HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Risk Assessment and the linear model (was official science vs. science)
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:27:28 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep26.172743.26112@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>A model that gives wrong answers is worse than no model at all.
>>>Especially if you don't know the answers you are getting are
>>>wrong. I'd be very conservative about using any model that
>>>hadn't been rigorously tested for making regulatory decisions.
>>>Set limits at the lowest level you can *prove* causes substantial
>>>harm.
>>
>>What's conservative in this case? Is it "conservative" to hope that the
>>effects of a toxic chemical will be benign? 
>
>What's conservative is to avoid government regulation unless compelling
>evidence arises to show that it is mandatory in a particular case. Right
>now there is a firestorm going on about FDA attempts to reclassify, regulate,
>or ban certain nutritional supplements under the claim that they aren't
>proven beyond doubt to be *effective*. Note that they don't have to be
>just *harmless*, they also have to be effective. This attitude suppresses
>the use of new medicines and drugs until exhaustive clinical trials have
>been completed. While that prevents the occasional thalidomide from 
>slipping on the market, it also lets people die when new treatments are
>available. This Big Brotherism is a too *liberal* use of government
>power.

Different issue. You want to build a factory which will release benzene
into the stream. We know that benzene is bad news, but we don't have
a completely accurate dose response model. We also have good reason
to believe tht benzene may act synergistically with other cancer
causing agents already in the environment. Now, what's the "conservative"
option here? To hope for the best? To wait for a massive class action
lawsuit by survivors? 

>As for your second question, if a chemical is *known* to be toxic,
>then it can't be benign. That's a strawman argument. The conservative
>position is not to act until toxcity has been proven *and* potential
>damage outweighs potential benefits. A case in point would be aspirn.

But you point out that your factory will generate jobs, taxes, and
promote family values through its production of plastic lawn statues of
Ted Kennedy. You also point out that there are many unknowns in the
toxicity of benzene, and that it will always be possible to blame
future cancers on the neighboring dry cleaning corporations releases of
carbon tetrachloride. What's the conservative option here? We know that
benzene is a toxin and a mutagen already. 



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Missing CO2 sink found?
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 01:38:22 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep30.191252.26451@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>
SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer) writes:
[nice overview of recent papers regarding carbon flows]

The New Scientist piece was by John Gribbin. Your posting was much more
informative. It wasn't clear to me how Falkowski and Wilson's phytoplankton
paper was relevant. Would uptake of carbon by phyto-plankton be reflected
in atmospheric oxygen levels?

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Sep27102611@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct1.064845.24822@sinix.UUCP>
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:56:04

Emil Naepflein quotes me

>I have a solar water heater that was installed when I bought
>the house.  Whether it heats the water I have no idea, because

and then grumble
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	This only shows your interest in renewable energy techniques.

I have only a theoretical and political interest in energy techniques.
Although I favor nuclear power plants, designing them or maintaining
them is not one of my hobbies.

If solar hot water is viable, it must be viable for people who have
no interest in personally maintaining anything.  My opinion is that
solar water heaters backed up by gas should have meters telling how
much hot water they actually heated.  If mine had one, I would be
able to tell whether to call a repairman.  When I did have a leak
fixed, the man who did it had no way of telling whether it was
heating the water.  He supposed it was.

Naepflein says:

     It's true that in the early beginnings of the solar
     technology use there were a lot of problems. But now after
     more 15 years the technology has matured, and especially for
     solar hot water, it's reliable and cost competitive.

Let us suppose that Naepflein is correct.  Then the nonhobbyists
who bought solar hot water heaters were cheated by the Government
propaganda and by the makers.  Since the makers are out of business,
we should be able to sue the Government.  

Also when Naepflein says it is reliable and cost competitive, does
he mean for anyone or for people who like maintaining equipment
themselves?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Models
From: crowdog@vax2.winona.msus.edu (Monty R. Flinsch)
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:12:33 -0600
Followup-To: sci.environment
Distribution: world
Organization: Winona State University

		HYDROGEOLOGIC SENSITIVITY MODELS:IS THERE ANY VERIFICATON?



Having recently attended a field seminar on Hydrogeologic Sensitivity
Models (HSM) it has occurred to me that there is a profusion of models and
very little verification.  Here at Winona State University we have been
doing research into the applications of HSMs and have run into a wall
concerning the verification of these models.  I are aware of some early
work that was done on the DRASTIC model, but have been unable to find
verification studies on other more recent models.  If you are aware of work
in this area please let me know, and if you are doing work in this area
yourself perhaps we could correspond about recent trends in the field.


Monty R. Flinsch
Department of Geology
Winona State University
Winona MN 55987
USA
Internet: crowdog@vax2.winona.msus.edu
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:30:45 GMT
	<1992Sep30.120521.16948@news.acns.nwu.edu> <donb.718313663@crash>
	<1992Oct5.222329.15554@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<STEINLY.92Oct6115823@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<louis.718422261@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca's message of 7 Oct 92 01:44:21 GMT

In article <louis.718422261@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:

   steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   >In article <1992Oct5.222329.15554@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

   #   In article <donb.718313663@crash# donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen) writes:
   #   #In <1992Sep30.120521.16948@news.acns.nwu.edu# len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
   #   #	Fresh produce delivered by truck is speeded to your local salad
   #   #bar over those roads you do not want to pay for.

   #   Absolutely correct. If I wanted to subsidize long-distance farming,
   #   I'd rather find a better way. As is, I *deliberately* avoid buying

   #Might I humbly suggest that Alaskans, many Canadians and others
   #in climates inimical to farming for more than a fraction of the
   #year move ASAP to PNW or California that they may enjoy the benefits
   #of locally grown fresh produce year round - especially if they have

   Here in Northern Alberta we qualify for "a fraction of the year" when
   we can harvest fresh produce from the garden, but we can store cabbage
   for winter salad, and we can can.  If I use a bit of low tech gardening
   assistance such as a cold frame in the fall and spring, and the use of
   frost hardy varieties I can extend the fresh vegetable season for
   several months.  I can also store carrots, beets, potatoes, and enjoy
   then all year long, along with winter squash, dried onions, and the
   whole range of frozen veggies.  I agree with the original poster that I
   can survive very well, and indeed have a great diet without a single
   truck from California.

Good for you, anyone else want to contribute to the list of places
that can grow perfectly adequate supplies of fresh frozen and dried
vegetables (hmm, the frozen ones are of course in CFC free freezers
remembering your previous posts on the evils of such compared to the
Good Old Days of ammonia fridges and ice houses [sic])?

Do you want me to reply with a list of places where you cannot 
grow any significant amount of edible flora (grain especially
as it is probably the most significant component of diet)?
 - That's not allowing for greenhouses or other artificial
environments.

Sheesh.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: Lelani Arris <larris@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 25 Sep 92 17:46 PDT
Subject: Tiempo Issue 6 Available Now!
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601771:000:1566
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!larris    Sep 25 17:46:00 1992


From: Lelani Arris <larris>
Subject: Tiempo Issue 6 Available Now!

 
Announcing...
 
TIEMPO
a bulletin on global warming and the Third World
 
issue 6  September 1992
 
published by the International Institute for Environment and
Development (London, UK) and the University of East
Anglia (Norwich, UK)
 
editorial office:  TIEMPO, c/o Mick Kelly, School of
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich
NR4 7TJ, UK  (email crunorwich@gn.apc.org)
 
in this issue
 
1.  feature: A step in the right direction?
2.  forum: Energy and environment
3.  feature: Whose Common Future?
4.  interview: The politics of the environment
5.  conferences: Details of international conferences
6.  feature: Sea level rise on China's coastal plains
7.  news: A Weather Eye on.....
8.  news: Confronting climate change
9.  news: Tiempo Resource Service
10. news: Latest on the eruption of Pinatubo
 
 
The newsletter is 74K in size.
 
It can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from IGC.ORG (192.82.108.1), 
subdirectory /pub/ECIX.
 
To recieve a copy via email, please write to:
 
******************************************************************
Lelani Arris                            * Project Director 
EcoNet:    larris                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  larris@igc.apc.org   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 1061 
Telephone: 403-852-4057                 * Jasper, Alberta T0E 1E0 
Fax:       403-852-5173                 * Canada
******************************************************************
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:21:55 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Oct6.174123.24496@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>Personally, its not clear to me how the combination of bicycle, bus,
>train, plane and occasional car rental can be described as "cramped".

If you lived in a place where the above is reality for many people for
a variety of reasons (i.e. cars too expensive, gas too expensive,
people 'cultured' towards using mass transit) for a few years perhaps
you'd find it cramped. 

Having lived in such a place for 22 years (Athens, Greece), where 
cars cost 2 1/2 times what they should, where gas costs $3.50, where an
excellent mass transit system (buses, trolleys, metro) is available, and
where people are 'cultured' towards using mass transit (i.e they do not
consider mass transit to be for 'them masses'), I can only tell you that
people STILL drive. Once people have discovered the convenience 
of a personal automobile, in Greece or in Suburbia, USA, it's hard to 
get them to go back. Governments in Greece have milked car owners for
all they're worth, (excise tax, import tax, and even tax for the Queen's
Mother (no joke), placed restrictions on when and where to drive, 
tow cars at a moment's notice), and people STILL drive. 

It's no wonder that a white Caddilac, Lincoln, or for the more affluent,
Jaguar, has long been a staple of most Greek immigrants living in the US :-)

Spiros (who traded in a bus for a Saturn SL2 and half an acre of suburbia)

-- 
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: hurricanes and conservation
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 19:31:49 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct5.163645.16211@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>While much accelerated by human impacts, introduction of exotics is also a
>perfectly natural process. ... Should our objective in cases like this be to
>preserve the most diverse population, or the most nearly natural processes?

In this case there is no conflict in these objectives.  We do not increase
global diversity by introducing exotic plants into Florida.  Instead we may
reduce it, globally many extinctions have been caused by introductions.

Also, you can not assume that introduced species which thrive initially will
succeed in the long term. As other species in the ecosystem (prey, parasites,
competitors, etc.)  adapt, the exotic species may decline and even fail.

>Isn't this a version of the Smokey the Bear mistake, suppressing natural
>catastrophes to the short term advantage and long term detriment of
>the ecosystem?

No, the reverse.  We should attempt to maintain species introductions at
natural levels just we should attempt to maintain the natural fire regime
in conservation areas.

Its interesting to compare natural and artificial extinction rates.
In the 50 million years before man reached Australia, there were perhaps
as few as 3 successful colonisations by land mammals (ignoring bats). In
the last 200 years, 20 species mammals have been introduced successfully
(in the short-term) and many more unsuccessfully.  The artificial introduction
rate is six orders of magnitude higher than the natural one.

By the way, the Brazilian tree you refer to is not a Casurina (it might be
Schinus molle). Casurinas seem to be called "Australian Pines" in Florida.
They are not pines.  They are angiosperms.

Andrew Taylor
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:57:35 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep30.165204.465@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>You're right, it's not reasonable. Why don't you look it up. The
>>>>Windscale fire has been covered in the media, and I already gave you
>>>>a reference.
>
>>>First I'll let you be a little more explicit...
>
>>It's easier than going to the library, I'm sure.
>
>More to the point, I'm not going to bother hitting the books until I
>can stick it to you good...

The scientific attitude in action.
>Really, to be like Chernobyl, I think an accident has to be a fire in
>a graphite reactor without a containment building in which there is a
>significant release of radiation.

And again I will tell you that in every decent library you will be
able to easily find confirmation of the fact that the Widscale accident
was a fire in a graphite reactor without meaningful containment in which
there was a significant release of radioactivity. 

>>>>>>and put 1/2 million curies of Pu241 into the Irish Sea.
>
>>>>>What't wrong with that?  Isn't the important thing how much people are
>>>>>exposed to?
>
>>>>That's the point of the GP press release: it's washing up on the
>>>>beaches.
>
>>>So what?  The important questio is whether enough is washing up on
>>>beaches to hurt people.  So far we have received absolutely no
>>>evidence that this is the case.
>
>>The point is simple. You do not have the knowledge required to denounce the
>>GP press release on rational grounds.
>
>Sure I do.  The GP press release sounds oh so scary, but if you dig
>into it you find out that none of the actual items cited are really

You have not dug into it, and you have absolutely no idea what you
are talking about. Sellafield/Windscale *is* is a scary installation 
with a terrible history.

>all that dangerous. It's kind of like screaming that I am poisoning
>Personally, I'd give good odds that if you actually calculated Z it
>would be less than 1.

How much?


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.environment:11600 sci.engr.civil:459
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.engr.civil
Subject: Re: Hurricane damage to Turkey Point nuclear reactors
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:29:43 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep27.065543.1350@mdd.comm.mot.com> jackb@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jack Brindle) writes:
>I have to fully agree on this point, but let me add another
>point of reference. The pacific northwest gets its electricity
>mostly from hydroelectric plants, with a few of conventional
>plants. Ten years ago the cheapest power to be found was here.
>Today I am shocked to find that electricity in Florida is less
>expensive. This comes with great thanks to the Bonneville Power
>Administration and the Federal Government. By the way, for all
>this expense we have more blackouts than anywhere I've ever
>lived, including South Florida (which receives daily thunderstorms
>in the summer). I'll take FP&L any day...

You might want to factor in the cost of the Pacific Northwest's massive
investment in failed nuclear plants. How much money went into WHOOPS?


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Date: 26 Sep 1992 23:43:35 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

First, I'd like to request that Bryan sit down and read the documentation for
his news reader.  The "Followup-To" field is for directing replies to specific
newsgroups.  It is NOT for indicating the subject of the message.  The subject
belongs in the "Subject" field, and your news reader software will handle that
quite nicely and automatically, all by itself.

In article <1992Sep21.005829.18135@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Sep20131658@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>How can a book that predicted worldwide famines in the mid-1970s have
>>been a good book?  Why should anyone believe Ehrlich today when his
>>Population Bomb contained so many false predictions?  Why should we
>>believe his predictions of imminent scarcity of minerals when his
>>bet with Simon turned out so losing for him.
>
>It's not so much the letter of what Ehrlich is saying that is taken by the
>scientific community, but the spirit of the ideas contained that are important.

I see.  Yet another sort of political correctness:  Actual observations don't
count, it's getting the desired answer that's important.  Gee, why don't we
just stop all research and look up all the answers in the Bible?

>Granted, his specific predictions are not coming true, but do you still listen
>to the weatherman on TV, despite the fact that he/she was wrong yesterday?

Yes, I do.  They're right occasionally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re:  CFC short in "New Scientist"
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:56:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.171537.4978@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>
>	From "New Scientist" October 3, 1992:
>
>HALON PLATEAU
>
>	Concentrations of ozone-depleting halons in the lower atmosphere
>are levelling off, according to research carried out by US scientists 
>working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 
>Boulder, Colorado.
>	The finding, after decades of increases, is reported in the
>latest issue of "Nature".  The NOAA team, led by James Butler, credit
>the improvement to a combination of voluntary controls and measures
>adopted under the Montreal Protocol.
>
>
>The issue also has a short article concerning great tits.  Honest.
>
>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


According to the New York Times today, the report finds that "the
rate of increase in the amount of halon 1301 in the lower atmosphere
slowed to 8 percent a year from 1989 to 1992 --- about half the
average annual rate of increase over the previous 12 years.  In the
same period, the growth rate of halon 1211 fell to 3 percent from
an annual growth rate that was as high as 15 percent."

While this is good news, it does not mean we can all forget about
the problem of ozone depletion.   First, we have still not seen the
effect of the CFC's already in the atmosphere since it takes a while
for them to diffuse up to the stratosphere.   Also, while the
growth rate is lower, it is not yet zero.   Be that as it may, it
does show that the human race is capable of understanding the
consequences of its actions on a global scale and taking remedial
action.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208