HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:31:49 GMT

......McGovern says......
>That future is worth infinitely more than any "substitutes" for it. The
>technologies and technologists we need are those that will help us to
>reach that future, not those that will help to make it forever unreachable: 
>technologies that serve life -- *all* life -- not destroy it. Ecologically 
>sane technology, not technological substitution gone insane and become 
>technological supremecism.

>The time of morally empty technology, driven by greed, limited only by 
>derided threats of "doom", is over. The real challenge for technologists
>is whether they can overcome the counsels of greed and fear and find within
>themselves the moral purpose and strength to be able to just say "no" to
>technological changes that take us ever farther from where we should be, and 
>to seek out with all their intelligence the changes that will bring us, day
>by day, year by year, sensibly closer to our heart's desire: our true home 
>on earth, among our innumerable living kin, the tapestry of life rewoven. 

>But can such technologists exist? Will they appear in the years ahead?

>Just watch! 

>------------
>Alan McGowen

>"Force the Spring." -- Bill Clinton
I am watching. What I see are people unconfortable with industrialism
ready to impose an Oath of Poverty on the rest of us.  Very frankly I do
not wish to live in a world whose economy is based on Granola and
Chickenshit. Very organic, very natural, and very hard on people who want
other than that and better than that.

Having said this, I must confess a sympathy for those who wish to
preserver a measure of untouched (natural if you will) beauty. I like to
walk in the woods, and hear a symphony with no components from the local
freeway. Occasionally it is nice not to hear the roar of the jet plane. 

But I reject catagorically the necessity for making and exclusive choice
between a technology based economy and an echophreaks paradise.  We can
have natural enclaves in the world for those who wish them as places of
spiritually refreshment.  For example, we have a system of national parks
where wood and leaf is carefuly guared and preserved.  I am willing to pay
for such facilities. What I don't want is a bunch of neo-Puritans telling
me my taste for manufactured goods and high technology is an expression of
sin.  I want it both ways, as do most other rational folks. And it is
comming. 

Just watch.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.environment,misc.legal,justice.usa,pa.general
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: 11/92 interview w/Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, author of "Secret Fallout"
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:45:37 GMT
	<1993Jan20.191653.18483@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1993Jan21.015635.18905@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<1993Jan22.075836.13640@truffula.sj.ca.us>
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us's message of Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:58:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.075836.13640@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:


   Here's an example of a specious appeal to arithmetic, nonsense due to bad
   input data.

   In article <1993Jan21.015635.18905@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
    constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
   >According to this calculation, there should be NO ONE ALIVE IN THE U.S., due
   >to natural background radiation.
   >
   >Here's the numbers:
   >
   >The collective dose of TMI on the U.S.: 3300 person-rem (best estimate)
   >                                        2000-5000 person-rem (estimate range)
   >
   ...
   >By Sternglass' approximation, the death count from nature:
   >                                     70,000,000,000 dead Americans in 10 years


   Trouble with this analysis is the "collective dose of TMI" is actually
   unknown because the amount of radioactive material released is unknown.
   The instruments at TMI were disabled during some releases and
   off the scale during others.

Presumably there is a rather solid ceiling on the total collective
dose from TMI as the total inventory of the reactor is
known and we have a pretty good idea how much was not released.
As there is a factor of 1000 room for error before one can avoid
concluding the entire US mortality rate is due to radiation exposure,
that would indicate fairly well that something is wrong.

   * Any problem soluble solely by arithmetic is unimportant.

Have you informed the IRS of this observation? ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: hln5451@zeus.tamu.edu (NOBOA, HOMERO LUIS)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Help on oil spill cleanup companies
Date: 21 Jan 1993 09:50 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I would like to know names and (if possible) telephone numbers of 
companies dealing with: oil spills, enviromental cleanup and polution 
control. Your help shall be appreciated.

Homero:

hln5451@zeus.tamu.edu

Thanks

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 22:08:27 GMT
Subject: Property is *never* "unalienable"
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: talk.environment

John McCarthy writes:

>Humanity had to find a substitute for whale oil.  It will also need a
>substitute for petroleum.  Fortunately, we know more today about how
>to substitute for petroleum than our ancestors knew about how to
>substitute for whale oil.  Further substitutions are required, but,
>as I recall, the examples given by McGowen were peripheral to the
>standard of living.

The examples I gave were: high-quality wood, meat and fish.

Let's never forget that these things are "peripheral to the standard 
of living." 

This tells us much about the sort of world certain technological "optimists" 
would irreversibly condemn us to live in if we were fool enough to let them.
If they can't even care for *these* things, how much can they care for
less economically important species? 

We would have a world with plenty of power, plenty of machines, plenty of 
people, and not a shred of grace, living beauty, or comfort for the human 
spirit.  Not a civilization, but a technological barbarism. That is what 
McCarthy apparently means when he speaks of creating a "US standard of 
living" for a world of 30 billion. It's a political program, pure and 
simple, hiding behind a mask of false scientific objectivity. But the
masquerade is over.

No.  We aren't going to let it happen. The first limiting resource to 
be encountered will be the limit of our tolerance for the continued 
degradation -- in every sense of that word -- of our beautiful planet. 
From here on, we will choose a different future for our children, one 
that they will be able to share with all of life, in all its myriad forms. 

		*	*	*	*	*	*	

That future is worth infinitely more than any "substitutes" for it. The
technologies and technologists we need are those that will help us to
reach that future, not those that will help to make it forever unreachable: 
technologies that serve life -- *all* life -- not destroy it. Ecologically 
sane technology, not technological substitution gone insane and become 
technological supremecism.

The time of morally empty technology, driven by greed, limited only by 
derided threats of "doom", is over. The real challenge for technologists
is whether they can overcome the counsels of greed and fear and find within
themselves the moral purpose and strength to be able to just say "no" to
technological changes that take us ever farther from where we should be, and 
to seek out with all their intelligence the changes that will bring us, day
by day, year by year, sensibly closer to our heart's desire: our true home 
on earth, among our innumerable living kin, the tapestry of life rewoven. 

But can such technologists exist? Will they appear in the years ahead?

Just watch! 

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

"Force the Spring." -- Bill Clinton
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:03:46 -0500 
From: Truman Fenton <tf26+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Earth Friendly products.

In a personal effort to help reduce humankind's impact on the planet, I
am looking for businesses which sell Environmentally friendly products. 
I don't want any "Plastics are good" crap but rather honest to goodness
good sources for recycled products as well as other types of
environmental friendly stuff.

One such company is Earth Care Paper which carries Recycled Office and
School supplies.  Thy also sell cellulose tape and plant fiber paper.  

	Earth Care Paper, Inc.
	PO Box 7070
	Madison, WI 53707-7070

	Voice (608) 223-4000
	Fax (608) 223-4040

In addition, If anyone knows where I could buy net shopping bags (light
weight, strechy, cotton netting with handles.  My Mom has one.)  I would
appreciate such info.  That would eliminate the need for disposable
shopping bags in department and clothing stores.

Much Thanks,

- Truman
"The Eternal Optimist" 
---------
INTERNET: tf26@andrew.cmu.edu
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: vibes watcher
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:39:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.202500.2302@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>In article <1jtullINN2sr@gap.caltech.edu>, Carl J Lydick writes:
>>for example, the release posted by Jym a couple of months ago that made
>>a big thing about the fact that plutonium had been detected on the beaches near
>>Sellafield, but neglected to say anything at all about concentrations).
>
>The scandal is that plutonium was released at all, not in what
>concentration it was released.  It shows the plant is not being
>operated responsibly.

Not necessarily. It depends on the *amount* of plutonium released
whether the plant is being operated responsibly or not. If the
exposure dose from the releases is below the minimum exposure 
limits, then the plant is operating responsibly. Radioactive
emitters and toxic chemicals occur everywhere in the environment.
Many of the sources are natural, some are not. Dose is the critical
issue. There is no "scandal" unless the dose is significantly higher
than this background. Since the technology exists to detect radioactive
and toxic materials in parts per billion quantities, mere detection
says little about risk. Concentration with respect to other natural 
sources of radioactives and toxics is the vital information that could 
determine if the plant releases are indeed excessive. Any other statement
is mere scaremongering.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1993Jan24.081939.971@truffula.sj.ca.us>
Date: 24 Jan 93 10:34:01

In article <1993Jan24.081939.971@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:

   Newsgroups: talk.environment
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!portal!truffula!cls
   From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
   Organization: Save the Humans!
   Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 08:19:39 GMT
   References: <88290205@hpindda.cup.hp.com> <JMC.93Jan23183736@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
   Lines: 20

   In article <JMC.93Jan23183736@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >It is conceivable that we shall have to substitute
   >for high quality wood, which is indeed being rapidly used up.  More
   >likely, we will succeed in getting high quality wood from tree farms.


   "High quality" wood is tight-grained and knot-free.  These are
   characteristics of wood from trees which grow into an intact canopy to
   a very old age: the very type you can't get from a tree farm.  The
   tight grain is due to the slower growth which occurs in established
   forests.  "Even-aged management" (clearcutting and monoculture) gives
   trees which grow quickly into full sunlight, with a resulting loose
   grain.  This is why wood from old-growth forests brings a higher price
   than the same species from a tree farm.  Ask any cabinetmaker.


   Cameron
   --
   He who does arithmetic day and night can spout as much nonsense as
   anyone else.

I have no reason to doubt that wood that grows rapidly today isn't
the tight-grain wood preferred for cabinet making.  However, does
Cameron Spitzer know a law of nature that guarantees that no-one
will succeed in developing a tight-grain wood that does grow rapidly.

I can't guarantee it can be done, but if I expected to be around
in another 50 years to collect, I would offer a bet at 2 to 1 odds.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "Severe" errors by Greenpeace
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:53:19 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1jg9n3INNihe@gap.caltech.edu>
	<1993Jan20.081605.8153@truffula.sj.ca.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> In article <1jg9n3INNihe@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>> How about their call for elimination of *ALL* uses of
>> chlorine?  I've heard of low-salt diets, but that was ridiculous!
> Where is the severe error of fact?

=o= The severe error of fact is in Carl Lydick's restatement.

> Was the environmental hazard of organochlorines misstated in any
> quantifiable way?  Are you simply objecting to the writing style?

=o= Carl's complaints in this respect are pretty useless.  There
was exactly one intelligent comment on the matter, which I'm
attaching below.  Perhaps it's an appropriate query to send off
to greenpeace-knocks?
    <_Jym_>
================================================================
=> From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
=> Newsgroups: sci.environment
=> Subject: Re: ... Austria Releases Study of its Chlorine Industry
=> Date: 15 Aug 91 16:25:45 GMT

Come on, guys, deliberate misreadings of the Greenpeace paper to imply
salt should be banned serve only to cheapen the debate.  Clearly they
meant organochlorine compounds.

Greenpeace will have to explain, however, why banning all manufacture
of *all* these compounds is necessary, in light of findings [1] that
organohalogen compounds are produced in nature in large amounts, and
are ubiquitous in soils around the world.  Worldwide, organochlorine
to organic carbon ratios in soils were in the range of .22 to 2.8 mg
Cl/g C.  Some remote, humic-rich, oligotrophic lakes in Sweden had
adsorbable organohalogen concentrations as high as 185 ug Cl/L
comparable to those in industrially polluted rivers, like the Rhine.
Mass balance calculations strongly indicate local, nonanthropogenic
sources dominate, rather than deposition of industrial pollutants over
long ranges.

[1] G. Asplund, A. Grimvall.  Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol 25, No. 8,
    pp. 1346-1350, 1991.

----------

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: "A Quarter Billion Years" (Greenpeace Press Releases)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<29AQ02T133=a01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:13:00

The thing one really needs to understand is the mechanism that provides
the money to amplify the ignorance of someone who is unsure about the
difference between a million and a billion and deliver it to all
Colorado schoolchildren.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.greens
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<C0L447.A2z@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <1993Jan13.203624.29602@seas.smu.edu>
	<travt.727166483@marsh> <#!d3jgf@rpi.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:30:58

In article <#!d3jgf@rpi.edu> speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights) writes:

   Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU talk.environment:10036 alt.politics.greens:419
   Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.greens
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!rpi!speights
   From: speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights)
   Nntp-Posting-Host: iear.arts.rpi.edu
   References: <JMC.93Jan6150304@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <C0IJJy.CMv@news.iastate.edu> <C0L447.A2z@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <1993Jan13.203624.29602@seas.smu.edu> <travt.727166483@marsh>
   Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 22:10:12 GMT
   Lines: 22

   travt@cs.curtin.edu.au (Tony Travers) writes that nature is

   >a really nasty piece of work (why else have we retreated to our
   >artificial existance).

   By "we" you must mean White Industrial Culture.  The indigenous inhabitants
   of this continent had existed in almost perfect interaction with the
   environment for at least ten thousand years and were quite fond of what
   White Modernists call a "nasty piece of work."  The same is true of the
   African natives, whose habitat was much less robust but was loved and
   nurtured by them until a few hundred years ago, when technology was
   elevated to its irrational preference over nature.  Living in nature
   requires little technology--in fact it is most hostile to humans who
   rely on technology for survival.  Native Americans knew this, and placed
   strict edicts against unnescessary advances of technology.

   Arlen
   -- 
   :-(-:-(-:-(-:-( speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu )-:-)-:-)-:-)-:
   "Even now, we scarcely feel our hearts beat before they break in protest"
							    -Stanley Diamond
									  --
We Japanese find the reference to "White Industrial Culture" offensive.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.med,sci.research
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: organochlorines (was Re: "Severe" errors by Greenpeace)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:29:51 GMT

Paul Dietz:
>
>Come on, guys, deliberate misreadings of the Greenpeace paper to imply
>salt should be banned serve only to cheapen the debate.  Clearly they
>meant organochlorine compounds.
>
>Greenpeace will have to explain, however, why banning all manufacture
>of *all* these compounds is necessary, in light of findings [1] that
>organohalogen compounds are produced in nature in large amounts, and
>are ubiquitous in soils around the world.  Worldwide, organochlorine
>to organic carbon ratios in soils were in the range of .22 to 2.8 mg
>Cl/g C.  Some remote, humic-rich, oligotrophic lakes in Sweden had
>adsorbable organohalogen concentrations as high as 185 ug Cl/L
>comparable to those in industrially polluted rivers, like the Rhine.
>Mass balance calculations strongly indicate local, nonanthropogenic
>sources dominate, rather than deposition of industrial pollutants over
>long ranges.
>
>[1] G. Asplund, A. Grimvall.  Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol 25, No. 8,
>    pp. 1346-1350, 1991.
>
>----------
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

The key question is whether these naturallly occurring compunds break
down at qualitatively different rates or or have radicallt different
bioaccumulation ratios.  The Greenpeace report does not claim that
there are no natural organochlorine compounds, only that they are
rare and "behave" differently since organisms have evolved in their
presence.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "A Quarter Billion Years" (Greenpeace Press Releases)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 12:22:25 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<Jym.19Jan1993.1921@naughty-peahen>
	<29AQ02T133=a01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

>>> "Nuclear wastes remain dangerous for a quarter billion
>>> years" . . . Listed as one of the facts being taught to
>>> children in a Colorado environmental education program.
>> I provided the the phone number of the people involved and
>> invited critics of Greenpeace to call it and find out whether
>> it was, in fact, a typo.  Nobody did . . .
> Hold it, Jym.  I called Jason (the name of the Greenpeace
> spokesman) on two occasions, originally to check to see
> if he really thought 0.25 billion was the correct number,
> and later to assess his understanding of the opinions
> he was presenting as fact.  I received his permission to
> summarize his remarks to the net, and did so. You must
> have missed the posting.

=o= I guess I must have.  I apologize for saying that nobody
called the phone number.

> Jason was surprised to learn that "billion" was incorrect,
> but on checking found that it was, indeed, a typo . . .

=o= Interesting.  I don't remember the name of the contact
I called (or even if there were more than one), but he said,
immediately, that it was a typo.  Who knows, perhaps it was
this Jason, and he'd just gotten off the phone with you.

=o= I also brought the matter up on Environet, Greenpeace's
BBS, where the fact that it was a typo was also quickly
confirmed.

> My point is exactly that the "GreenPeace spokesman" who wrote
> the press release and the curriculum for the Colorado school
> children . . .

=o= Is Jason indeed the person who wrote the curriculum?  If
so, I agree completely that this is a serious error.  If not,
I agree that so incompetent a person should not be cited as
a contact.

> I quit reading GreenPeace press releases as a result of my
> conversations with Jason, and because of the high volume and
> low information content of the postings.

=o= I disagree about the low information content:  they provide
a lot of information that is pertinent to environmental issues
and not otherwise readily available online.  If you're looking
for *scientific* information content, press releses aren't the
place to look, but the few that do have such content get cross-
posted to sci.environment.

> Jym, it is a *fact* that GreenPeace has low credibility
> in the scientifically literate community.  The stridency,
> sloganeering, and lack of rigor in typical GreenPeace
> statements is, I think, the main cause.

=o= I make a distinction between research and "statements."
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: _USA_Today_ Quasi-Poll About Environmental Issues
Followup-To: talk.environment,alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<EcoNet.22Jan1993.wu3@naughty-peahen>
	<Jym.22Jan1993.2009@naughty-peahen>
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:54:39

What's the number to vote for Pendley?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment