HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:44:01 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

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
             *****
              at least we can spell!

|> 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
|>  

oh dear oh dear. do you think all that Greenpeace, FoE etc do is just big 
publicity stunts? wake up - they *are* working with (or maybe even lobbying)
governments. FoE, for example, are trying to dispel the MYTH that they are all
hippy radicals - FoE now ask all their local groups to be smart and have started 
doing standard letterheads and group banners which they encourage the local 
groups to use (kinda like corporate image). 


Michael
From: jeffs@almaden.ibm.com (Jeff Schneiter)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Pushing Plastic
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:51:56 GMT
Reply-To: jeffs@almaden.ibm.com (Jeff Schneiter)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center

In article <1h6etqINN66n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:
>Okay,
>I'm going to try another post here...
>I don't know everything about plastics, but let me offer the
>current argument:

Neither do I, so I will be condensing your post just to a topic
or two that are of interest to me.

>     [ questions and statements removed ]

>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?
> 

Instead of trying to figure out what can be done with the plastic
once it has been made and used, how about using a different source
for making plastic AND paper?!

For example, re-legalizing hemp would help in this area. Hemp does
not need to be bleached prior to making paper, and it can be used for
making plastic.

I have been wondering why there have been no discussions of the
environmental uses of hemp in this group. Some would say to take this
discussion to talk.politics.drugs or alt.drugs, but this group
seems more appropriate, and more knowledgeable.

>does burying old plastics like polyethylene pose a significant
>environmental toxics problem?

Damn, I know that there is a hemp based plastic solution to this one,
but I do not have my info here.

>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.

And for me: Dear IBM, do not take this as a pro-hemp-useage post,
I have no original thoughts.

==
"The whole  idea of individual  creativity and  expression in
 the classroom was really basically opposed to the whole idea
 of the University."                 Pirsig
==


Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:54:09 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Dec23105843@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>If greenhouse warming becomes a serious issue, then it may
>be necessary to replace fossil plants before their design
>life - or cut energy use.

True.  As I have said a number of times, a cut in energy consumption
does not necessarily mean a cut in energy services.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Just because there's a reason          			*
>*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
>


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought 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: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us? (Greenpeace and Research)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec19172552@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec21.162115.24164@vexcel.com>
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:19:27

I didn't recognize the offer to make part of Greenpeace's _Playing with
Fire_ available to me at no cost.  I hereby accept it.

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

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:05:19

There are proposed new technologies for nuclear power plants.  The
Department of Energy is supporting research to develop some of them.

No new plants using any technology have been ordered by U.S. utilities
since 1973, and none will be until the legal and public
relations situations improve.  There has just been one improvement.
The new energy bill provides for one stop licensing.  This means that
the utility can apply for a license for a plant of a certain design
and if the design is approved and they build it according to the
design, the plant can operate without a further hearing.  However,
should a utility rely on this law and start building a plant, the
anti-nukes will surely sue, and some judge may say after a couple
billion has been invested, "Hold everything except paying interest
on the money, while I think about it."  If he lets it go after a
while, there will be an appeal.

Nevertheless, one-stop represents progress.  The next hazard is that
a public utilities commission may disallow part of the cost of the
plant as having been incurred by mismanagement.  Guess who will be
urging them to do that.

The utilities have discovered that they can get utilities to allow
them to put politically favored kinds of plants into the rate base no
matter how much they cost, e.g. wind and solar.  At present they
will build whatever the politicians favor.  The more expensive the
plant the more money the utility will make.  Costs haven't gone
up a lot, because only a small amount of solar and wind capacity
have been added.

Another important step is the separation of energy generation companies
from energy distribution companies.  This will permit the distribution
companies to solicit bids from the generation companies and will
reduce the power of the utilities commissions to set rates according
to political pressure.  I think the separation is still in the
talking stage.

Most likely, everyone is waiting to see if the Greenhouse warming
is both real and harmful.


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

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec22174007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec23.164300.22246@vexcel.com>
Date: 23 Dec 92 09:45:17

In article <1992Dec23.164300.22246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
   References: <Jym.22Dec1992.1432@naughty-peahen> <STEINLY.92Dec22145701@topaz.ucsc.edu> <JMC.92Dec22174007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

   In article <JMC.92Dec22174007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Also the French already built enough nuclear plants to supply 75 percent
   >of their electricity and a substantial amount left over to export.  Their
   >per capita GNP is less than that of the U.S.
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >*
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
   >

   To build power generation capacity (of any type) to follow growth needs
   is very different from replacing existing capacity that has not 
   finished its usefule life.  Those nuclear advocates who want to
   replace existing coal plants with nuclear power for whatever
   reason are dreaming.  I don't know that this was John McCarthy's
   point but I think it was the point of the original poster who
   spoke of supplementing rather than supplanting.
   -- 
   ==============================================================================
   A thought for the holidays:
      "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	   - Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com

I suppose there are some nuclear advocates who would like to replace
existing coal plants, but the real problem is to make nuclear power
politically safe enough so that it can again be used for new capacity.
The one stop licensing and the trend to have different companies
generate power and distribute it are steps in the right direction.
Some political leadership is probably required - of which we got
very little from Reagan or Bush.

If the Greenhouse warming turns out to be both real and bad, we may
have to replace the coal plants in a short period.  It can be done,
although it would be expensive.  If we have to crank out a lot of
nuclear plants in a hurry, they will get much cheaper, because of
experience and by amortizing the engineering over more plants.
At a conference held in 1979 on possible energy emergencies, a
Westinghouse official told us, in answer to a question, that
plants could be built in two years - and this without priorities
like those used in World War II.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky talk.environment:5210 alt.activism.d:4350 alt.rush-limbaugh:12165
From: jchapin@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (John M. Chapin)
Subject: Need "Chief Seattle" reference
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:52:32 GMT

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
-----------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:58:43
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<JMC.92Dec22174007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec23.164300.22246@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.164300.22246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Dec22174007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Also the French already built enough nuclear plants to supply 75 percent
   >of their electricity and a substantial amount left over to export.  Their
   >per capita GNP is less than that of the U.S.

   To build power generation capacity (of any type) to follow growth needs
   is very different from replacing existing capacity that has not 
   finished its usefule life.  Those nuclear advocates who want to
   replace existing coal plants with nuclear power for whatever
   reason are dreaming.  I don't know that this was John McCarthy's
   point but I think it was the point of the original poster who
   spoke of supplementing rather than supplanting.

Fossil plants have finite lifetimes - typically a little
shorter than fission plant (design) lifetimes. (Hydro typically
had much longer design lifetimes). So, fossil capacity need
to be replaced at a fairly steady rate. 

If greenhouse warming becomes a serious issue, then it may
be necessary to replace fossil plants before their design
life - or cut energy use.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:44:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


caw, caw,
If your numbers are correct, and i have no reason to suspect
otherwise i am pathetically wrong and apologize profusely to
the readers.
 
BTW i thought i canceled this message, how did you find it?
 
my numbers for plutonium were somewhere down near your
polonium numbers. in fact i was going to go look up the
exact numbers of plutonium, polonium, dioxin, aflatoxin
and a few more perennial favorits and post them here
monday eve. I'll still look them up and if i'm right
i'll post'em if not i'll leave you to stand as the authority.
 
my measure was the TLV/TWA for airborn Pu and OHSA's
"never exceed" limits.
maybe in my addled brain i reversed Pu and Po from my
Haz-mat studied of years past, i don't know. and for the
record i intended to have the numbers when i mailed you,
i never intended to mail that article, that's why i cancelled.
          
until another post meets another flame, adios...
ned.
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 22:11:18 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<JMC.92Dec16192145@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec17.160605.9354@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:06:05 GMT

John "Doomed to Spew Nonsense" McCarthy sez:

>> However, we can see what kind of science it is from the
>> title, "Playing With Fire - Hazardous Waste Incineration".
>> It is lawyers' science . . .

=\= One could, following this "logic," dismiss the entire
life's work of Petr Beckmann (one of John McCarthy's fave
rave authors).  I think there's a double standard at work.

Dingo in Boulder sez:

> I can understand that he does not want to give money to
> Greepeace, so if he will e-mail me his postal address I will
> be willing to send him a copy of a part of the report so that
> he can evaluate it without making a contribution.

=\= I suspect that such would be a waste of time, postage, and
trees.  In September 1991 I posted a report by Joe Thornton to
this forum, containing the very information that made its way
into the book.  John McCarthy apparently hasn't bothered to
address the points made in that report, and I doubt he would
do so now, except to make some kind of knee-jerk generalization
about the awfulness of environmentalists.
    <_Jym_>
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Greenpeace: They're not just for mindlessly bashing anymore...
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:29:04 GMT
	<1992Dec17.142038@aifh.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk's message of 17 Dec 92 14:20:38 GMT

>> 2. The possibility of a nuclear plant "exploding" somehow...
>> 3. The total lack of knowledge in basic nuclear processes...

=o= I've been involved in the anti-nuclear movement since the
days of the Clamshell Alliance, and I constantly hear claims
that we are afraid of nuclear plants going up like a nuclear
bomb, and claims that we don't know how nuclear plants work.

=o= I've met a lot of people in this movement, including a
handful of people who I would not hesitate to classify as
flakes.  And yet, not *one* of these people thought that
a nuclear plant would go up like a nuclear bomb.

=o= I've also not run into anyone who doesn't understand how
a nuclear plant works.  And really, it's not all that hard
to understand -- it's taught in middle school science class!
(The particulars of nuclear engineering are trickier, of course,
but that's hardly germane.)

>> 6. Greenpeace is a "non-violent" organization...
> I have seen some of the discussions on this newsgroup about
> this, I'm not entirely convinced either way . . .

=o= I'm sorry to hear that, since it confirms that a Big Lie,
repeated often enough, will be convincing.  Nobody here has
provided any evidence of actual violence being perpetrated
by Greenpeace.

=o= And, by the way, that includes the "Totally Real Video"
segment, which somebody reported seeing with their own eyes
as evidence of Greenpeace sinking ships.  I've heard from
a number of sources -- one within Greenpeace and three from
the net -- that (1) the show was actually "Eyewitness Video,"
and (2) the video depicted not Greenpeace, but the Sea Shepherd
Society (as I'd suggested).
    <_Jym_>
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Date: 22 Dec 1992 22:33:51 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Dec20.211510.14050@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au's message of Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:15:10 GMT

>> 5. That renewable energy technology can replace nuclear power plants...
> Not in all cases.  Most environmentalists will agree with this.
> Nuclear is a stop gap until better technologies come around.

=\= As Amory Lovins pointed out in his essay from the early
1970s, _Soft_Energy_Paths_, nuclear energy is too expensive to
serve in such a role.  Lovins resigned himself to a fossil fuel
"bridge" to a renewable energy future.

=\= The capital required to replace America's fossil fuel energy
plants with nuclear power plants would exceed America's GNP.
Nuclear power can only -- and has only -- served to supplement,
not to supplant.
    <_Jym_>
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Date: 31 Dec 1992 18:02:30 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <168C812FFB.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU> DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes:
>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 still feel activism designed
>to gain high publicity through radical events is detrimental to the entire
>process. 

I have to agree with you.  Everyone is free to express their beliefs however
they want (consequences of such expression aside), but I do feel that
antagonistic action isn't the answer.  For example, the Israeli government
recently made media martyrs out of the Palestinian terrorist-suspects the
evicted and sent into exile.  Public opinion is so influenced by the
media, it is important to use it wisely.  Will the public find more
sympathy for environmental radicals who use near-terrorist tactics or
for those who demonstrate appealing to human compassion and thought (no
oxymoron intended).

Furthermore, I have no repect for hypocrites like the Hollywood personalities
who use their voice to back up recycling and conservation programs, and
yet live in huge mansions, drive in gas-guzzling cars, and subscribe to
the ultimate consumer lifestyle.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: "Deadly Deceit," Afterword and Methodological Appendix
Keywords: measuring statistically significant excess death rate change
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 03:35:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.152106.12472@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:
>  is still being denied today by the public relations arm of the nuclear
>  industry through organizations like the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness
>  which makes statements like "All the medical and scientific evidence gives
>  nuclear power plants a clean bill of health. . . . the radiation from 
>  natural and man-made scources presents little or no risk.  Scientific 
>  studies over several decades show no health effect on people from exposures 
>  below about 10,000 millirem."  Whose interests are being served by the 
>  promulgation and perpetuation of such "knowledge"?  We must all ponder 
>  deeply and consider this critical question of our times.  

So do organizations like the National Academy of Sciences ("The Effects on
Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation", 1980), the 
IAEA, and most other respected scientific organizations.

Your fearmongering may make a few bucks for the author, but it won't 
change what is actually happening. I suggest that you look up a table
of radiation sources and see where most comes from (hint: not humans).

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 21:56:09 EST

In my previous post, I have a feeling the person given credit for the quoted
text was not the correct person.  I don't know what it says, but the person
quoted should be:
dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
 
Sorry for any inconvience (can I blame this one on the software :> )
Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Greenpeace Anti-Nuke Action in Luxemburg
Followup-To: talk.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:46:27

Can we conclude from this article that the Greenpeace activists posted the
signs before they measured their samples?  Also note that nothing about
the amount of radioactivity detected is included in the Greenpeace
press release.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky talk.environment:5211 alt.activism.d:4351 alt.rush-limbaugh:12166