 15 Jan 93 04:32:04 GMT
>FROM:   Gil Hardwick <gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au>
[....]
> you *yet* must come up with a strategy for getting all the
>people out there doing the damage to go along with all your necessary
>political processes. What do you do when they break your laws, shoot
>them?

No, no; a suitable term of imprisonment would probably do the job.

But seriously: that's why we have laws -- to keep people from doing 
things of which the society disapproves. And if people break them, they 
get punished. Is the critique here, in effect, an anarchist one -- that 
laws are per se illegitimate? Just asking.

--Michael Smith
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Another ozone question
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:59:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1993Jan27.175931.9409
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <18183@umd5.umd.edu> bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams) writes:

>>But is this true?  The characteristic time for the oxygen in the
>>atmosphere to be regenerated (by burial of organic matter in seafloor
>>sediments) is currently a few million years.  After the dissolved
>>reduced metals in the ocean had been oxidized, why couldn't the oxygen
>>content of the atmosphere increase on a similar timescale?
>
>Wouldn't it depend on the global rate of photosynthesis, arguably much
>lower during the early
>evolution of photosynthetic organisms?


Undoubtedly.  It would also depend on the rate of sedimentation, which
was arguably higher early in the history of the earth (when
radioactivity was higher, which might increase the rate of tectonic
activity), and on the rate of decomposition of seafloor organic
matter, which was argubly lower when the oceans were more anoxic.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Oppose Signal Synchronization Projects!
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:04:24 GMT

>>An excellent point.  But, even with well-designed bike routes, you
>>*still* see lots of ("too damn many") bicycles on College Avenue in
>>Berkeley during rush hour for instance.  There's a great bike route
>>system in the East Bay (particularly Berkeley-Oakland) and there's just
>>no excuse for seeing bikes on a street not designed for it.

A crazy woman deliberately ran into some bicyclists near here, killing
one and severely injuring others. Some news reporters were questioning
whether they were in the bike lane (irrelevant, since they aren't required
to be!). College Avenue is dangerous, due to the narrowness and traffic volume,
but some cyclists apparently prefer to ride where there are more people.
I can't see any other reason, since there are better routes, with little
traffic, through the neighborhoods.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14811 ba.transportation:3212
From: hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Oppose Signal Synchronization Projects!
Date: 25 Jan 93 02:03:33
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: jordan@IMSI.COM's message of 21 Jan 93 15:26:04 GMT

In article <6094@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
) Joe Buck <jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu> writes:
)) I think it's better to design things so that the main bicycle
)) through-routes aren't the same as the main auto through-routes,
)) so you can time different streets differently.

) An excellent point.  But, even with well-designed bike routes, you
) *still* see lots of ("too damn many") bicycles on College Avenue in
) Berkeley during rush hour for instance.  There's a great bike route
) system in the East Bay (particularly Berkeley-Oakland) and there's just
) no excuse for seeing bikes on a street not designed for it.

Well, it is possible that the bicyclists in question are accustomed to
traveling the route in a car or bus, and so follow the route on their
bike that they know from their car.  Or that the alternate route would
take longer because of geographic distances; I'm not familiar with the
area in question, however.
--
William R Ward                         __o   Bay View Software
VoiceMail: +1 (408) 479-4072         _ \<,_  Internet:  hermit@cats.ucsc.edu
SnailMail: 1803 Mission St. #339    (_)/ (_) BITNet:    hermit@cats.bitnet
           Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Cars and suburbs
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:20:42 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Fri, 15 Jan 1993 17:27:30 GMT
>FROM:   james.w.lacey <jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
[advice to use transit instead of car deleted]
>This would be true for Americans who live in metro areas where
>public transportation could be provided economically.  Since
>most Americans do NOT live in such areas, the use of public
>transit is not an option for a lot of us.
>[....]
>While public tranportation is an excellent goal for Americans
>to move toward, we have to start with an understanding of how
>and why we travel so much by car now.

Very true. Car-dependency is the symptom; suburban sprawl is the 
underlying pathology. (There is, to be sure, something of a 
chicken-and-egg question on the historical level.)

There can be no progress toward rational transit 
arrangements without change in settlement patterns. Environmentalists 
are understandably reluctant to bite this bullet; the car may be holy, 
but the single-family suburban house is the Holy of Holies. And there is 
a further complication derived from the fact that many environmentalists 
suffer from a kind of pastoral romanticism that produces anti-urban 
bias, so the idea of *concentrating* settlement and work seems quite 
heinous. 

There's also a purely economic aspect: you don't pay the capital costs 
of car-ownership on a per-trip basis, unlike transit. If you have to 
have the car anyway, then the marginal cost of a car trip can't be as 
much as the cost of a transit ticket; your share of the capital cost of 
the transit facility gets paid ticket-by-ticket. What has to be 
discouraged is car *ownership*; use will follow.

--Michael Smith
From: ecixdy@igc.apc.org (Energy and Climate Information Exch)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Chief Seattle
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:17:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1jiiu1INN706@master.cs.rose-hulm:197945069:cdp:1466602057:000:1069
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecixdy    Jan 22 07:17:00 1993


 OK, here we go again.

(1) The widely quoted speech of Chief Seattle is more or less bogus.  It
was cooked up by a Hollywood screenwriter several decades ago.

(2) There are several attributions which are based on more scholarly
attributions, and readers are directed to the Seattle, WA, public library
for this information.

(3) The doctored Hollywood version makes great reading, but it isn't true.

(4) The original makes more sense, but is still a rough translation.

(5) If you really want to know what native Americans think, try reading
the postings in alt.native on Usenet.

* -------------------------------------------------------------
* Dan Yurman              |  Internet:  ecixdy@igc.apc.org
* Climate Digest Editor   |    Bitnet:  ecixdy%igc.org@stanford
* Econet Energy & Climate |  MCI Mail:  364-1277
* Information Exchange    |       Map:  112W01 43N28  
* -------------------------------------------------------------
* Pony Express   >>>  PO Box 1569, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83403 USA
                                                                
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14847 soc.culture.usa:10127