HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: intimidation
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:34:33 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Livermore, CA

In article <1992Dec17.154634.9130@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>not the sole basis for the concerns about climate change.  You
>suggest that we practive conservation while we "wait" for better
>data and theory but many people would not consider this to be
>waiting.  I would agree that conservation and efficiency are the
>appropriate tactics based on current knowledge and that is what
>most environmentalists are calling for now.
>
??? I suggested immediately cutting down on emissions, not "waiting". If
you base your decisions on dubious models, you will lose the respect of
scientists and open yourself up for criticism at all levels. I would
rather base my decisions on a conservative analysis of the size of
CO2/organic sinks and sources as fractions of the natural sources and
sinks.

To assess any model, I generally follow the debate that takes place in
the peer-reviewed literature; for climatology, this debate seems to be
lively. Don't forget there are risks on both sides of this debate; I can
find little good to say about wasting energy, but on the other hand,
extremely rapid changes can sink a fragile economy and lead to backlash;
the country (and the world) does not have infinite money to spend on
solutions. I found the recent Consumer Reports survey of public
perceptions on environmental problems to be very enlightening in this
regard.
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:10:08 GMT
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec29.151101.28860@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>
>	With this interesting thread having degenerated to a near lock,
>I had the following thought, to put some numbers on the issue.
>
>	If the gas tax were increased by $1.00/gallon, would this induce
>you to change your driving habits substantially?
>
>	If so, how?

It wouldn't change our habits a lot. We'd still do almost as much
driving, except we'd probably use the '67 Beetle instead of the 
'85 Ford (35 mpg instead of 25) for most of our driving. Most of our
driving is to work and church. Since we consider such driving essential,
we'd still do it.

What WOULD change my driving habits is a better transit system. The 
transit system here in Houston is worthless to us. We would almost never
drive if we could ride the bus most everywhere. The problem is that
we live on the edge of town and while most of our activities such as work,
worship, shopping, leisure are within 15 miles of us, the bus comes 
nowhere near these places without taking some harebrained, circuitous
route. For instance, to get to work we'd have to ride 2 hours to go 12
miles, because routes that originate anywhere near us go straight 
downtown. So to get to work we'd have to go to downtown and back.

>	If your driving habits did not change, how much would the
>increase cost you in a year?

Same as you, about $800.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 05:08:47 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>> That's because combustion turbines are low capacity compared to their
>> cost.  

>Really?  Is that why they are the prefered fossil units for peaking power?
>I would have thought that *low* capital cost for a given power output
>would be prefered there.

Why?  Because they can come up almost instantly and can produce more power
than practical diesel generators and can burn natural gas.  Capital
cost does not matter much when the issue is shaving off a peak demand
that would otherwise necessitate a brownout.  

>I'm calling you on this $250/kW figure.  Please give a literature
>reference that justifies it.

Like you did regarding gas turbines?  Unlike you, I don't have to go trolling 
in the library to know a bit about the power biz.  If there happens to be
something I don't know about, all I have to do is pick up the phone and
call any of several old colleagues in the business.  Invaluable 
resource, dontcha know.  USCEA does play by the old rules which would not 
apply in the event the country decided to play nuclear again in a 
serious way.  

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:19:31

In article <1993Jan3.013947.25856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:

   Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU sci.environment:27130 talk.environment:9867
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uunet!gatech!asuvax!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!air.atmo.arizona.edu!471-1
   From: 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
   Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
   Date: 3 Jan 93 01:39:47 GMT
   Sender: news@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu
   Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
   Lines: 24
   Originator: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu

   Here are a few questions that went through my mind the other
   day ( so I thought I'd post them).

   Why isn't Solar Power getting the attention that it deserves? 

     Is it because the Gov't. can't tax it?

     Is it because the Oil companies aren't done selling us
     petro?

     Is it because people in Nuclear think they are doing a great
     service to society?

     Do the students of Nuclear power think that studying Nuclear
     is the only real challenge for their brain?


   Why don't all you people working in Nuclear put your, obviously,
   brilliant minds to work on Solar Power.
   -- 


How do you know solar power isn't getting the attention it deserves?

Do you know how much Government money and other money is spent on
devloping it?

What do the initials SERI stand for, and where is it?

As to one of your questions, you are greatly underestimating all levels
of government if you think they can't tax solar power.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Development policies
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:20:17 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <STEINLY.92Dec18154507@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.164247.17939@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>  The alternative, of course, is for countries to make themselves attractive
>  for private foreign investment and development. This brings new jobs and
>  income to workers, tax revenue to the government, and a climate of prosperity
>  that fosters other investors, domestic and foreign, to start more businesses
>  catering to the new found flows of wealth.
>
>Ack. This is a gross oversimplification Gary. In the medium term
>indiscriminate foreign private investment can be disasterous
>because the optimum strategy for the foreign investors may be
>to force asset stripping of the local economy to maintain the
>investment which is then abandoned. Now, you may argue that
>in the long run that doesn't matter as long as the capital
>flows in (although I'd argue that it is not always the case),
>but it is irrelevant anyway, as the locals will _percieve_
>an injustice and rebel. Then you either have to abandon your
>investment or back it by force - whether by landing US Marines
>or bribing locals.  This is why people are willing to accept
>less than optimum gross gains in the long term in exchange for
>the inefficiencies of managed economies, the short term pain
>and income discrepancies of pure capitalism have too often been
>too much to tolerate.

It's certainly true that the transistion to a capitalist economy
is a painful one for nations that have been dwelling in a fantasy
world of socialist economics. But like the Arkansas Legislators
who passed a law saying pi=3.0 to make the math easier, bandaids
won't stop internal cancer in an economy. Serious diseases like 
communism and other forms of managed economy require strong medicine.
That medicine is often painful and sometimes nearly fatal in the
short term. But it's the only long term path to healthy development.

Sending in the Marines, or bribing local officials, is no solution.
The people of the country must be convinced that the short term pain
is worth the long term gain, or the development effort will fail. It
must have grassroots support, the healing must begin from within. Using
foreign military force is just another form of command economy, this
time with the commands coming from without the borders of the country
involved. Like all command economies, it will ultimately fail.

Bread and circuses have a strong mass appeal that is difficult to 
overcome. But the only path that works in the long term lies in
rejecting them. People must learn that their well being is in 
their own productive hands and not in what they can beg or steal 
from another. Parasites die without a host, and the World Bank is 
serving as a convienent host who is prolonging the agony of these
countries.

Gary
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: "User Friendly" Transit
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 07:21:50 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents

To assist you in your project, Dr Vandeman.

A. For *any* project:
--------------------

1. PLANNING: Getting your homework done.

2. EXPERTISE: Attracting substantial professional interest (selling
              your plan to other experts in that and related fields).

3. RESOURCES: Attracting finance and other capital (selling your plan
              to governments, banks, institutions and other investors).

4. COOPERATION: Gaining broadly based acceptance (selling your plan to
                the wider community).

B. Then three steps:
-------------------

1. ISSUES: Determining just exactly what it is we are now together
           capable of achieving in practice.

2. PROCESSES: Plotting a critical path through the various tasks we
              need to complete in order to bring the project to
              fruition on time and (hopefully) under budget.

3. IMAGE: Establishing the acceptability of the final participants in
          terms of their track record in meeting B.2 above.

C. But three caveats:
--------------------

1. ISSUE DEADLOCK: When the negotiations get bogged down in arguing
                   over the ordering of priorities.

2. PROCESS DEADLOCK: When the negotiations get bogged down in arguing
                     what paths are to be followed once the priorities
                     have been set.

3. IMAGE-LOSS DEADLOCK: When negotiators lose credibility and a new set
                        of participants must to be brought in to start
                        all over again, or the project simply shelved.

D. Finally:
----------

BE PATIENT AND THOUGHTFUL ALWAYS.

It takes very many years of your life, yes?

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec29001443@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<louis.725650446@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:18:07

In article <louis.725650446@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
   References: <1hnk0tINNnna@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Dec29.053123.18740@pegasus.com> <JMC.92Dec29001443@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

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

      [Summary of Japan's progress towards hegemony deleted]

   >Perhaps the Japanese plan consists of advancing the interests of the
   >country using whatever means seems appropriate at the time.  If that's
		  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >it, then every country has the same plan.

   You have hit the nail on the head.  That indeed is the problem.  Japan,
   ruled by the mandarins of the civil service (not to be remotely
   confused with the civil service of the US), has had a consistent
   *national* economic plan.  A consensus if you will.  ``Keep them out
   until we have achieved the manufacturing excellence which we know we
   are capabale of, then dominate the market.''

   I am asking for the same kind of leadership in the North American
   context.  Symmetric trade, not free trade on one side and barriers on
   the other.  I submit that the US-Canada Auto Pact is that kind of
   ``managed'' trade that has been very good for both countries.

   John, I know you have wide interests and an extensive knowledge base.
   Do you have time for a read of two books that I have found very
   interesting and, as near as I can verify, factual?  ``Trading Places,''
   by Clyde Prestowitz, 1988, and ``Head to Head,'' by Lester Thurow.
   --
   Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca

Most countries that have tried protectionism while building their
domestic industries have failed.  Computers is the industry with
which I am most familiar.  France, Germany and England all had
"buy domestic" policies to an even greater extent than Japan.
All failed.  The Japanese have never really succeeded with computers
on a worldwide scale.  Therefore, where the Japanese did succeed,
some other ingredient than mere protectionism must have been important.
Complaints about unfair foreign competition are almost always
a shield for domestic incompetence.

Therefore, I dunno about the US-Canada Auto Pact.  Is it a shield
for incompetence?

Which is better, Prestowitz or Thurow?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: ecixdy@igc.apc.org (Energy and Climate Information Exch)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: has anybody heard of this letter?
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:37:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:misty.boeing.com:115110001:cdp:1466602017:000:571
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecixdy    Dec 23 06:37:00 1992


Folks, you do NOT have to have a PhD. to know something about global
climate change.

* -------------------------------------------------------------
* Dan Yurman              |  Internet:  ecixdy@igc.apc.org
* Climate Digest Editor   |    Bitnet:  ecixdy%igc.org@stanford
* Econet Energy & Climate |  MCI Mail:  364-1277
* Information Exchange    |     Phone:  (208) 524-6374
* -------------------------------------------------------------
* 112W01 43N28   >>>  PO Box 1569, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83403 USA
                                                                
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987 ~BHOSVWZ#097)
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 10:43:35 GMT

Patricia Dedula (ad376@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:

: My neighbor has a woodburning fireplace which he burns from 
: morning to night.  It is polluting the air around my house to the
: point where I ca
: can hardly breathe when I am outside and it is getting into m
: my house.  Could anyone tell me what could be causing this 
: pollution.  Could he be burning the wrong kind of wood?  What 
: could my neighbor do to eliminate or cut down the strong smell
: that his coming from his fireplace and surrounding my house.
: I noticed even his chimney is getting black.

I heat my house with wood almost exclusively (the 1940's oil 
burning furnace kicks on about once a week if I get lazy about
the fire).  I feel I can add something on this topic.

I have found that good wood (oak or maple) has a quite pleasant smell,
while if I burn "Garbage wood", in my case box elder, it stinks pretty
badly.  As I have 37 acres and there's little chance of my smoke reaching
the neighbors, I don't worry too much about it.

If he's burning soft wood, or PAPER? or pallett wood perhaps, that could
explain it.  Trash would be worse...

The chimney getting black is fairly normal, as they say, soot happens.

Are you on good terms with this neighbor?  You could mention to him that
wet/soft woods deposit lots of creosote in the chimney, causing a fire 
hazard, also if it's not a sealed fireplace unit he could be breathing
those fumes as well.

With good wood, a woodfire is quite pleasant smelling.  My favorite is
red oak, it is almost a perfume-incense smell.

Anyway, I digress.  How, ecologically, does woodburning compare to
burning oil (in a ~60% efficient furnace)?  It's cheaper for me (I have
the trees), and I assume most of the emissions are particulate matter that
will settle out?

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
Don't blame me; I voted for Perot!                hinzd@picard.med.ge.com 
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.             Pherrets are Phun!!!
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Development policies, Communism+
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:56:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec29.035642.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <58053@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1hnie5INNnna@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <58025@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>Could you tell us specifically which "leftist theorists" you have in mind?
>>>As far as I know, most "leftist" theorists tend to take a very dim view of
>>>the world bank. And you have Marx backwards. He argued that it was
>>>capitalism which took from those who produce in favor of those who own.
>>>Read the Communist Manifesto some time. Or, if you like Orwell, try reading
>>>"Homage to Catalonia". 
>>
>>Ah, yes,  Yackadamn again.  Victor, can't you see the difference between theory
>>and practice?  Sure, it SOUNDS good to say that Communism will eliminate the
> 
> Carl, you are a contemptible fool, and you have neither the patience nor the
> intellect required to understand plain english. Kindly return to your
> regular reading of teenage-sci-fi novels and leave me alone.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Question Victor put your money where your mouth is and tell us what qualifies
you to make such statements?

Me Im just a one time professional student, now out of work Active Duty Army
Guardmember (I quit, needed a change). Who has a desire to know alot
in different subjects, renaisance(sp) man?

Marxist Communism: Marx and Engle hated their capitalist fathers..
Marxs father was a converted jewish merchant. And Engles father was a wealthy
wool industrialist (if I remember right) who probably cut them off.

Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: objective environment? (was Save the Planet)
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:18:12 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <726035709snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>These are highly relevant and important contemporary questions, if you
>would seek to do them some justice. I have plenty of literature here
>at hand to sustain a discussion.

I only understand the basic issues involved with taxonomy and I don't have
access to relevant literature but I'll try to do your questions/claims
justice.  I've paraphrased them in [].

[ Only museum curators can understand Linnaean classification ]

Nonsense.  For example, Edward Wilson's "Diversity of Life" contains a
nice explanation which requires no technical background.

[ Linnaean classification is not useful to laypersons ]

Laypeople are presumably far more interested in the fruits of biologists'
labour rather than how they accomplish them.  Nonetheless its incorrect to say
laypeople can not use Linnaean classifications.  For example, my mum, a keen
gardener, talks about plant genera and families and their characteristics.

[ Taxonomists might place pigs and whales in the one taxon which would be
  irrelevant to pig farmers and people who have never seen whales ]

Yes, the high level taxa that pigs are placed in are likely irrelevant to these
people (whether whales are placed in the same taxa or not). This is a problem?

[ Taxonomists make classifications on the basis of dead specimens ]

For taxonomic decisions based on fundamental anatomic characters, dead
specimens are presumably sufficient.  In many other cases, observations of
of live specimens are unavailable.  I know behaviour is often used for low-level
taxonomic decisions in some groups.  DNA-analysis is now providing a wealth of
information for taxonomic decisions.

[ Linnaean classification obstructs analysis of ecosystems containing people ]

As far I can see, it facilitates study of all ecosystems.

[ Biologists pickle human heads in jars and won't give them back. ]

I thought it was ethnologists and anthropologists that did this.

[ Biologists disrupt traditional beliefs and hence cause ecological catastrophe 
  and juvenile delinquency ]

Biologists no doubt commit many sins,  I expect this one is rare (and
irrelevant to taxonomy).

Andrew Taylor
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: averting doom
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 08:31:23 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents

I apologise for having so underestimated your intellectual capacities
during the debate on the economy of trucking farm soils, John.

Then I had a new phrase added to my vocabulary, describing your idea
as merely "a tad gonked". We live and learn.

Gil
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Enviro-industry on ABC
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:43:25 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <JMC.92Dec16171212@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Isn't the longest electric transmission line the intertie between
>the Pacific Northwest and Southern California extending 1500 miles?
>However, only a small amount of Southern California's electricity
>comes over this line.  Does anyone know what fraction of the power
>is lost to resistance?

This was hashed out over in sci.energy a couple of months ago. If 
you design for a maximum loss of 10%, the cable requirement is really
quite modest, about the diameter of your arm for a transcontinental
EHV cable with a 1000 MWe carrying capacity.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment