HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Subject: light reading
Reply-To: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: talk
Date: 14 Dec 92 11:51:10 EST


  For those who are a little weary of Greenpeace bashing and the other
non-productive aspects of this newsgroup, I'd like to suggest a book I
found at the library the other day: Energy Unbound, by L. Hunter
Lovins, Amory B. Lovins and Seth Zuckerman.
   Although it's characterized as a "fable for America's future," its
simplistic approach actually masks quite a fascinating state of the art
(circa 1986) energy primer on how the U.S. -- and by extension, Canada
-- can maintain ample supplies of energy while lowering costs.  In
other words, it considers both economic and ecological aspects.
   The authors are well-known, I gather, as alternative energy
proponents.  Needless to say, the nuclear option gets short shrift,
deservedly so if the book's comments are accurate.
  I was particularly impressed by the reports of energy savings
possible in existing houses, using relatively simple techniques.  Where
did I put that caulking gun....?

-- Ron                  | "...the self-confidence of learned people is
ronald.hands@canrem.com | the comic tragedy of [our] civilization."
                        |                    -- Alfred North Whitehead

 * DeLuxe2 1.21 #10218 * 
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:55:18 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec15225956@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>3. Anyone who flies across the country will see that there is
>plenty of land not being used for anything.  

John trusts the evidence of his eyes, unsuprisingly, and apparently
believes that only human use, or ecosystems meeting some current
cultural aesthetic can include land in the "being used" category.

					      I see that the
>fact that we are factors of many thousands away from using up
>our potential dump space doesn't impress the anti-arithmetic
>faction. Oh well, probably my son wouldn't be impressed even
>though he is good at arithmetic for a second-grader.

Your ability to do arithmetic is sound enough. Your ability to dismiss
complex systems science and ecology as religious voodoo is what fails
to impress me.

-- paul 



-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either
Xref: sparky talk.environment:5131 alt.activism.d:4344 alt.rush-limbaugh:11950
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Douglas Fir forests of the Pacific North West
Keywords: Douglas Fir
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:09:19 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

[Sorry for the delays in responding, but I have been having disk
problems (and still am).]

In article <1992Dec4.153909.15012@pmafire.inel.gov>
cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
|In article <1165@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|Thanks, Steve, for a rational (as usual for you) post on the subject of
|Doug Fir forests. . . .

Thank you for your kind words.

...
|I would take your approach a bit further, though, and say that we
|should maintain *all* stages of forest, from new to old growth, to
|preserve the species that rely on the various growth stages.  Isn't
|this the very  essence of sustainable harvesting?

Yes.  That is exactly what I mean by a 250-350 year rotation.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:15:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <JMC.92Dec16192145@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I have principles of conscience against paying Greenpeace $10 for 63
>pages.  Actually it takes a lot to convince me to pay anyone $10 for
>63 pages, and a lot more to convince me to pay Greenpeace any money
>for anything.  Maybe I can look at it in a bookstore.
>
>However, we can see what kind of science it is from the title,
>"Playing With Fire - Hazardous Waste Incineration".  It is lawyers'
>science, a selection of excerpts chosen to support a position taken
>in advance.
>

This looks alot like judging a book by its cover.. What have we done?

-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: He who talks arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:04:27 GMT

In article <15900007@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
>Where I live, garbage collection is cheaper than the BASE RATE for any
>other service:  water, sewer, electricity, phone, gas, or cable TV.  As
>of today, landfills are an acceptable solution at a reasonable cost to
>the vast majority of Americans.  If it costs so damn much to haul trash
>to the landfill, why aren't garbage rates sky high?  Charge people what it
>REALLY costs, and may the best solution win.

Yes, but I've seen that where the garbage rates increase, people won't 
put out garbage in front of their house--they'll throw it somewhere else.

For example, in a suburb of Chicago where I lived, curbside trash had to
be put in special bags, purchased at local grocery stores, etc. for a fee
(like ~$1 for a 55 gal bag). Well, this new idea probably brought in a few
bucks for the local community, but every week they had to go down a 
particular road and clear out the waist-high piles of trash that people
threw there.

I still like the idea of incinerators.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: He who talks arithmetic is doomed to talk NONSENSE
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:43:23 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California

>  jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>
>> 5. Bacterial contamination.  There doesn't seem to be a significant
>> bacterial contamination from landfills now.  Why would one be expected?

  session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
> Depends on how well the landfill is contructed. Some are not constructed
> very well. And there's always corruption to consider. I hear and read about
> groundwater contamination from landfills all the time. I guess you just
> don't listen to and read the same news and magazines I do.

I'm pretty sure that chemical contamination of groundwater is a
far more prevalent problem than bacterial contamination, for
several reasons.  First, according to Rathje's Garbage Project
research, bacteria don't seem to thrive much in a typical landfill --
decay proceeds very slowly.  Second, porous barriers tend to
filter out bacteria, while leaving other types of pollutants
in the seepage.

The typical "problem" landfill in the US was sited poorly, on
porous substrate near surface water or in communication with
the aquifer, and is leaching mercury, cadmium, lead, and solvents
such as acetone, trichlorethylene, benzine, and the breakdown
products of used motor oil.  The mercury and cadmium typically
come from used dry cell batteries and cadmium-pigmented yellow
paints.  Many communities that rely on local wells will need
to find other sources of water, as the landfill problems they
created for themselves in mid-century finally percolate down
to their drinking water supply.

It's worth noting that Prof. McCarthy's local Palo Alto landfill
is one of the best-designed and best-run in the country, with
scrupulous attention to sealing and leachate control, and to
segregating toxics.  Unfortunately, it will close in the next
few years, and Prof. McCarthy's garbage haulage bill will likely
triple or worse.  Palo Alto was fortunate: the local soil is
"adobe"; full of clay, and almost impervious, so construction
of a model landfill was relatively cheap and easy, even though
it borders San Francisco Bay.

It's also worth noting that Palo Alto relies largely on piped-in
water from the Sierras, so Prof. McCarthy is unlikely to be
consuming much TCE from the Varian Data groundwater pollution
plume moving along old stream-channels under his community.

---
Joel Hanes
Xref: sparky talk.environment:5090 sci.environment:13650
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Rammed Earth Construction
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:27:53 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

9212.17 e.v.


Please send email information regarding rammed earth construction, the
technology needed to accomplish it and any organizations which offer
instruction in its practice.


Thank you very much,

Thyagi

Tagi@Cup.Portal.Com

or portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@Uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Unbelievable....
Keywords: Doesn't anyone take basic science classes anymore?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 12:09:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.005938.17239@trentu.ca> pstonge@TrentU.CA writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.233303.16224@news.nd.edu>, gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu
> (george smith) writes:
>>With  
>>nuclear plants, you have to worry about them blowing up and where you're  
>>going to put the radioactive waste. 

>	Sorry, George, though I agree with you on all but one point, I have 
>to take you to task over the 'worry' that the nukes blow up.  You might be 
>intereseted to know that the CANDU reactor are designed such that the 
>coolant water is ALSO the moderator.  In other words, the reaction JUST 
>WON'T WORK without the coolant water (D2O).  Hence, core explosion due to 
>coolant loss is a moot point.

Pete, you're wrong. Not just CANDU. Every BWR and PWR in the United States and 
in the world uses the same coolant and moderator (i think it's called _water_).

Core explosion is ALWAYS a moot point--IT DOESN'T HAPPEN...

>	Okay, well what about meltdown?  Unlike most if not all of its 
>counterparts, the Canadian CANDU reactor does NOT use enriched uranium 
>fuels. U-238 is present only in small quantities ( <20%, and that's a high 
>estimate) as UO3, an inert solid. 

Pete, you're wrong again. U-238 is 99.3% of the uranium. But that's
not as important as the fact that U-235 is the fissile fuel, and it comprises
0.7% of the uranium. I suggest reading Nero's book on nuclear power plants.
It provides a lot of background info on all types of plants.
And it's UO2, not UO3.

>MAny other reactors, among with are the
>reactors found in the U.S. are fueled with enriched UF6 (uranium 
>hexafloride) a VERY reactive chemical.  

Pete, you're wrong AGAIN. The Light Water Reactors in the US and around
the world are fueled with UO2, a non-reactive oxide.


Pete, it's obvious that you do not know the difference between CANDUS and
LWRS, nor the difference between UF6, U-238, U-235, or UO2.  If you are
going to correct someone, please make sure that you know what you are saying.


Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:21:45

I have principles of conscience against paying Greenpeace $10 for 63
pages.  Actually it takes a lot to convince me to pay anyone $10 for
63 pages, and a lot more to convince me to pay Greenpeace any money
for anything.  Maybe I can look at it in a bookstore.

However, we can see what kind of science it is from the title,
"Playing With Fire - Hazardous Waste Incineration".  It is lawyers'
science, a selection of excerpts chosen to support a position taken
in advance.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: IGNORANCE is BLISS - But EDUCATION is SEXIST
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:26:53 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Dec13.005938.17239@trentu.ca> pstonge@TrentU.CA writes:
]In article <1992Dec12.233303.16224@news.nd.edu>, gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu
] (george smith) writes:
]
]>	As far as nuke plants v. fossil fuel plants go, neither of them is  
]>ideal.  With fossil fuels you have to worry about all sorts of air  
]>pollution, where to mine it, what you'll do when it runs out, etc.  With  
]>nuclear plants, you have to worry about them blowing up and where you're  
]>going to put the radioactive waste. 
]	Sorry, George, though I agree with you on all but one point, I have 
]to take you to task over the 'worry' that the nukes blow up.  You might be 

But there *is* a way to blow up a nuclear plant!!

  Simply detonate one (1) nuclear weapon within the plant and you 
  will get a nuclear explosion. Else, forget it.

-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are 
#^%$!! Militarist          |  going to the stars." Robert A. Heinlein
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:06:05 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec16192145@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I have principles of conscience against paying Greenpeace $10 for 63
>pages.  Actually it takes a lot to convince me to pay anyone $10 for
>63 pages, and a lot more to convince me to pay Greenpeace any money
>for anything.  Maybe I can look at it in a bookstore.
>
>However, we can see what kind of science it is from the title,
>"Playing With Fire - Hazardous Waste Incineration".  It is lawyers'
>science, a selection of excerpts chosen to support a position taken
>in advance.
>
While the name may not sound like it is from the pages of _Science_,
this does not say much about the quality of the contents of the
report.  He is prepared to label it lawyer's science without seeing
it.  It does not claim to be original research, and as an input to policy,
I do not think it is innapropriate to focus on dangers.  In that sense,
it may actually be "lawyer's science", but the question is: 
does it accurately represent the results of scientific study?  

I can understand that he does not want to give money
to Greepeace, so if he will e-mail me his postal address I will be
willing to send him a copy of a part of the report so that he
can evaluate it without making a contribution.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 
==============================================================================

	Dean Myerson	(dingo in boulder)	(dean@vexcel.com)

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: Jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk (James Goldwater)
Subject: Re: Ticket America-- Negative Nonsense
Reply-To: Jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: Sound & Vision BBS (UK) 0932 252323
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:52:01 +0000

In article <Bz5nC6.E2D@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

[..DELETED..]
>The long and the short of this critique is don't blame -- provide
>alternatives instead. The eco/phreaks are a singularly uncreative bunch.
>They attack the capitalist system (for they are socialists and Luddites)
>instead of promoting the incentives for the *only* successful economic
>system to provide a) what is neeeded and b) what is congruent with
>environmental sustainability.
>
>When are these bumpkins going to realize that technology is not the enemy,
>rather it is our chosen means of survival.
>
>Conan the Libertarian
>
>-- 
>"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
>
>
>
>

*Exactly* - hit the nail right on the head.
 People should be free to make up their own minds whether something is 
unacceptable or not. Educate them - YES! Brainwash them - NO! Scaring people 
who don't understand the issues is not education. It is *wrong* - morally and 
economically.
   People will choose the green option if they feel that it is cheapest (not 
just in monetary terms, but on their conscience) in the long run. It is stupid 
to tell them not to run gas-guzzlers if they have no option apart from walking 
ten miles to work or school. If you educate people correctly they will 
eventually choose the right answer - not necessarily the one the greens are 
telling everyone. Going around sticking scare literature on car-windscreens is 
not the way to educate people. 
  Life is inherently capitalist. Genetics. Economics. Morals. Don't buck the 
system. Don't go round bullying people.
            
James.
  
------------
"Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,          | 
"Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell,   |  
"And the profit and the loss.                       |
                              A current under sea   |     James Goldwater
"Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell  |
"He passed the stages of his age and youth,         |  jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk
"Entering the whirlpool.                            |
                         Gentile or Jew,            |-------|
"Oh you who turn the wheel and look to windward,            |
"Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you."  |
                                                            |
      IV - Death by Water, The Wasteland, T.S.Eliot         |
                                                            |



Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:16:09 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec14162758@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.205744.18370@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>   References: <15900004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> <Bz7EDH.1EC@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <JMC.92Dec13151356@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>
>   In article <JMC.92Dec13151356@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>   >Calculations of how much waste the U.S. generates per year show that
>   >there is plenty of room for landfills for many thousands of years.
>   >Picking through the trash costs labor - in almost every case more
>   >labor than the value generated by the separation.  Where the separation
>   >paid off, it was already done before politics and self-righteousness
>   >entered the scene.  Forcing people to do uneconomical recycling
>   >impoverishes the country - not very much perhaps but some.
>
>   And what land area is used for this calculation?  Lands that you
>   consider worthless?  Your backyard?  Mine?  Are we to _force_ people
>   to have landfills  near their homes so that other people have the
>   _freedom_ to be wasteful?
>   >
>   >--
>   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>to talk nonsense.
>
>
>		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
>
>Let's do the arithmetic.  500 million tons of waste per year in the
>U.S. assuming a density of 1.0 comes to 500 million cubic meters.
>Suppose it is piled 25  meters high.  This comes to 20 million
>square meters per year, or 20 square kilometers.  The area of the
>U.S. is 3 million square miles or 23 million square kilometers.
>It will take a million years to cover the country with trash.
>
>If we do nothing special for 100 years, we will use up 1/10,000 th of
>the country.  100 years from now our descendants will be as much more
>technologically capable than we are, as we are compared to the people
>of 100 years ago.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

It is this kind of mathematics that results in such scorn for your .sig.
Is there any consideration of where these landfills are supposed to go?
If there is so much room, why is there a problem finding room for the
landfills?  You frequently have complained that environmentalist
plans, for example with mass transit, do not take individual concerns
into account.  Are we to ignore individual desires not to have
trash dumps near their homes and parks?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Plutonium Poisoning: Flame not lest ye be flamed.
Date: 18 Dec 1992 06:12:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hi friends,
 
I did not mean to criticize anyones post. However I thought it
was unfair to the public for someone to trivialize the toxicity
of Plutonium.
 
I based my assumptions (remember I NEVER claim to post anything
other than my opinion,-i'll have to start including a disclaimer
in my posts)
Anyways, I Based my assumptions of Plutonium toxicity on the
OSHA TLV/TWA and TLV/STEL as well as REL and PEL values for Pu.
 
I used the phrase "perhaps" the most toxic substance known and
"one atom can cause lung cancer".
These are lines i recalled from the T.V. Show Cosmos which I
watched in H.S. and its host Carl Segan.
 
If you read ALL my posts, you would find that I in fact am a
moderate supporter of Nuclear power.
 
Ned.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:28:59
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.230854.15703@news.nd.edu> gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu (george smith) writes:



   Greenpeace says some things that may stretch the bounds of factualism...


You mean they lie?

Newsgroups: talk.environment