HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Re: NEWS: British Petroleum Tanker Disaster Policy: "Keep ou
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:46:18 GMT

> Carl J Lydick writes:
> Msg-ID: <1k068gINNrkq@gap.caltech.edu>
> In article <Greenpeace.24Jan1993.2203@naughty-peahen>, Greenpeace via Jym
> Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
> >[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
> >
> >GREENPEACE CONDEMNS OIL INDUSTRY POLICY OF
> >"KEEPING HEADS DOWN" OVER TANKER DISASTERS
> >
> >LONDON 14 January 1993 (GP) Top BP managers advised staff to
> >"keep their heads down" over the Braer oil tanker disaster
> >last week, Greenpeace revealed today.
>
> Just why is it that GreehHype doesn't say anything about the spill in
> Estonia?
> Could it be that they want only to criticize the policies of western
> nations?
> C'mon Jym, how about some answers instead of more GreenHype bullshit?


Maybe Greenpeace is more interested in spills that happen in places that are
of interest to Americans or to Western Europeans.  Maybe Greenpeace is
rationing its resources and has a bottom line, cost benefit analysis, to
coverage of oil spills.  Maybe Greenpeace is not totally idealistic and
operating totally on moral principle.  (By the way, I don't belong to
Greenpeace.  I am merely indulging in speculation)  One reason why Greenpeace
might criticize policies of Western nations is that, at least in Vancouver, a
lot of people in the peace movement became active in the environmental
movement when war with the USSR was no longer much of a threat.  And people
in the peace movement have not gone in for condemning the USSR.  But in
defence of Greenpeace I will say that it was harder for foreigners to travel
freely in countries that were east of the Berlin Wall.  So maybe Greenpeace
people are creatures of habit.

Desiree Bradley

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace Press Releases
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:50:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.192627.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
> GP was more interested in bashing DuPont than in doing anything constructive 
> about ozone depletion.  

It appears as though DuPont and Greenpeace are finally on the same side of the 
table now -- when CFCs are phased out and the ultra-expensive "replacements" 
are phased in, the chemical companies will stand to make *billions*.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pope@cs.ubc.ca (Art Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Real CAFE Standards
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:10:47 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.ubc.ca

As of 1991 (and I believe this is still true today) separate CAFE standards
applied to cars (27.5 mpg) and light trucks (20.2 mpg). There has been
little improvement in the fuel efficiency of the in-use fleet since the
mid-80's because 
  (a) consumer preference has shifted toward light trucks,
  (b) technological improvements have been used to achieve better
      performance (acceleration) rather than better fuel efficiency,
  (c) there is increased demand for vehicle options that reduce 
      fuel economy (e.g., air conditioning), and
  (d) the population as a whole is aging, and older people generally purchase
      larger cars

A good analysis of present and attainable CAFE standards can be found in a
report from a National Research Council panel, "Automobile Fuel Economy:
How Far Should We Go?", National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992.
They found that, by model year 2006, fuel efficiencies of 23 mpg (for large
pickup trucks) to 39 mpg (subcompacts) could be achieved with high
confidence. With somewhat lower confidence, perhaps 25 mpg (large pickups)
to 44 mpg (subcompacts) could be achieved. (All this while complying with
existing safety and other standards, achieving reasonable manufacturing
economy, and using only techologies already in use for mass producing
vehicles somewhere in the world.)

   ...Art Pope, Univ. of British Columbia Dept. of Computer Science
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace Press Releases
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:11:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.045005.23404@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.192627.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
>> GP was more interested in bashing DuPont than in doing anything constructive 
>> about ozone depletion.  
>
>It appears as though DuPont and Greenpeace are finally on the same side of the 
>table now -- when CFCs are phased out and the ultra-expensive "replacements" 
>are phased in, the chemical companies will stand to make *billions*.
>
>Tino

The replacements aren't all more expensive.  Some uses as solvents have
been replaced by soap and water.
>-- 
>     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "Severe" errors by Greenpeace
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:09:41
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1993Jan20.081605.8153@truffula.sj.ca.us>
	<Jym.27Jan1993.1753@naughty-peahen>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: Jym Dyer's message of 28 Jan 1993 01:53:19 GMT

In article <Jym.27Jan1993.1753@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:

   > 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.

Well, a literal reading of the release could be interpreted to mean
a ban on all chlorine chemistry - certainly a lot of readers took
it that way.
The issue was severely clouded because at the time (a branch of?)
the California Greens was literally and stridently calling for a ban on all
chlorine chemistry.

   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?

   ================================================================
   => From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
   => Subject: Re: ... Austria Releases Study of its Chlorine Industry

   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.
 ...


It is quite clear they mean organochlorines from the context,
it was still quite an amusing exercise in pedantry.
Next step of course is whether acetylcholine chloride
complexes count as organochloric compounds :-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I'm not the one to tell            		|
|  Lick Observatory	|This world how to get along                   	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |I only know that peace will come       	|
| "standard disclaimer"	|When all our hate is gone         - B.B. 1991	|


Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Property is *never* "unalienable"
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:21:55 GMT

In article <C18IuC.8Lr@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>The Constitutional right to persue hapiness is 
>precisely the right to own property. In fact the was Jefferson's original
>phrasing in his list of inalienable rights in an early  draft of the Declar-
>ation of Independence.
>
But then it was Jefferson who changed "Life, liberty and property" (a popular
phrase of the day) to "Life, liverty and the pursuit of happiness."
Jerfferson was anything but a hardcore property rights supporter.
He was of the opinion that private property is the creation of the state
and subject to its desires and needs.  His focus was on land an he
felt that for a wealthy mans land to lie fallow while a poor farmer
had no land was a violation of human rights.  Don't Libertarians refer
to such ideas as socialism?

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


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Greenpeace Press Releases
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:26:27 GMT

 I only read a fraction of the Greenpeace releases that Jym posts,
 usually those having to do with atmospheric issues. I have in the
 past commented critically upon a number of these, but have since
 forgotten the details. My impression is that GP's releases on ozone
 depletion and related issues have been reasonably accurate as to
 the facts reported (although I have pointed out a number of errors
 on occasion) but have been extremely biased and have _selected_ the
 facts in ways that leave a very misleading impression. Sometimes 
 these releases are accompanied by "calls for action" that are seen
 to be inappropriate when one views the problem in its full
 complexity (such as the call to ban HCFC's.)

 I remember one post last spring dealing with the history of the ozone
 depletion problem (something like part 7 of a long series called "The
 Greenpeace Book of Greenwash) which was the worst kind of "cardboard
 history" - all heroic scientists vs. evil chemical corporations. (Did it
 ever occur to them that scientists work for those corporations, and that
 they made contributions too? Or that there were real, sometimes large,
 uncertainties in the early days, and reasonable ground for skepticism?
 That some of today's "heroic scientists" were skeptics back then?) 
 I went away with the feeling that 
 GP was more interested in bashing DuPont than in doing anything constructive 
 about ozone depletion.  If Jym or anyone else saved this series I will
 be happy to give specific criticisms.

 Did GP actually call for a ban on _all_ organochlorine chemistry? (I was
 offnet for about 4 months last summer/fall). That is truly absurd.

 
 Robert

 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Nuclear Power Plants in Eastern Europe
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:30:00 GMT

The people in eastern Europe probably do not have easy choices.  Their coal
may be a very high sulphur type, like that in Silesia.   The coal mined in
Silesia has a higher sulphur content than most other coal, such as that in
western Canada, has.  Burning that Silesian coal, and burning lots because of
using it for steel mills, has created acid rain that has eaten at historical
buildings in Cracow.  Of course, burning high-sulphur coal creates air
pollution unless there could be some scrubbers installed to lessen the
pollution coming from chimneys of coal-fired plants.  If countries to the
east of Poland burn that coal, or coal like it, they do have a problem.
However, Chernobyl's design and poor safety record hardly inspires confidence
in eastern European nuclear power plants.  And then there are those others
similarly designed and operated.
However, as far as I know, there are no nuclear power plants in Poland.

Desiree Bradley
From: ah532@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike Gleba)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Looking For The Following Types Of People...
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:01:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ah532@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike Gleba)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


Hello. In effort to help the environment, and people in general. I have a 
good opportunity to offer. If you qualify for any of the following points,
please send me some e-mail. Thank You.

1. People interested in earth friendl
	-personal care products
	-home care products
2. People interested in human friendly products descibed in #1
3. People interested in improving themselves financially

Please send some mail. this is no scam or anything. But a wonderful
opportunity. 

-Mike
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Earth Friendly products.
Organization: Save the Humans!
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 06:53:21 GMT
Summary: names and addresses
Keywords: reduced environmental impact


In article <sfN2i2u00iVgA2CUsI@andrew.cmu.edu> Truman Fenton <tf26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>In a personal effort to help reduce humankind's impact on the planet, I
>am looking for ...  honest to goodness good sources for recycled products
>as well as other types of environmental friendly stuff.

I've been real happy with stuff from
Real Goods Trading Company, 966 Mazzoni ST Ukiah CA 95482-3471
(800)-762-7325
Pueblo to People, 2105 Silber RD STE 101-9, POB 2545, Houston TX 77055
800-843-5257
Trade Wind, POB 380, Summertown TN 38483

And especially check out the awesome copiaba oil soap sold
through Rainforest Action Network, 450 Sansome STE 700 San Francisco
CA 94111.


>In addition, If anyone knows where I could buy net shopping bags (light
>weight, strechy, cotton netting with handles.

Real Goods has them.
Get any recent issue of _GARBAGE_ magazine and look at the small ads
in the back.  These two from March-April 82 mentioned string bags.
The Earth Friendly Company, 4979 S Hulen, Ft Worth TX 76132 (800)257-2848
Earth Vision 800-327-8424

Cameron
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: 11/92 interview w/Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, author of "Secret Fallout"
Keywords: someone hasn't been taking their Alzeimer's medicine
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 19:28:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.194938@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>Just a question. Could it be that because we have evolved with natural
>background
>radiation, we can tolerate the levels that we receive from natural sources,
>but
>that any additions to this will be more lethal to us? The point being that
>these
>emissions would seem to come on top of any background stuff, and could
>therefore
>push us over a dosage which evolutionarily speaking, we have been able to deal
>with.

Then every smoker should be dead within a month.

Since we're going to hypothesize about doses that have effects too small to
be measured, we _could_ look at it this way: Background radiation (which
Sternglass doesn't admit to even existing) _could_ be like a "vaccine" for 
any future radiation doses, allowing the body to "fight off" damage from
radiation. Then humans could tolerate low doses and still survive perfectly.

Sternglass can't back up ANY of his bizarre claims. If his theory is correct,
then we are all dead and we don't know it yet.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: 11/92 interview w/Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, author of "Secret Fallout"
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:08:23 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.
>
>
>* Any problem soluble solely by arithmetic is unimportant.
>--
>Cameron Spitzer

Whatever the numbers for a specific issue, it does seem that claims of
the dangers of low level radiation from reactors or nuclear medicine
need to be compared to background radiation.  One of the pieces that
was posted here recently did actually mention that the amount in
question (in a medical application) was well below background
exposure in a typical year.  This contradicts studies that show that
such medical applications created a statistically significant
increase in radiation-caused disease.

While the the fact that the existence of a background danger does not
excuse adding to that danger in similar magnitudes, some of the
magnitudes appear to be far less than the background danger.  I wish
that one of the various experts quoted here would address this
issue specifically.  Maybe Dr. Sternglass will visit Boulder so I
can ask him!
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: jag9931@rigel.tamu.edu (GLENNON, JOHN ALAN)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Head of U.S. Park Service
Date: 21 Jan 1993 11:22 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
Keywords: Robert Redford?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

     Heard a rumor that US President Clinton was planning on
appointing Robert Redford to head the US National Park Service.
Anyone else know anything about this?

Alan Glennon
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.greens
From: marc@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (Marc Harold Baber)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:22:50 GMT

In article <4l!sh3k@SantaFe.edu> moore@kiowa.santafe.edu (Cris Moore) writes:
>Is no one going to respond to my request for a Green position on the
>Gas Tax?  
>
>- Cris Moore, NM Green Party

I think it's a good idea, and I'm heartened to read that the Clinton admin.
is working on a general energy tax.  It also fits nicely with the popular
idea of (ab)user fees as revenue enhancement.  Those who use gas should
pay for the externalities: global warming, highway deaths, loss of arable
land to parking lots, military actions in the Persian Gulf, clean up of
the Valdez and other oil spills (as if such clean-ups were ever adequate).
I think we should also eliminate all subsidies to the oil companies, in 
the form of government land leases, etc.

Given a level playing field, renewable energy sources will win.

That's "a green position", not "the green position" of course.

I do regret that the tax will tend to be regressive and will impact the
poor more severely than the rich.   Some people just can't afford a new
gas-sipping Geo Metro or Honda Civic.  And food prices will be higher
for everyone until rail makes a comeback.  Any green perspectives on
this aspect of the problem?

-Marc
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Date: 25 Jan 1993 12:31:56 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1993Jan24.081939.971@truffula.sj.ca.us>
	<JMC.93Jan24103401@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

>> The tight grain is due to the slower growth which occurs
>> in established forests.
> 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[?]

=o= One has to wonder how relevant the question is.  Getting
back to the purpose of this thread, I think it's more relevant
to ask whether one can depend on the development of such a
tree to sustain the type of resource depletion that takes
place in this scenario.

=o= Given that you wouldn't bet on it for at least 50 years,
I'll have to strongly suspect that the answer is "no."
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: Property is *never* "unalienable"
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:24:51 GMT

alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:

>Property rights are not, never have been, and never will be "unalienable".
>No society that ever has or ever will exist will completely detach property
>rights -- or *any* rights -- from all consequences. 

Property rights do not have to be unalienable in the philosophical
sense for the market system to work.  There are strong utilitarian
reasons for having well-defined property rights.  How do you think
capitalism evolved?


--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: kolokotm@westminster.ac.uk (Maria Kolokotroni)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: solar energy in cuba
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:25:19 GMT
Organization: University of Westminster

Sender  :croxfordb@uk.ac.pcl.mole
Distribution: talk.environment
Organization: University of Westminster
Anyone got a name of a person or institution in Cuba who is involved with solar energy or energy efficiency. I am finishing a PhD on Intelligent heating controllers, and am planning to spend some time in Cuba afterwards. I am interested as to how much solar energy is used there. Thanks very much. Please reply to
 either croxfordb@uk.ac.pcl.mole 
    or  kruppd@uk.ac.westminster
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: mueller@cage.eng.mcmaster.ca (Edna Mueller)
Subject: silver in the environment
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:51:04 GMT

First International Conference 
"Transport, fate and effects of silver in the environment"

University of Wisconsin-Madison

August 8-10, 1993

For more information contact:

Prof. Anders W. Andren, UW Sea Grant Institute, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, 1800 University Ave., Madison, WI 53705-4094
Tele:(608)262-0905

or 

Prof. James R. Kramer, Department of Geology, McMaster University,
1280 Main Str. W., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4M1
Tele:(416)525-9140 Ext. 4514
email:kramer@mcmaster.ca