HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcb@druwa.ATT.COM (BakerRC)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Summary: nuclear waste in my backyard?
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:17:15 GMT

Do I dare get into sci.environment? What the hell , I'm a bit chilly and could
use the flames.
In article <22JUL199208440502@zeus.tamu.edu>, slh5087@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> >     I also offer the ground 5200 feet beneath my house as a nuclear
> >     material storage repository (subject to regulatory approval and a 
> >     appropriate personal fee).  
> > 
> >                                    dale bass
> 
> AMEN!  I also offer my property for consideration for a nuclear material
> storage repository, and I'll beat any offer Mr. (Dr.?) Bass makes.
> 
I'm getting sick of this kind of post. I know it's just hypothetical to
make a point but that's what many of you claim the "econazis" approach is
to defend their position. Yes, there may be a safe place to put nuclear
waste. But just ignoring the nuclear waste part:

You want a large construction project ( a LARGE hole) to be done in your
backyard? It would probably take up SEVERAL yards just for all the equipment.

What about all the dirt that has to be hauled away. 

Then when the hole is dug you get lots of big trucks pulling
into your driveway all the time.

Or were you just intending to sell the land and move. I'm sure your 
neighbors would appreciate it.
> His posting, which I have not contained here, has a theme of *relative*
> risk regarding nuclear power, and is most appropriate.  Life is full of

That's not how I read Mr. DeArmond's post. Several other people
on his side have softened his opinion that he didn't mean ZERO.

> risks.  Some great and some small.  Every one of us takes risks every day
> that bring with them a much *greater* chance of our death, etc. than living
> near a nuclear power station, or disposing of nuclear materials in our
> county, state, country.  Ignorance of these risks, and _perceptions_ that
> the risks of nuclear power is more greater than they are, have held this
> country back for too long.
> 

Agreed. I'm still waitng for Mr. Armond's retraction or refutation
of several posts I've seen refuting his claim.
He could have said "less than the alternatives".

> Steve
> ----
> Steven L. Hayes, Texas A&M University, Department of Nuclear Engineering
> (slh5087@zeus.tamu.edu)
From: brian@mbf.UUCP (Brian Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:22:24 GMT
Organization: MAI Systems Corp.

In article <1992Jul25.235844.24525@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe) writes:
>:It was not entirely un-directed. Shortly after the end of World War II,
>:General Motors Co. and one of the major rubber tire manufacturers
>:formed a joint company called American City Lines. This company proceeded
>: to buy control of street railways in cities throughout the country, 
>:to 'run them into the ground' with no maintenance...

I don't know about other cities, but in Los Angeles trolley ridership was
already declining at this time.  The gas and rubber rationing of WWII had
caused an increase in ridership, but once people had their cars again they
spurned the trollies.

-- 
Brian Davis					It ain't no sin!
MAI Systems Corp., Tustin, CA			Take off your skin,
brian%mbf.uucp@ics.uci.edu			And dance around in your bones.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:10:46 GMT

In article <22060@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>In article ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:
...
>
>>About social engineering ... if I remember correctly some rubber company
>>(Goodyear?) did a little social engineering in L.A. helping along the
>>demise of mass transit down there.
>
>	The alternate press in LA tossed this into the dustbin a few
>years ago.  A study of timetables demonstrated the the Red-Line was
>much slower than autos over most of the same routes.  Station waiting
>time made it less convenient for the majority of users.  Timetable
>data confirmed that this was true before and after the "conspiracy"
>supposedly took place.
>
>	That story is as hard to kill as the one that claims the word
>`gaudy' came from the architect Antoni Gaudi.  I just heard that one
>again on the Olympics coverage yesterday.
>--
>Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
>Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

I didn't realize that time tables showed how long it took to drive 
from one place to another. I know people who used the Red Car during 
WWII. They seemed to be very happy with its service. 

You can look around in a law library and find the case that convicted 
several corporations regarding this incident.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.202607.11510@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <STEINLY.92Jul23125752@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>
>>That is precisely what the numbers above show. I assumed a generous
>>1000m height for extraction efficiency, and a 1000x1000mile strip,
>>in practise you'd want longer, thin strips with spacing of order
>>the turbulent mixing length. That is, extracting _all_ the wind energy
>>from the lower atmosphere across the US would just about provide
>>for the current grid demand! (Note wind energy is replenished on
>>100,000s time scale).
>>	I assert, and claim it is incumbent on the proponents to prove
>>otherwise, that to extract all the wind energy across the mid US would
>>cause a local climactic pertubation large compared to any projected
>>greenhouse heating, and that to attempt to extract more than 10% would
>>be suicidally foolish. That ignores the indirect impact such as land
>>use, bird kill and distruption of migration patterns.
>>
>>   I have no idea what the climate effects would be.  Have there been any
>>   effects at the wind farms in CA?
>>
>>You're talking a 3-4 order of magnitude change in scale! 
>
>Thats a reasonable point.  Since the installation of these wind farms
>will take plenty of time even if they are pushed, the effects could be
>studied as bigger and bigger farms were installed.  Maybe the various
>GCM's could be consulted.

     Maybe you do not understand.  He is talking about a 1 million square
     mile area that is one kilometer deep.  This is *big*, very big.

     Plenty of time?  Hell, it'll take between now and forever.

                                 dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9814 sci.physics:11418
From: ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Cars, Cities and Choices
Summary: Choosing cars means choosing a car based city
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:31:11 GMT

Much of the discussion about car-pooling, transit, highways etc. seems
to be missing an important dimension. Choices by both planners and
individuals about transport have a very large long-term impact upon
the future shape of a city. This is easy to understand - transport
possibilities influence private decisions on where to live and where
to set up business.  There is an intimate connection between land-use
in cities and the transport systems which the cities have gone in for.


If we look around the world we see that different transport choices in
the past have led to very differently shaped cities.

USAnian cities have generally chosen to cater to demand for facilities
for automobiles and have progressively built more and more freeways,
parking etc.  This was done in the name of free choice and consumer
sovereignty.  Unfortunately it has ultimately led to cities in which
the basic choice in transport is to drive a car or to stay put!

US cities sprawled outward. The central areas decayed - cars can never
provide enough access to keep a thriving centre, in trying to do so they
swamp it with heavy traffic, freeways and car parking. Detroit is a good
example of this process taken to its extreme. LA too!! Cars cause the
activities of a city to disperse - they are fleeing congestion. Even most
major suburban malls now suffer congestion which puts a cap on their further
growth (unless they are served by transit).

Once a city has become dispersed it is very difficult for transit to be
effective, so it decays...services are cut..there are screams about any
subsidies...you all know the story.  Walking is also now out of the question
since nowhere that anyone wants to go is within walking distance anymore.
Riding bicycles is now dangerous and unpleasant because of the traffic -
and again everything is now far away.

So planning too much for cars actually cuts off evryone's other options.
Each small decision along the way might have seemed perfectly rational
and the arithmetic might have added up -- but the result is a crumby city.
I know, my own city (Adelaide, South Australia) has gone a long way along
the car dominated path.

Most European cities (and Asian, a few Latin American etc) avoided the
car domination trap described above - they are places where everyone has
a great deal of choice as to their mode of transport. Car ownership is often
very high - but people have the choice not to use them very often.

It is easy to see the past choices and the effect they had on US cities
versus different choices on European cities. The next question might be
how can a US style city try to regain some of the qualities of transit
based cities?  Not easy..but I think it has to be done.

Paul Barter
University of Adelaide,
South Australia.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9984 sci.geo.meteorology:2580 sci.skeptic:13207
From: ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:14:21 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>After discussing how public transit decays when cities spread out
>Paul Barter includes:

>     It is easy to see the past choices and the effect they had
>     on US cities versus different choices on European cities.
>     The next question might be how can a US style city try to
>     regain some of the qualities of transit based cities?  Not
>     easy..but I think it has to be done.

>I don't see that it has to be done.  Would Paul Barter consider
>the following experiment?

>Let a new modern, what he calls European style city be built and let a
>modern spread out city be built at similar expense.  Let them be only
>100 miles apart.  See which people move to.

>The experiment is unlikely to be performed in its pure form.  However,
>there are indications.  The population of New York declines, and the
>population of Los Angeles and Houston increase.  Maybe people don't
>have the same relative preferences as most intellectuals think they ought
>to.


>Well, maybe everything is in order.  New York is still a powerful magnet
>for intellectuals, and other people move to Los Angeles and other
>spread out cities.  Perhaps we're better off with not just one kind
>of city.

It is also possible to provide the choice within a city. You could have a
mass transit spine serving dense urban nodes. All those who want suburbia
still have it everywhere else.

The suburbanites would actually benefit from improved transit which would be
made possible by the urbanites and their choice.
Perhaps Toronto is an example of this kind of city?

It will be interesting to see if something similar happens in LA, Washington,
and the other US cities which have installed new rapid transit.

>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305


Paul Barter, Uni. of Adelaide, South Australia.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: haralds@ifi.unit.no
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Organization: Ifi, University of Trondheim / AVH
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:50:22 GMT

In article <662@hel-pless.brl.mil> tkelley@hel4.brl.mil (Troy Kelley) writes:
>

(misc. deleted)

>press different symbollic buttons in there tanks to form sentences to 
>communicate with their trainers. So I think this would be at least
>as intelligent as a person learning a foriegn language.

In fact, the way a normal person learns a foreign language is 
much (!!) more complicated than what these animals can ever do.
A  child can pick up new  words with a speed that would amaze you
(I presume you don't  know anything about what you are talking
 about here).

B.t.w.: normally,  the way a non-human composes a "sentence"
is to group together "information bits" without regard of their 
order. Whether this should be concidered "shouting" or
"sentences" is sometimes a question of what you think/expect
 to see.

>
>I think the point here is that there are different kinds of intelligence.
>If you look at human intelligence it is shaped because we are at
>odds with our environment. We have learned to build houses and make
>clothing and weapons to protect ourselves from our environment. A naked
>human is dead in the wild. Dolphins don't have this problem, and apes
>and chimps are both considerably stronger than humans, and climb trees
>much easier than we do. We have a huge inferiority complex based on our
>physical inferiority. We make up for it mentally, or perhaps we
>overcompensate.
>


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:01:45 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul24101907@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Dean Alaska includes:
>
>     A significant issue here has been the need to build new
>     power plants.  Peak demand is the crucial factor for this.
>     The premise in my thread with C.R. Bass was that neither
>     coal nor nuclear power plant construction is needed in the
>     near future due to efficiency and renewables.
>
>1. What renewables do you have in mind, and why do you believe
>they are better than nuclear?

I said efficiency and renewables.  In the shortest term (next decade or so),
efficiency is the best choice.  In the short term wind and solar thermal
seem to be good options, at least for certain areas.  I do not know
what grid issues, if any, need to be solved if renewable based energy
is to be distributed on the grid.

Both are preferable to me over nuclear.  Although I admit that the danger
of catastrophic accident from nuclear plants is exaggerated, I believe
that waste issues remain to be solved and still have some other safety
concerns.  The basis for these concerns for me comes from the Union of
Concerned Scientists.  If nuclear power proponents believe the dangers
are just scare tactics without basis, why is the UCS unconvinced?  Do
the nuclear power proponents reading this consider the UCS credible?
If not, why.

I also have a personal preference for smaller scale development.
>
>2. What is so important about energy efficiency except as costs
>are reduced?  It is difficult, but the cost of keeping energy
>efficiency near the top of the political agenda crowding out
>other issues, is also a cost of the energy religion.

Your second sentance is confusing to me.  The successful use of
efficiency strategies can have positive effects for air pollution,
resource extraction impacts, greenhouse gases, and mechanical
productivity.  Certainly nuclear power also has some of these
advantages, but my questions above must be resolved first.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10030 sci.geo.meteorology:2585 sci.skeptic:13233
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:22:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.141352.17358@scott.skidmore.edu>, datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz) writes:
>dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>>Wow.  I thought a terrorist was someone who killed people in
>>order to create fear.
>
>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
>>No, a terrorist is someone who engages in the systematic
>>use of terror, especially as a means to coercion.
>>Examples are:
>>	o  Pointing to Chernobyl as an example of how dangerous
>	    the nuclear reactors in the United States are, when the
>>	    designs are entirely different;
>>	o  Grossly overstating the amount and/or activity of spent
>>	    fuel elements from commercial power reactors in this country;
>>	o  Confusing the waste from nuclear weapons facilities (hell,
>	    they're DESIGNED to produce lots of radioactive stuff;
>>	    small wonder that they do) with the waste from commercial
>>	    nuclear reactors;
>>	o  Grossly overstating the amount of radiation released at
>	    TMI.
>>In each of these examples, ecoterrorists misrepresent things in order
>>to scare the uninformed, in order to force their policies through.
>>Sure sounds like a systematic use of terror to me.
>
>		It does?  Take a look at what you are saying:
>
>		"pointing to," "grossly overstating," and "confusing,"
>		are being equated to, e.g., bombing civilian
>		airliners, machine gunning passengers at airports, beating 
>		airline passengers to death, shooting crippled cruise
>		ship passengers, etc.

I never claimed that all terrorists are alike.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,sci.psychology
From: magnus@jaist-east.ac.jp (Magnus Halldorsson)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Organization: School of Info. Science, JAIST Hokuriku, Japan
	<MAGNUS.92Jul24093918@is19e0s00.jaist-east.ac.jp>
	<1992Jul24.191630.12376@reed.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 09:25:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.191630.12376@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:

   Certain categories of human beings, such as infants and mentally retarded
   people, routinely fall below apes and whales in levels of intelligence, self-
   awareness, language-ability, use of ideas, etc.  

Right, so perceived or hypothetical intelligence is probably not a
good argument for not hunting apes and whales.

Magnus
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:43:33 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <50719@dime.cs.umass.edu:, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
: In article <cydmy-j@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
: >ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
: >Absolutely true.  I think it a mistake to even use the term "nuclear waste".
: >Only a tiny bit of what comes out of a reactor is truly waste.  Most
: >isotopes have potentially great value.  Sr-90 as a heat source, Cs-137 as
: Similarly, used tires have potential value, as does auto exhaust. But,
: for nuclear wastes to have real value a working nuclear fuel cycle must
: be developed. As the French have shown, this is not a solved problem.
: Assuming that such a cycle exists, while the waste inventory continues
: to build, is simply wishful thinking.

Such a cycle can not be done without nuclear recycling, which can not be
done until the government reverses the decision by President Carter to
freeze the nuclear recycling program.  In this case, it is not a technical
barrier, it is a political one.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: rtp1@quads.uchicago.edu (raymond thomas pierrehumbert)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Reply-To: rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:04:02 GMT


>The Younger Dryas was a cold period ...
Oops, yup, sorry I slipped up here.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10380 sci.geo.meteorology:2639 sci.skeptic:13477
From: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Productivity and Paleo-CO2 (Was Re: Lawyers ...
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:53:50 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment

In article <92212.090529RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>, RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

|>   There are two classes of plants, based on their mechanisms for
|> photosynthesis.  They are called C3 and C4 plants.  I forget
|> (another example of little knowledge) which is which, but the
|> two type cases are trees (high CO2, or at least ancient lineage)
|> and grasses (wheat, rice, ... --> low CO2, recent lineage).
|> The experiments to which Nick has referred tested the effect of
|> trees to CO2 'fertilization'.  Actually a specific species of
|> tree.  If _anything_ were to be favorably affected by CO2, it
|> would be trees since they are indeed believed to have evolved under
|> conditions of elevated CO2 (relative to the last 30 Million years
|> or so).
|> 
|>   But, the grass-type plants evolved and extended their ranges
|> during the low CO2 portion of earth history.  Experiments have
|> yet to be done with such plants.  Since this class includes
|> major food crops (not replaceable by tree-derived products
|> yet), the question of whether more CO2 is good for plants is
|> still open.



Wait a minute.  People damn well *have* grown plants like wheat
in enhanced CO2 atmospheres.  And, yes, it does increase the growth
rate, under controlled conditions.  NASA, for example, has a program
studying such things for future application in manned space stations.
There was recently a cover story about this in (I think) Bioscience.

Wheat and rice are C3 plants.  C3 plants benefit from enhanced
CO2.  A significant effect is that the pores in their leaves through
which CO2 is absorbed become smaller or less numerous.  Because the
air inside the pores is saturated with water, the plants necessarily
lose water when gathering CO2.  This water loss is reduced under
enhanced CO2.

Maize and sorghum are C4 plants.  They have special structures in
their leaves that in effect pump CO2 to other cells.  In effect,
they trade energy efficiency for increased CO2 collection efficiency.
They do not, in general, benefit from increased CO2.

Freeman Dyson speculates (in his most recent book) that the non-
greenhouse effects of enhanced CO2 may turn out to be more important
(both positively and negatively) than the warming effects.  For example,
an increase in root-to-shoot mass ratio in plants may significantly
change soils.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu