HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emdihfx@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.sources.wanted,can.jobs
Subject: HELP
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:17:32 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dear Netters,
Anybody on the net does bibliographical instruction to the students or
faculties on environment?
Is there any textbook or something like that ever published?
Any indication of clue will be very much appreciated?
Nick
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:05:31 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <40911760@hpindda.cup.hp.com> gph@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Paul Houtz) writes:
>   I would actually think that while diseases that crop up in the aids
>   population may have a greater likelihood of infecting other humans,
>   the fact remains that dieases that develop in weakened immune systems
>   probably don't pose much of a threat to people with healthy immune
>   systems.   Caviat:  I don't work for CDC, so I could be wrong.

AIDS victims are now spreading non-treatable TB through urban areas in the
US. While TB is more infectious for those with weakened immune systems,it
is quite happy living in people without AIDS. 

BTW, the system of identifying TB carriers, and requiring them to continue
treatment  has been pretty much dismantled everywhere in the US (except
here in Mass.) In NYC, TB patients are not contacted if they neglect to 
return for treatment.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:00:31 GMT
Subject: Re: A Technomaniac Position (was: Worse case scenario)
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) / 10:05 am  Apr 13, 1992 /
>In article <1992Apr11.203153.19125@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr8.113910.1188@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>>>In article <40911729@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>>>> I was speaking of the difficulty of *replacing* this
>>>> infrastructure if we were to lose it: the point was that it would be
>>>> much harder to replace than it was to build in the first place, because
>>>> the easy, high-quality resources have been used up or degraded. 
>>>
>>>	Well, there is the rest of the solar system...and other solar systems.
>>>(Once again, not that this would be easy or desirable to *have* to do this,
>>>merely that it is a possibility.)
>> 
>> Er, just HOW do we get to the "rest of the solar system" if we don't have the
>> infrastructure necessary for a space program?  Alan was talking about a
>> bootstrapping process.  You're implicitly assuming that we never lose the
>> infrastructure that we're trying to rebuild.
>
>  By getting there before a collapse, of course.

Fine, Brett. But the danger of a collapse of technological civilization
will be greatest at and soon after the population peak, which is very
probably going to occur in the coming century. Now even if we can get 
a few people into the solar system within one century -- even if the 
transportation technology is adequate -- there is no reason to believe 
that we can establish a viable human population off the Earth in that 
time frame, because for that you need an extension of the biosphere off
the Earth. There is absolutely no reason to think that *this* will be 
feasible by then; the one experiment along those lines so far (Biosphere 
II) hasn't exactly covered itself with glory. The transportation technology
isn't what is limiting.

More likely the construction of long-enduring extensions of the biosphere
will take a long time -- centuries or even millenia -- during which major
technological support from Earth and constant access to the gene pools of 
healthy populations of large numbers of species on Earth will be required. 
This rather strongly suggests that the business of "getting" to the solar 
system requires that both technological civilization and a healthy biosphere
must be maintained for a long incubation period: getting life to take hold 
off the Earth is not going to be quick or trival.

In short, the solar system is not an escape route from collapse: only if
collapse is avoided is the solar system going to be part of the human
future.

If we want Mars, we had better learn to live in the limits of the biosphere
first. Ironically, expansion is only possible for an equilibrium culture, 
i.e. one that can regulate its growth.

---------
Alan McGowen
From: celliott@igc.org (Charles W. Elliott)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: computer models of pollution damage
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:42:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Apr9.041110.18314@usenet.ins:52561154:cdp:1466601313:000:170
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!celliott    Apr  9 04:42:00 1992


Could you post the list of computer models from EPA public access data
base, and the number for access and telecommunications settings necessary?
Thanks.
Charles Elliott
From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Appalachian Forest Remineralizatn
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:29:13 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <JMC.92Apr13033510@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
<I can't know whether he's right, but at least Robert Bruck is trying to
<fix the problems rather than denounce people.
<--
<John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
<*
	Isn't Bruck violating standard net ettiquet?  He is certainly
far from the norm.

	Unfortunately! :-(

								Irv


-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.  They do not tell me what their policy 
is.  They may not have one.		Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 09 Apr 92 10:21 PDT
Subject: Re: NOT Vegitariansim was: Short Popula
Nf-ID: #R:1992Apr8.192136.22991@icmv:-1712910915:cdp:1466601314:000:1291
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Apr  9 10:21:00 1992


Responding to Les DeGroff (who also sent me e-mail, so this
is my e-mail response):

Leslie,                                                           
                                                                  
Certainly a good point, and of course, my intention is not        
to argue for overpopulation, I'm against that also.  But must     
we exacerbate the human misery which our asinine population       
policies are already causing by scarfing down a lot of beef       
our bodies don't really need?                                     
                                                                  
Thanks for the feedback (as it were),                             
Tom                                                               
                                                                  
PS  If you want the "social responsibility" criteria, feel free   
to contact Co-op America and ask for them.  I included the contact
info in my posting.  I hope you won't get too upset, though --    
I don't think there's really much harm in encouraging businesses  
to think more about the impact of their activities on society.    
Or do you feel they are doing that too much already?  If so,      
we disagree.
From: rehafe@bb1t.monsanto.com (Robert E. Hafer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Food scrap recycling: Worm bins!
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:25:15 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <31703@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, gbell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Greg Bell) writes:
> Has anyone else started this radical-recycler system?  The idea is
> this: The "Worm bin" is a composting system that uses redworms to
> munch your kitchen scraps.  No bad odor, and it produces fantastic
> "worm castings" for use in your garden, houseplants, etc.
> 
> I have one set up that has been very successful.  My biggest suprise
> has been the lack of odor.  The thing smells like rich, damp soil.
> And, on a good week, our household of 4 guys only generates a single
> grocery bag of landfill destined trash.
> 
> Anyone else have a worm bin?
>
If the bin is outside, how do you keep the rats away from the scraps before
they are digested? If inside, how do you keep it from atracting all manner
of pest? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Hafer                               rehafe@ccmail.monsanto.com
I'm Pink therfore I'm Spam!      Monsanto doesn't pay me for my opinions
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:24:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Malthus was just ahead of his time (for an alarmist, that is... :)
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) /  5:02 pm  Apr  2, 1992 /
>In article <1992Apr2.230421.5973@zip.eecs.umich.edu> carnes@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
>
> >What is the CRB Commodity Report?
>
>It's a reference I pulled out of our library.  I assume it uses
>UN FAO figures.  Note that its 1991 figures were projections, and could
>be off.

Dietz believes the FAO implicitly but there are many reasons to have doubts.
For a different view, last year the British magazine _The Ecologist_ devoted
one issue (I forget which, but I read it around the beginning of July) to the 
FAO, which the editor dubbed "the famine machine". The FAO has been a force 
for the substitution of cash crops for native food crops, for example. They
have a generally poor record of considering ecological impacts.

Some much-needed reforms in the FAO are to be hoped for as a spinoff from
UNCED. They need more credible scientific expertise and more independence
from political pressure. Until this comes about, their predictions should
be thought of as similar in nature to the economic predictions of any current
administration, and even less realistic the farther they look ahead.

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

"Whatever you are doing, stop and ask "is this going to decrease the capacity
of the world to support life?" and if the answer is yes, don't do it." -- Roger
Payne.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:12:27 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr10.102305.1200@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>> This makes no sense at all. Surely a pro-technologist like yourself should
>> be able to come up with transportation alternatives to IC automobiles.
>> 
>
>	Of course, hydrogen/solar/etc powerd cars.  The point is that you can't
>point to a piece of technology as say "BAD technology!  All evil comes from
>you!"  So cars pollute, and that is not a good thing.  So make cars that don't
>pollute.  Cars in and of themselves are not bad.

Seems like automobiles of any stripe require more paving (roads and lots)
than trains do.

>
>>>	Perhaps we should just sit around in grass skirts and contemplate the
>>>universe.
>> 
>> Could do worse.
>> 
>
>	Yes, but is that enough for humans, or do they need more?

Sure, especially in the winter.

I'm not for regressing to the stone age, but I believe that naive
technological optimism is foolish. The planet is a very complex mechanism,
and we would be wise to make sure that we know how to put it back together
before we start messing about with a screwdriver.

>	He has his faith, I have history, the greens have green fiction.

History of what?


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Worse case scenario
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:31:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.113910.1188@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>In article <40911729@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>> I was speaking of the difficulty of *replacing* this
>> infrastructure if we were to lose it: the point was that it would be
>> much harder to replace than it was to build in the first place, because
>> the easy, high-quality resources have been used up or degraded. 
>
>	Well, there is the rest of the solar system...and other solar systems.
>(Once again, not that this would be easy or desirable to *have* to do this,
>merely that it is a possibility.)

Er, just HOW do we get to the "rest of the solar system" if we don't have the
infrastructure necessary for a space program?  Alan was talking about a
bootstrapping process.  You're implicitly assuming that we never lose the
infrastructure that we're trying to rebuild.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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.
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Evil Man Is (Was: Re: Pigs in space)
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:09:36 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <40911811@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
> / hpindda:sci.environment / steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) /  8:27 am  Apr  2, 1992 /
> In article <24C302Se0faj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes:
> 
>    bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
> 
>>   >	Every time someone mentions space colonization, someone else jumps in
>>   > and starts with the rape/pollute the rest of the universe comments.
>>
>>   >	Mankind is not inherently evil.
>>
>>   Evidence please.  
>>
>>What a neat conundrum. Provide evidence that mankind is
>>not inherently evil. Now how should we do that...
> 
> Very well, if no evidence is relevant to the truth or falsity of the 
> assertion, the assertion itself must be meaningless, no? Brett either 
> has to produce evidence, or 'fess up to talking nonsense.

	Sorry, I won't play your word games.  If you want to prove that man is
evil, it is up to you to come up with the evidence.

> What *are* we to say about a species as destructive as H. Sapiens? If
> it were any other species performing similar destruction, say Jim Lovelock's
> bug that liberates chlorine from seawater, we wouldn't call it "evil" --
> just deadly, or toxic. Perhaps we should say, not that humans are evil,
> but that they are toxic to the biosphere?

	Here's a gun, you can eliminate yourself if you feel that way.

> 
> We believe that we have minds capable of moral agency. If that is true, then
> the toxicity of humanity is evil, not morally neutral. Only if humans are
> no more moral agents than bacteria are our actions morally neutral, merely
> toxic, and not truly evil. 

	Oh please!  I hear this same argument (with a different subject) from
xians.  It is just as invalid.  You can keep circling back to your faith as
many times as you want, but that is not proof of anything.
                          
      ...[sermon deleted]...
                            
Brett---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________The best thing about morning________________________________________
__________________________________is that it's over by noon.____________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism.d
From: skank@leland.Stanford.EDU (Forked Tongue Redlich)
Subject: Re: UNCED draft declaration
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:53:51 GMT

In article <JMC.92Apr5142628@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>grants an injunction stopping the project.  The judge finds,
>as a matter of fact, that irrigation is unsustainable.  I'm
>not even sure that a judge's findings about matters of fact
>(as opposed to matters of law) are appealable.

A judge's findings of fact are appealable.  A jury's findings of
fact are not (but the decision to submit to a jury are).  Appellate
courts generally give deference to a judge's findings of fact (more
than to a finding of law), but in a situation like this, deference
would probably be lost.


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Cutter Information <gecr@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:09 PDT
Subject: Re: Refrigeration: Eliminating that evi
Nf-ID: #R:1992Apr10.125103@iastate.edu:-2045451475:cdp:1466601330:000:304
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!gecr    Apr 13 11:09:00 1992


HFCs are ozone-friendly, but they are still quite powerful greenhouse
gases.  Some HFCs are also inherently less energy-efficient than CFCs,
so they may indirectly contribute more to potential climate change via
the higher associated CO2 emissions.

Brad Hurley
Editor
Global Environmental Change Report

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:14:07 GMT
Subject: Re: The Evil Man Is (Was: Re: Pigs in space)
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
From: abulloch@garnet.berkeley.edu (Anthony Bulloch)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: EMI from radio towers, health risks?
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:11:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s05juINNov4
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

>However, if EMI were as dangerous as some would lead us to believe, then
>Computer operators, HAM radio operators, and those who used electric blankets
>would start dropping off like flies.... as this is not the case.......

Depends on how you think flies drop off. There have been a number
of studies recently which have suggested a link between EMIs and
childhood cancers, and less serious disorders in adults.  As for
electric blankets, some medics now recommend that they _not_ be
used by children or pregnant women.

The fact is we _are_ dropping off like flies: you just have to
allow for the differences in scale of the two species' life-cycles.

[I wish I had references to the technical literature for the above,
but I don't. However, this subject was discussed on the net fairly
recently, so perhaps some kind person could repost the necessary
info if they kept records.]

Anthony Bulloch
abulloch@garnet.berkeley.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:39:28 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr13.155748.11960@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <46290@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>How about, if the rest of the world produced the same amount of garbage
>>per-capita as we do. Where would they put it? 
>
>If the entire world population produced garbage at the rate we do, 2.5 tons
>per person per year, 15 billon tons total, it would all fit in a pile 
>10 kilometers on a side, 150 meters high. That would cover the state of 
>Nevada in 3,000 years. By then it would have settled enough for us to do 
>it again. Finding enough room to put the world's garbage is not a problem.

Unless you live in Nevada, or nearby, or downstream, or ....


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NOT Vegitariansim was: Short Popula
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:34:04 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1466601318@igc.org> alanm@igc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:
>
>But if there are going to be 10 billion of us, we had better develop
>a taste for algae... (or maybe humans?)

The best food for Man is Man. Let's all breed like rabbits so we'll 
have enough to eat. :-)

Gary
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Short Population Facts
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:04:18 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1466601304@igc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.org> writes:
> 
> [from Co-op America Quarterly, Spring, 1992]
> MEAT FACTS
> Human population of USA:  242,000,000
> 
> Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain and soybeans
> eaten by U.S. livestock:  1,300,000,000

	Number of plants and insects that could live in the areas currently
inhabited by humans:	1.06 x 10^23

	You're pointing out that meat is an inefficient way to produce energy,
and you are right.  It still tastes good :).

	People won't give up their cars, what makes you think they will give up
their hamburgers?  Indeed, why should they?  Converting to nuclear power and
hydrogen powered cars would solve a lot of energy/pollution problems but we
have yet to do it, because of the fear of the "N" word.

	Similarly, people have eaten meat for millenia.  Telling them they
shouldn't do it cuz people are starving will motivate them as much as telling
them to quit earning money because people are poor.

	If *you* want to live in a machine-less, vegetarian society, then do
it.  Lead by example.  But don't pontificate on the evils of western society
while using a computer and telephone network to do it.

==Brett=========================================================================
     Once upon a time, a few brilliant men created a system that empowered its
users, gave them freedom, and provided a few essential services.
     Now it is old, slow, easily corrupted, overly restrictive, too large and
confusing for anyone to understand, plagued with inconsistencies, and
run by men who only care about money.  (The subject is UNIX :)
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Solar Power Now - correction
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:28:32 GMT

I recently posted a note under this subject that quoted an employee of
the National Energy Renewable Labs as saying this country could be
supplied by a photovoltaic powered grid by the year 2000 if we had a national
investment of $1 billion.  I recently talked to him and he said the
article quoted him out of context.  He actually believes that
we could have full OPTIONS to use photovoltaics by the end of the century
but that it is not realistic to say that we could have major PRODUCTION
via photovoltaics at that time.  This means that the technological
advantages, as I reported in the PV technology update, are real, but it
will take longer to take advantage of these new technologies.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)