HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sacrifice (was Re: Save the Planet ...)
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 11:49:32 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec28.231813.4931@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:

 > >This idea of sacrifice is a real bun in the oven. 
 >                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > I love these little idioms.  No flame intended here, Gil.  I guess that
 > non-US citizens must put up with endless idioms from us (without us
 > realizing it) so maybe this is a hidden reminder.  In any case, maybe
 > you could enlighten me on this one?

*Pregnant*, Dean. Wrought with difficulty.
                                .
                                .
                                .

                                Of course, the costs are not always
 > long-term, and Gil's focus as an ethnologist may be on large
 > costs being suffered in many areas today.  If the ability of
 > humans to cause major changes in the biosphere were either smaller
 > or less predictable, it would not be an issue.  Since our
 > technological and scientific capabilities seem to be increasing 
 > the former faster than the latter, the issue of sacrifice to 
 > avoid ill-defined costs may become more of a moral one than a 
 > scientific one.  And how humans deal with it will decide
 > whether scientists spend more time solving manmade problems or
 > preventing them.

My focus as an ethnologist, as you might well have picked up by now,
is *not* toward one social group somehow "qualified" or empowered to
solve problems for other social groups, while remaining insulated
from the risks those solutions might entail. The model is very much
concerned with communities themselves taking back ownership of their
own problems, that those who bear the brunt make the decisions; that
is, those who will suffer most from the solution have the greatest say
in whether it should be implemented.

Of course there is a role for scientific and all other expertise in
such a model, although as part of the community itself engaged in a
direct discourse on reality with people who live in it, rather than
cloistered in academe or as agents of government imposing legalised
abstractions of reality on people, especially where those people have
no right of protest at the effects.

Big problems are solved in small local increments by real people with
their sleeves rolled up, *not* by the latest Presidential New Deal, or
by "environmental friendly" officials in the White House.

People don't have to sacrifice anything, just get on with it and
*benefit*, for the same reasons you wipe your arse whenever you go
to the toilet, or wash the dishes, or do the household chores. It is
just *housekeeping*, fundamentally, and if you don't want to do it
then you have to live in the shit accumulated around you, yes?

If you end up choking in it, more fool you.

Gil

Xref: sparky sci.environment:13812 talk.environment:5213
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Bad science
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:04:51 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <dhalliwe.725061253@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>>In <1992Dec18.172102.18456@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>What happened to the claim that the Earth has already warmed up several
>>degrees.  Supposedly due to greenhouse build up over the last 100 years.
>
>   Who's claim that the earth has warmed up several degrees? The
>instrumental record shows warming of about 1C over the last one
>hundred years. However, this warming has not been a simple linear
>one: there was warming until the 1930s, then cooling until 1970 or so,
>followed by further warming. The overall increase of 1C is consistent 
>with the increase in CO2, but could also be due to a number of other
>factors, so very few people actually state that the cause of the
>warming is CO2.
>
>  Of course, I have to add the usual caveat that these are the *global*
>trends that I am talking about, with significant local variations on
>the theme to be expected.
>
Also records show that the warming has been primarily night time
temperatures. What the implications of this are I am not sure.

-- 
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.......
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:51:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec22.005950.16231@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:

|-Mike, you are a perfect example of how earning an advanced degree does not
|-stop somebody from being a perfect and absolute idiot.
| 
|I guess you couldn't think of anything to say on the subject being
|discussed?

Mike, when you say something intelligent, I will take the effort to
respond in kind.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: New Hydrogen BBS
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 


                     !!! PROSPERITY WITHOUT POLLUTION !!!

                                Please call the
                       AHA HYDROGEN BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM
                                 (415) 494-3116

                     SupraFaxModem  V.32bis  14400 baud  8N1
                                    24 hours
                            Sysop:  Howard H. Smith

                         AMERICAN HYDROGEN ASSOCIATION
                        210 South Siesta Lane, Suite 101
                             Tempe, AZ 85281   USA
                              Tel: (602) 921-0433

                            AHA BBS: (415) 494-3116


                   HEARLDING THE DAWN OF THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

                      !!! PROSPERITY WITHOUT POLLUTION !!!

---
 . SLMR 2.1a . If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
                                                             
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:43:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.161607.25113@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
|> 
|> It seems to be a common conception that nuclear power is a good response 
|> to any possible climate change problem.  I have challenged this assumption
|> before but I will address in more detail here.  
|> 
|> As can be seen, these scenarios require huge investments and an extremely
|> intensive building program for nuclear plants.  And CO2 emissions will
|> not even drop due to the increase in use of other fossil fuel energy
|> sources!
|> 
|> Next, this is compared to the cost and emissions prediction for a focus
|> on energy efficiency.  They use a low energy scenario proposed by
|> Goldemburg et al.  They also discuss other low energy/efficiency
|> studies by Lovins et al and an NSF/MIT study, all of which point to
|> large savings from energy saving measures.  The NSF study states that:
|> 
|> 	... the effectiveness of energy use on a global scale can
|> 	be increased by about 1% per year for decades without any
|> 	social strain.  This seemingly small figure leads to a 
|> 	halving of energy use by the year 2050 and a 50% reduction
|> 	in (annual) CO2 emissions.  This result is quite independent
|> 	of any shifts to non-fossil sources for primary energy supplies.

I fail to see why efficiency improvements and shifts to non-fossil energy
sources are mutually exclusive. Your slant seems to imply that it is 
necessary to choose one of these approaches, but the use of the words
"quite independent" shows that this is not the case.

The argument you make above seems empty to me. It's as if you were advocating
against unleaded gasoline on the grounds that you could always use your 
bicycle. (note for the unsubtle: I advocate bicycles, but am glad of
unleaded gas for use in those instances where the bicycle is inappropriate.)

mt


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:14:38 GMT

>	The other side says lets take a reality check here.  Some may not
>want kids but others of us do.  Kids do not belong jailed between apartment
>walls and day care centers.  They need a place to play just outside the door
>that is safe, not down the street in the local gang controlled park.
 
Cars & roads are the main reason for the lack of open space for kids.
They take up too much space.

>	Some of us cannot ride bikes for a lot of reasons and homes near
>mass transit are not in good neighborhoods.  It is hard to go the the Price
>Club and bring home a months bulk food in a buss.
 
So ask them to deliver it.

>	We do need to reduce our load on the enviornment but it will
>not be done by trying to tell us how to live.  Present usable alternatives
>that we can choose, not force us into a system that reduces our individuality.

Nobody is telling you how to live, just to pay for the damage that you are
doing!
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14227 talk.environment:5323
From: 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Solar vs. Nuclear
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:39:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
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.
-- 
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: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:05:05 GMT

 (mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM) wrote:
: >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 
: 
: That's what they all say. Except that no matter how good the transit gets,
: it is never good enough for them. Transit IS good enough, for those willing
: to use it. Which may include living near it!

	Vandy,

	Did you even read this guy's previous post?  All Houston has is
a bus system.  Try it before you force someone to like it.

	JGA

P.S. Sometimes I kinda lean toward you, then you sound this dumb.  Oh well.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Enviro-industry on ABC
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:16:54 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec21173231@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>1000MWe is about one big power plant.  A situation in which one part
>of the country is supplying another part of the country with a substantial
>part of its electricity requirements would require at least 10 times that
>capacity.
>
>What voltage was assumed?  I assume the transmission was taken to be dc.
>Are there any losses other than resistive, e.g. ionization losses from
>the very high voltage?

Typical EHV DC lines run at 800 kV to 1.5 MV. At the lower end of the
scale, corona losses are negligble. At the higher end of the scale,
greater care must be exercised to make sure the installed lines are
smooth and free of discharge points. Birds often try to land on these
lines, but the electric field is so intense near the cable that they
are literally pushed away from the wire.

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     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Originator: jsue@pluto.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:06:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.234735.21374@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	This is what I'd like to see:
>
>	Comparing traveling between San Francisco and Oakland by BART
>and by car across the Bay Bridge. Which is more pleasant and less of a
>hassle? Since Clinton & Co. live in Washington, DC, now, one might
>think of some Washington Metro example for them.
>
>	I must concede that a lot of public-transit systems have a
>host of unpleasant features. It is rare to find a city bus that has a
>pleasant ride, for example. Too many of them seem like some
>car-company conspiracy to make the alternatives seem utterly
>unpalatable.
>
>	Rail vehicles are usually much more pleasant to ride in than
>buses, at least in my experience. But the problem with rail-transit
>systems is that the rail lines have to be built, and they usually have
>to be separated from all that flat-road traffic in some way to avoid
>being caught in traffic jams (the trolleys being stuck in traffic jams
>was the nemesis of many a trolley system, and it is not surprising
>that GM & Co. managed to get away with their scam of replacing
>trolleys with buses for as long as they did). And that requires
>_expensive_ construction if the rail vehicles are to travel any faster
>than buses. But once it's built... just to take one example, consider
>what some CalTrain champions propose as their service model: BART,
>despite their complaints about BART's cost.
>-- 

There is a really interesting article in the December 1992 issue of 
Discover about a proposed "personal" mass transit system.  It is called
"Mass Transit for One", pg 38.

The article discusses Edward Anderson's proposal for a unique kind of
mass transit that is more like a taxi system.  It runs on a rail that
is significantly less expensive than current rail-based systems (e.g.,
the "Elevated" in Chicago).  The lower price is due, in part, to the
fact that, by using smaller cars there is a much lower "dynamic load"
on the support system and thus lighter material can be used in the
construction (the weight could be cut "by a factor of 15 compared with
heavy rail").

The system is like a rail-based road system, much like our current street 
system for automobiles.  Computers will determine which path for cars to
take to reduce congestion.  The cars will actually move off of the main
roadway when picking-up/dropping-off passengers to reduce traffic problems.

According to the article, Edward Anderson's new rail system exists in only
in a computer simulation right now.  However, Taxi 2000 Corporation and
Chicago's Regional Transportation Authority are interested in this project.

This article is fairly informative to someone with my level of
understanding of the problems.  Those of you who are more in the civil
engineering line of work may find it light on the details.  In any case
I find it an exciting idea, if it works.


-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
From: jberlin@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:56:08 EST
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

In article <JMC.92Dec30061125@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> Not just any wood for David Hinz's stove - old growth hardwood no less.
> 
> Split atoms, not wood.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 
-- 

    Yes, what is the matter with you woodburners, you think that stuff
grows on trees or something!  Some nice things about a woodstove, they
will work just fine after a powerline downing ice storm, the newer ones
with a catalytic afterburner put out very little particulate matter when
fired properly.  One who cuts and splits his own wood with manual tools
does not have to do useless things like jogging or motoring over to the
health spa to get exercise.  One can keep his living area a cozy 80+
degrees and the sleep areas of the house in the 60's.  One can burn up
the deadfall from his trees and not send the stuff to the landfill or
pollute the neighborhood with the sound of one of those *#@$%!!! chipper/
shredder things.  All Real Americans have woodstoves, or want one.
 (smiley face here)
 
  Jim Berlin
 
"The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force 
or its contractors."

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:01:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.211459.28435@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>I have posted proof that efficiency improvements should be enough to
>forestall the need for new capacity in general for 10 to 20 years.

It takes 10-12 years to bring new plant on line in the US. So if
efficiency will carry us for 10-20 years before we need new capacity,
we have to start building *today*. Existing plant is wearing out
*today*. We can't wait long to make generation decisions. The cleanest
generation we can do on the necessary scale with *today's* technology
is nuclear, the dirtiest is coal. We can't base our energy future on
technologies that are unproven, and we can't wait for the proof of
economic generation, storage, and the distributed networks needed for
alternative energy systems. We can't afford to pour large sums into
their development at the same time we replace existing plant, build
new generation for increasing demand due to growth, and pay for
efficiency improvements. We must do what we know how to do at an
economically tolerable cost now, and continue development of other
technologies in the hope they may prove out for the following generations
of plants that we will have to start building thirty years down the road.
We should fund *demonstration* plants on the scale of Luz to prove
out the viability of alternative systems. Note that Luz itself is
not competitive today on it's solar generation, though it is nearly
reasonable with cheap natural gas assist. That produces CO2, however.

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     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.182038.26674@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>While it is not theoretically impossible to do both, they both cost
>money and such money does not grow on trees.  Further, you ignore 
>the part of the thread that discusses opportunity cost of
>investing in nuclear power.  It is an inefficient use of money if
>the goal is to lessen CO2 emissions.  The phrase above about
>"quite independent" means that the savings can be had without a
>switch to nuclear (or solar, etc.).  In that sense, while it does
>not directly support the idea that a switch away from fossil fuels 
>and an efficiency strategy are mutually exclusive, it does not
>contradict it.  We can keep using fossil
>fuels  and get the efficiency savings.  A central point is that
>most studies of efficiency assume that money saved by not building
>new generating capacity will be used to fund the efficiency
>improvements.  We may also want to move away from fossil fuels, but
>unless we can cough up the money for both, the most effective CO2
>mitigation strategy is to focus on efficiency for the immediate future.

While it should be obvious that we should take all the "cheap"
efficiency steps we can, economic growth, and the coupling it
has with energy consumption, can't be ignored. Energy usage and
the GDP track quite well. We can argue which causes which, I think
some of both, but we can't argue that they don't go hand in hand. A 
modest 1% a year demand growth swallows any feasible efficiency gains. 
And, we must replace existing capacity as the plants wear out. These 
costs *must* be included in any analysis. By 2050, *every* current 
plant must be replaced. We can choose to do that with dirty fossil, 
or clean nuclear, but we must do it. "Conservation" energy doesn't
negate the need for primary generation capacity.

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     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu