HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crabe@den.mmc.com (Carlyle J. Rabe 7-1697)
Subject: Re: population load question
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:52:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.171421.5807@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.160709.11059@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>
>> Whatever the population carrying capacity turns out to be, we can say
>> with some certainty that it is less than the current 5+ billion.

Stuff deleted
>
>  For starters, define "carrying capacity".

More stuff deleted
>

Gentlemen,

Has it ocurred to any of you population explosion gloom and doomers
that if the entire population of the world were moved into the state
of Texas that the population density still would not exceed that of
Queens, NY?  With this in mind, how can you argue overpopulation
and keep a straight face?  Please explain.

NOTE:  5 billion folks/269,000 square miles=18,587 folks/square mile.

CJR

Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed are those of the writer and
                      should not be mistaken for those of the writer's
                      employer.

 
                      
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Composting
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:06:57 GMT

In article <ASHWIN.92Aug31171006@leo.gatech.edu> ashwin@cc.gatech.edu (Ashwin Ram) writes:
>We want to start composting leaves (yes, fall is here!) and kitchen garbage
>in our back yard, and would like some advice on exactly how to go about doing
>this.  Where does one start?  I don't really want to buy $100 "composting
>bins" I see advertised in specialty catalogs, but I don't want an ugly,
>smelly heap either.  Is there an easy, foolproof "do it yourself" method to
>compost that isn't expensive or time-consuming?
>
>Thanks,
>Ashwin.

Don't know about zoning laws or whatever but I use a wooden frame with chicken
wire around it.  Its a good idea to leave one side open so that it is easy
to turn.  It only stinks if the decomposition becomes anaerobic, which
happens mainly if you don't turn it.  Being too wet can help to cause it
to go anearobic, also, since the water prevents air flow.  Keep it damp, but
not too wet.  If you live in a real wet area, it should be covered to 
prevent it from getting too wet.  There are all kinds of formulas for
the best mixture but virtually any garden and kitchen waste, excluding
meat products, will composte if you are patient.  Mine never got hot at
all but after a year its looks pretty much like dirt.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: DRAG STRIP POLLUTION?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:02:49 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <345@ccscola.Columbia>, kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.155328.1758@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug23.212532.3708@desire.wright.edu> nyoung@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>I am part of a neighborhood coalition fighting a drag strip's
>>>being built within a mile of our homes. Is there any information
>>>available (journals, papers, whatever) on the toxic pollutants
>>>  The local zoning board, in coopertion with the county government
>>>has seen fit to allow a "zoning variance" of agricultural land for
> 
>>The only impact of any significance posed by a drag strip is the 
>>same impact caused by any other sporting event drawing 5 to 30
>>thousand spectators on a Saturday afternoon, like a college
>>football game for example. Any air or water pollution from the
>>operation of the drag cars would be totally lost in the noise
>>compared to the impact of the crowd driving to and from the 
>>facility, using it's restrooms, and consuming it's junk food.
> 
> I am assuming you are located in the Miami Valley area.  There is a small
> chance of challenging the strip on noise ordinances.  Top fuel and other
> dragsters of course make a terrible racket.  But if you are in that area of
> the country -- look at Wright-Patt and a few of the other facilities that
> probably violate the rules as well.  (Subjective opinion).  That's why I
> wear earphones and ear plugs when I attend races and pulls.  Pollution is
> a real rough one to push except once damage has been done.  You'd probably
> find that the air pollution is larger from the attendees than the 
> ompetition as Gary noted.

	Wright Patt is your best ally in this situation.  Keeping the areas
strictly agricultural lessons the chances of a crash doing more than plowing
over some crops (and hurting the occupants, of course).
	Contact the base commander and see what he thinks.

> Since the zoning has been changed from ag. to this (comm.), it would appear
> that the zoning board has deemed this as the direction that they wish the
> area to grow in.  Ever thought about checking the zoning board members?  We
> (my family) found out that our zoning boards' relatives were pushing 
> petitions  which totally biased the impartiality of our board membership.
> We knocked 3 of them right off the board.  The biggest problem in challenging
> the strip will be apathy!!!

	There's no apathy in that part of the Miami Valley...at least not
judging from the cement kiln controversy.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: bobh@fuji.hwr.arizona.edu (Bob Harrington)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:49:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona -- Tucson, AZ

In article <JMC.92Aug16203921@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.173628.3657@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
>
>
>   The US has been a country run by businessmen for the last century,     
>   its the biggest debtor nation in the world now. The rich have the
>   choices, but what about the poor? With your wasting of water 
>   resources, what are you future choices? Major diversion schemes
>   of rivers from Canada? A state run by businessmen would I 
>   presume base their policy on profit. When will that magic faith 
>   that profit maximization guarantee quality of life and environment
>   be seen as the modern equivalent of the belief that the rain gods
>   determine when the rain will come.
>
>Mr. Tarasov has been paying too much attention to people who
>exaggerate.  There is plenty of water in almost all parts
>of the U.S.  However, if every project to get more is blocked
>by environmentalists, there will be problems till their objections
>are overcome.  I suppose that the strange pricing situation for
>water also has to be overcome.

Actually, one of the refreshing things about water politics is that
it seldom is as simple as the enviro versus techno conflict that is
so prevalent in this news group. Since urban water supply almost invariably
involves the transfer of water from rural areas to urban areas, the
political and economic conflict is often between business interests
in the rural region and business interests in the urban region.
Witness the attempt by Las Vegas to aquire water rights in rural Nevada
counties, and the resistance to those attempts by the local governments
and ranchers in the rural counties. Characterization of the Nevada
Cattlemen's Assoc. as environmentalists is dubious, and maybe even
dangerous, if said to the wrong individual. 

Another example: the peripheral canal initiative (Calif. state ballot
initiative to construct canal around Sacramento Delta making more
N. Calif. water available for export to S. Calif.) was defeated by a
vote that was split on geographic (N. vs. S. Calif.) rather than by
political lines. The coalition that defeated the initiative included
environmental groups, but it also included San Joaquin Valley agribusiness
(they didn't like the initiative because they thought it provided
*too much* water for the delta) and N. Calif. development interests. 
People in favor of the peripheral canal included liberal, pro-enviro.
S. Calif. polititians and then Gov. Jerry Brown.

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

Bob Harrington
Hydrology and Water Resources
University of Arizona
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Voice of America station in Israel.
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:42:28 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Aug28.135748.2568@kth.se> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
>So, we kill birds with airplanes as well. After all there is not much a 20 mph 
>bird can do when a 400 mph plane approaches. Is that an excuse for killing more
>of them with this tower, or do you even advocate a bird extermination 
>program to avoid this kind of accidents?

A 20 mph bird crashing on a 400 mph windshield is doing 400 mph, and
if you've ever seen the damage done to planes (from small to big) you
know what I'm talking about.

Many airports have programs to keep birds away; in my home town, 
Indianapolis, IN. an airport expansion has required some big time money
to move (relocate) some strange species of BATS to a more serene 
environment. I do not remember the amount but it was big money. 

I wish they had taken similar effort to relocate PEOPLE'S HOMES as well.

Anyhow, my (subdued sarcasm intended) message merely wanted to imply
that the region in question has a lot more problems to worry about
than a transmission tower that may kill birds.

(followup to talk.politics.mideast :-)).

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 20:31:19 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep3.220128.6140@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu
(Gregory Frazier) writes:
> ... California's windmills slaughter birds.

Yes, California's windmills kill birds but so do many man-made structures
probably including your house. The overhead wires and other structures
of an electricity distribution system will kill quite a few birds.

The interesting question is how many birds and which species do the windmills
kill. If you have these numbers, please post them. I saw sketchy numbers
several years ago suggesting the number of bird kills was quite small
and the species involved were largely common ones.

It is possible that measures to reduces bird kills will be necessary and 
they may stop specific sites being used but I can't see it affecting
the viability of wind power.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: Mary Jane has a great Biomass
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:27:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.212927.26591@bnr.ca> harlan@crchh347.bnr.ca (Bruce Harlan) writes:
>A couple of points here... burning good corn fuel in cars is a sacrilege.
>Burning poor corn fuel is not. 
>
>As far as the distillation process goes-  couldn't solar power be used to
>provide the heat for the distillation process? Mashing might also be performed
>with solar heat. There are other sources than merely corn for the production
>of alcohol- I think that the big oil companies wouldn't be too happy hearing
>talk of alternate fuels, though.
>
>So- do we have any engineer-types that can dream up a cheap solar still?
>Let's set some criteria:
>
>Must be feasible- all products must be available in the consumer market.	
>Must be inexpensive. The more "common" parts used, the better. 
>Must be simple. Something the Average Joe might be able to build in the	
>  garage if A. Joe were reasonably mechanically inclined and somewhat
>  resourceful.	
>	
>No dream products or dream designs- gotta be functional.	
>
>Goal: Supply enough fuel to run the lawnmower next summer- say, 3-5 gallons
>of usable fuel.
>
>Points to ponder:
>  What will be used for fuel? Garbage? grain only? 
>  Parts/pieces supply
>  Need a home-brew solar concentrator- sure, we could get the big one from
>    Edmund Scientific, but what can we make from the scrapyard? Gleaning
>    parts from the recycler is fair, too.	
>  retuning the lawnmower to take alternate fuel (kind of a low-tech engine;
>    shouldn't require much modification).
>
>Any suggestions? Any other criteria? Anybody up to the task?
>	
>Bruce	
>
>Standard disclaimers, etc. You know the routine.
>
> 
   Check some back-issues of "The Mother Earth News" (1970's) for some homemade
stills.

Jim Burris

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: edstrom@hsc.ucalgary.ca (John Edstrom)
Subject: Re: population load question
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 15:51:48 GMT
Organization: Neuroscience Division, U of Calgary School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

In article <26032@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>In article <92Sep01.223316.26181@acs.ucalgary.ca>, edstrom@Elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca
>(John Edstrom) writes:
>|> Its a broad question but what are the current estimates of the
>|> carrying capacity of the earth for humans?  Somebody told me it around
>|> 2 billion.
>|> 
>|> John Edstrom | edstrom @ elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca
>
>It all depends on the burdens each of the humans puts on the
>environment.  As the burden/person goes down, the carrying
>capacity rises, but there is some upper limit of people in any case.
>Since reducing impacts/person can be done by reducing quality
>of life, the question becomes one of defining a quality of life,
>figuring out how people might accomplish this, then figuring out
>how many such people can be accommodated.  I personally have
>no such estimates.
>

This is sort of what I was getting at.  I know that there is no single
answer.  The question "How many?" is tied to the question "How well
will they live?"  Clearly its not a simple, monotonic relationship.
If human impact can only be reduced so far before reduced
industrialization hinders efficient agriculture and food distribution,
then there is some point at which reducing impact further will
decrease the carrying capacity.

I was just wondering if there is anything out there about what
number/life-style options are realisticly available to choose from.
Since the population is expected to be about 6 billion within the next
few years I find it rather disconcerting that not much attention seems
to be directed toward controlling the size of the human population.
Perhaps becuase there are no clear ideas on size/quality tradeoffs with
which to choose goals.  It seems to me that many of the acute
environmental problems are secondary to population loads.


>Bruce Nordman
>B_Nordman@lbl.gov

John Edstrom | edstrom @ elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca


--
 RM 2104, HSc Building,  Div. Neuroscience
 U. Calgary School of Medicine,  3330 Hospital Drive NW
 Calgary, Alberta       T2N 3Y4
 (403) 220 4493  (wk)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: population load question
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:13:35 GMT

In <1992Sep3.205216.2038@den.mmc.com> crabe@den.mmc.com writes:
Stuff deleted
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>Has it ocurred to any of you population explosion gloom and doomers
>that if the entire population of the world were moved into the state
>of Texas that the population density still would not exceed that of
>Queens, NY?  With this in mind, how can you argue overpopulation
>and keep a straight face?  Please explain.
>
>NOTE:  5 billion folks/269,000 square miles=18,587 folks/square mile.
>
>CJR
>

Do "Happy go luckiers" think that the trend to the world population can
continue without bound?  At the current rate, in less than 2000 years
the volume of humanity will exceed the volume of a sphere whose radius 
grows at the speed of light.

All population projections I have seen show the population growth stopping
in the next century.  The difference in the projections is when and where
the population quits growing.  ( and probable assumptions about why is
quits growing)

The world population in {year, number} format, from 1991 World Almanac.
{{1650, 550000000}, {1750, 725000000}, {1850, 1175000000}, 
{1900, 1600000000}, {1950, 2565000000}, {1980, 4477000000}, {1990, 5333000000}}

linear scale
        #                                                                  #
        #
      9 #
 5. 10  #
        #                                                                 #
        #
      9 #
 4. 10  #
        #
        #
      9 #
 3. 10  #                                                            #
        #
        #
      9 #
 2. 10  #                                                   #
        #
        #                                          #
      9 #
 1. 10  #                         #
        #       #

               ###############################################################
              1650     1700     1750    1800     1850     1900     1950

If you can't see what is going on, here is the plot on a log scale.
         #                                                                 #
       9 #
  5. 10  #                                                               #
         #
         #
         #
       9 #
  3. 10  #                                                          #
         #
       9 #
  2. 10  #
         #                                                #
       9 #
 1.5 10  #
         #                                       #
         #
       9 #
  1. 10  #
         #
         #                    #
         #
         ##
         #####################################################################
        1650      1700      1750     1800      1850     1900      1950

Do "Happy go luckiers" think that the trend to the world population can
continue without bound?

-Ted


Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier)
Subject: Re: Sperm Whales
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:38:16 GMT

Lance Jablonski (jlance@dbaix.oc.com) wrote:
: Just a quick question, while listening to the B-52's "Rock Lobster",
: a few of us around the office were wondering why Sperm Whales are
: called as such?  Any response will be appreciated and valued.

Sperm whales have a substance in their heads called
spermacetti (probably major mispelling).  This is
an oily substance used for perfumes, makeup, and other
money-intensive things.  Obviously, nobody in your
office is well-versed in the classics! :-)
--
"They thought to use and shame me but I win out by nature, because a true
freak cannot be made.  A true freak must be born." - Geek Love

Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: moss@brl.mil (Gary S. Moss (VLD/VMB) <moss>)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Re: DI water---Potable?
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: moss@brl.mil
Organization: Ballistic Research Laboratory

In article <23011@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier) writes:
|> But there is nothing there for bacteria to eat!  We use reverse
|> osmosis water in several of our tanks.  These are fish that
|> demand extra-ordinarily soft water in order to breed.  The
|> gravel in the tanks and the peat in the filter insure that the
|> water will have *something* dissolved in it, and tends to peg
|> the pH at 6.
|> 
|> :  One needs to
|> : let the water run awhile to get rid of all the bad stagnant water.
|> : At least that's the approach in most laboratories.
|> 
|> I think that is because <relatively> pure water is *very* reactive.
|> Sitting in a pipe, it will dissolve some of the pipe.  So, you
|> end up with copper, or whatever, in your water.  A big deal, if
|> your experiment assumes that your water does not have Cu in it.
|> In any case, our drinking water is RO, from a grocery store
|> vending machine.  Tastes good, seems to be healthy, the vending
|> machine recommends it as drinking water, our hardness test kits
|> can't measure any hardness in it.
|> 
|> Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier

Greg,
	RO water != DI water.  While both absorb (perhaps this is not
the proper technical term) substances at the molecular level, DI would
permit larger particles, including organic matter to pass or collect in the
filter where bacteria or molds can grow on them.  RO would trap all
large particles and flush them out with the waste water.  A DI filter
is just a container of ionic absorption resin, typically fine beads
with wadding at both ends to keep them contained.

-Gary
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul A Prior)
Subject: Re: DI water and Bugs
Keywords: DI Bacteria
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:28:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.143315.8689@en.ecn.purdue.edu> miller@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Tim Miller) writes:
>
>WARNING!!!  DO NOT DRINK DI WATER!!!
>
>	When you remove all of the ions from the water to make "DI", you
>remove the chlorine that usually suppresses bacterial growth.  There are
>some very primitive bacteria that can flourish inside DI water systems,
>living off of just the water and the carbon chain molecules in the
>plastic of the system.  These bacteria can also flourish in your digestive
>tract, yielding symptoms similar to amoebic dysentery.  I have also had
>the pleasure of waking up in the morning and discovering that the minor
>scratch on my finger had become infected from working in the di water -
>it had swollen to twice it's normal size.  A somewhat expensive program of
>antibiotics allowed me to keep my finger.

Although your facts may be somewhat accurate, it is important to point 
out that you are FAR more likely to lose a finger to a nasty necrotic
infection from nicking it while working in your garden than you are
from a DI water splash.  Sure some Pseudomonas sp. can grow in pure 
water (and jet fuel for that matter), but the likelyhood of growing 
to significant concentrations is not really significant.

Now if you are talking about running a DI unit after letting it sit
for a period of time you may be entirely correct.  However the simple
solution for that problem is to flush the system before you use it,
or better yet use it frequently ;).

-- 
--------pprior@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu----(614) 621-8240----------------
Paul A. Prior    Ban anchors, not reef tanks   "With friends like this,   
3rd year medical student		          who needs anemones?"
The Ohio State U. College of Medicine   Tobacco Kills- Please don't smoke!
Xref: sparky sci.aquaria:1320 alt.aquaria:4858 rec.aquaria:7031
From: 2fubranch@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria,alt.aquaria,rec.aquaria
Subject: (M) yellow and naso tang together???
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:36:35 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I'm thinking of getting a small yellow tang and a slightly bigger 
naso tang in a 45 gallon reef tank.

What do u think?


Newsgroups: sci.aquaria