HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Labeling of Environme
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:04:25 GMT

In article <408.38.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)  writes:
>TO: casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU
>
>  >     With systematic deliberation, environmentalists have been
>  >labeled "extremists" or "terrorists"
>
>You left out the incompetence and foolishness that makes many
>environmentalists no more than laughingstocks.  Granted, there are many
>good-hearted but ignorant folks out there who "want to save the planet",
>but most of them are "limousine liberals" with no experience in the real
>world - their claims and proposals are simply not based on reality.

Of course, these same labels can be applied to some players in the
"anti-environmental" lobby.  We see plenty of ignorant folks in these
groups who endlessly argue against ozone depletion of climate change 
without apparently knowing what they are talking
about.  I think this is more of a human trait, especially when in a
political situation, as opposed to a unique aspect of environmentalists.
Some people simply like to choose easy targets and then apply a lable to
all environmentalists.  Such a preoccupation with such labels contributes
nothing to the true problems and simply perpetuates the problem.  Maybe
Paul Burnett is a "cadillac conservative"  with little experience that
the most frequent victims of pollution, the poor, have if he thinks
that most environmentalists fit the rich environmentalist stereotype.
I saw an article yesterday about logging in Wyoming.  The townspeople
were in disagreement with their leaders because they didn't want loggin
to ruin their quality of life, even if it meant that a sawmill would 
close.  Although scientific analysis showed that the amount of
harvested wood required to keep to mill open was not sustainable, the
Forest Service had agreed to politically-based quotas in order to
keep the mill open.  I doubt these people consider themselves
environmentalists, but it is their type of grassroots activity that
is the future of environmentalism, despite the stereotypes that some
people continue to push.
>
>---
> . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
>                                                                                                       


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: E-Link: Ticket America Campaign
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:30:51 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Thanks for the posting.  If I see even one of these stickers on
a car or (heaven forbid) by the side of the road, I'll know who
to name in the complaint.

Here on the scenic Monterey Peninsula, there is a $1000 (yup, a kilobuck)
fine for littering.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas & Petroleum go together
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:39:31 GMT

dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham) writes:

>beatty@hpavla.lf.hp.com (Chris Beatty) writes:
>>[comparison of natural gas vs. oil deleted]

>[discussion of gas and oil in same wells deleted]
>For more information, see: Science, 14 December, 1984, Volume 226
>article: "Generation and Migration of Light Hydrocarbons"
>by John M. Hunt


>The Prudhoe bay oil field on Alaska's North Slope is known for its high
>oil production (largest field in North America), but it is less well
>known that it also contains vast quantities of Natural Gas.  This gas

>[discussion of reinjecting gas to increase oil yields]

>As time has gone on, a greater percentage of gas comes up through the
>wells as the gas is recycled while the oil is shipped out.  Some of the
>gas is used to generate power for the oil facilities on the North Slope. 
>Eventually, all the oil will be gotten out that is practical, and the
>gas will still be there.  The gas is not shipped to the lower 48 states
>yet, but maybe someday ...

    Interestingly, the plans to build pipelines from Alaska's North
Slope to the U.S. have been stalled since the drop in oil prices in
the early 1980s. However, a good portion of the planned pipeline is
already in use... pumping Canadian natural gas to U.S. markets. This
"prebuild" section was built in the early 80s under the understanding
that Canada would have its gas replaced by North Slope gas once the
pipeline was completed. However, the signing of the Free Trade Agreement
between Canada and the U.S. in the late 80s included some sort of a
guarantee that Canada would not arbitrarily cut off energy supplies to
the U.S., so the gas export question is rather complicated. Currently,
Canadian producers would love to be able to sell more gas to the U.S.,
but the U.S. market doesn't need it and prices have been dropping.



Dave Halliwell                            "Please, God, give me another
Department of Geography                    oil boom, and I promise not
University of Alberta                      to piss it all away"
Edmonton, Alberta                             - bumper sticker in Alberta
From: 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Mt. Graham Telescope Project (was E-Link: Mt. Graham: UPitt Protest..)
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:35:27 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
Originator: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu

OK, so you all think that it is just a matter of the Red Squirrel.
Well let me say just a few things being a student at the U of
Arizona. 
What the scope project means to this student is:
  1.) Budget cuts
     The U of A has been cutting classes and library hours
     every year since I started here 4 yrs ago. The project
     that is not going to be worth a hill of shit to the
     scientific community is costing the students and taxpayers
     over $33 million.
  2.) Violation of Apache sacred land.
     The U of A in partnership with the Vatican has stated that
     the beliefs of the environmentalists and Apaches are 'a kind
     of religiosity to which I cannot subscribe and which must be
     suppressed with all the force that we can muster.' Father
     Coyne, Jesuit Priest, head of the Vatican Observatory and
     is charge of the Vatican Telescope under construction on
     Mt. Graham.
  3.) A direct action to curb the ESA
     The president set here will be used by others in the future to 
     side step the Endangered Species Act.
This project takes huge amounts of money out of education and dumps
it into a pet project of the Vatican and U of A administrators, like
President Pacheco.
The name of one of the telescopes is Columbus... How appropriate that
a violation of Native American Sacred Land be named Columbus. Also,
to the best of my research, the U of A is the only University in the
U.S. to bring legal action against Native Americans.

Here is a little something that has been gnawing at me since Columbus
Day, when there was a sit in non-violent demonstration at the U of A in
protest to the Mt. Graham telescope project. Why did the arrests here,
and not else where in the country, bring about a Grand Jury investigation?

for more info on Mt. Graham contact:

Friends of Mt. Graham
PO Box 41822
Tucson, AZ 85717-1822 USA

 
-- 
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: eberh@rocky1 (Erik Eberhardt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: soapbox preaching
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:52:46 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Reply-To: eberh@rocky1
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocky1.usask.ca

From article <1gm443INNavt@access.usask.ca>, by assmus@rocky1 (Bayne Assmus):
> From article <1gm3bcINNaia@access.usask.ca>, by assmus@rocky1 (Bayne Assmus):
>> 
>> 
  Why do so many "so-called" environmentalists preach against   
  nuclear energy, an industry with a low fatality history (yes, 
  we know about Chernobyl, a tragedy, but the only real source 
  of fatalities in the industry) when thousands of miners a year 
  in the United States alone die of black lung disease (an average
  of 4000 deaths/yr during the seventies).  These deaths occur in
  a modernized country with safety regulations.  How many deaths
  occur in less developed countries that heavily rely on coal power
  (and we can't deny them the rights to cheap energy that has given us
  the standards of living we've enjoyed and abused)!
  
  Maybe Greenpeace should start intercepting coal shipments
  

It's about time someone with some brains and a sense of 
impartiality started posting on this newsgroup!!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
geo-eng's for the disarmament of the green nazies!!
   Remember  "strip mining prevents forest fires" 
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Natural Gas?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 01:24:00 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec18.170216.18078@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
=First methane isn't lighter than air, nor are the heavier propane or
=butane.

Sorry, Gary, you're only 2/3 right. As a first approximation, the atmosphere is
80% N2 (molecular weight 28) and 20% O2 (molecular weight 32), yielding an
average molecular weight for atmosphic gases of 28.8.  Methane (CH4) has a
molecular weight of 16.  Definitely lighter than air.  Propane (C3H8) and
butane (C4H10) have molecular weights of 44 and 58, respectively, and are thus
heavier than air. Ethane (C2H6), which is one component of natural gas, has a
molecular weight of 30, making it slightly heavier than air.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:10:31 GMT
Subject: The Outer Limits
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) / 12:23 am  Dec 11, 1992 /
>To a technologically advanced society, not much more advanced
>technologically and not at all more advanced scientifically than our
>own, there is no such thing as permanent and continual accumulation of
>pollution.  All the transformations of matter that humanity causes
>both in manufacture and disposal conserve matter.  Except for the
>production of radioactivity, they even preserve the amounts of the
>various isotopes.  Therefore, if any substance, compound or
>elementary, rises to troublesome proportions in any environment, it
>can be transformed again to useful or at least innocuous forms, or
>moved elsewhere.

This is a protestation of faith, not the statement of a scientist. E.g. just 
how do you remove bioconcentrating fat-soluable toxic substances for which 
there are no metabolic pathways from food webs once they are introduced?
McCarthy may *believe* that for every such substance, an artificial metabolic
pathway could be genetically engineered into organisms, reworking the chemical
functioning of whole ecosystems -- but this is just a sci-fi fantasy. We
don't even know how many such substances there are nor what they are doing. 

>This is my opinion, and I think it would be the majority opinion
>of scientists and engineers if they contemplated the precise
>question.

Of scientists and engineers who are totally ignorant of biology and are
unwilling to listen to what biologists say, perhaps -- but is it a good 
idea to pay any attention to pronouncements about the living world from
such people? People would do much better to listen to biological scientists,
such as Paul Ehrlich, Edward Wilson, and Micheal Soule on such matters.

McCarthy reasons as if the biosphere and all its biological processes were
completely irrelevant to the question -- just do enough *work* (preferably
generated by nuclear power) and any Humpty-Dumpty can be put back together
again no matter how small the pieces he's been smashed into. 

We don't have anything like that much power over the world, and won't have it
anytime soon, if ever. McCarthy always assumes that the only "limits" we need
to think about are the outer limits of basic physical law, never those imposed
by the fabric of the biosphere itself. This crazy notion, if it could be 
pursued far enough, would destroy the very biosphere it deems irrelevant. But
far more likely, pursuing it would destroy *us* first. 

------------
Alan McGowen
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Carrying Capacity and Sanity
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 01:52:41 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1466601983@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org writes:

 > I do describe the choice in "stark terms", Dean, because I believe that
 > this is the best way to get the largest number of readers to think
 > about it. A little controversial language isn't a bad thing on UseNet.
 >  
 > The *ideal* way to increase readership is to be interesting and 
 > entertaining. But if you are too lazy/busy/harried/tired or temporarily
 > brain-dead, the second best way to do it is to be controversial. Take
 > it from the mass media :-)

Hm.

First option: interesting, entertaining.

Second option: controversial.

Have you ever considered intelligent/thoughtful/informed/instructive/
edifying/enlightening as appropriate criteria, Alan, or are you just
too lazy/busy/harried/tired or temporarily brain-dead?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:31:41 GMT
Subject: What's Necessary?
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Australia, farming, and kangaroos
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 01:19:37 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec06.050818.22986@watson.ibm.com> andrewt@watson.ibm.com writes:

     [continued querying on kangaroo culling deleted as read]

Andrew, in the end if we *want* to cull kangaroos we will simply do
so on the basis of reasoning which appears fine with us, without at
all bothering to further attempt arriving at the endless explanations
foreign lawyers and activists may or may not find acceptable. I have
no case to make, and I have no interest whatever in your philosophy.

What has happened here in fact, on the basis of persistent attacks
from overseas on the various issues we are addressing, is that we do
what we feel is necessary and/or appropriate under our sovereign powers
and then just keep quite about it.

You may appreciate that we are really quite civilised here; tolerant
and amenable to discussion, up to a point. In other countries you are
just as likely to be deported, imprisonned, or shot if the situation
became extreme.

I neither care how many times you have been here. Until you become a
citizen of *this* country, if you don't happen to like it just stay
home, yes?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Australia, farming, and kangaroos
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 13 Dec 92 21:48:33

I find myself in agreement with Gil Hardwick on this one.
Fortunately, unlike some countries, Australia is probably
strong enough to resist foreign environmentalist pressure.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Bad science
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:07:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.172102.18456@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.223424.4024@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:

>>Well, apparently there _is_ a recent U AZ project that explicitly addresses
>>the question. This at least takes some of the heat off Austin @ csu-pomona.
...
>>I'd like to see this study since it seems it is going to be much quoted
>>in the debate. I certainly don't wnat to dismiss its findings, if at all,
>>before I know what they actually are and how they were obtained.

>This study is likely to have little bearing on the greenhouse debate
>in as much as scientists have very much better instrumental records
>available to them during modern times than tree rings. The warming
>is only now supposed to be *starting*, so tree ring records can only 
>serve as a historic record of natural fluctuations in the temperature
>record. They could not be expected to show the effects of a temperature
>increase that has not yet shown up on much more sensitive instrumentation.

This certainly seems likely, but it seems only fair to find out what
this famous University of Arizona Tree Rings study actually did find, and
why at least two apparently independent sources believe that it offers
evidence against "greenhouse" warming. So far no one here has been able to
identify this purported study. Does it even exist?

mt
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Subject: Natural Gas & Petroleum go together
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:11:04 GMT

beatty@hpavla.lf.hp.com (Chris Beatty) writes:

> Natural gas is a fossil fuel like the rest. That said, it does
> have advantages. First, there is a LOT in the U.S. Recent (<10yrs)
> finds say the reserves here may last for many decades. Second, the
> extraction process is much, much cleaner than coal or oil. Poke a 
> tube in the right place in the ground and out she somes. No muss,
> no fuss. It does not need to be refined much so there is improvement
> there, too. Finally, it burns cleaner than gasoline and has a lower
> (near zero) content of aromatic hydrocarbons which are phsyiologically
> more dangerous. 


Natural Gas extraction is no "cleaner" than oil extraction - it is the
same process.  It is not a "no muss, no fuss" process.


Warning: I work in the oil industry as a Sr. Systems Analyst, so
anything I say is to be distrusted, since I am a planetary rapist ;-).


Natural gas and Petroleum are most often found in the same well.
A given well might produce 50% gas and 50% oil, or 90% oil and 10% gas,
or 95% gas and 5% condensate, etc. etc.  Strictly gas wells are rare
and usually found only in very high temperature strata ( > 200C ).  Very
high temperature strata are usually extremely deep and are more expensive
to drill (note: one does not DIG for oil & gas, one DRILLS for oil & gas).

For more information, see: Science, 14 December, 1984, Volume 226
article: "Generation and Migration of Light Hydrocarbons"
by John M. Hunt


The Prudhoe bay oil field on Alaska's North Slope is known for its high
oil production (largest field in North America), but it is less well
known that it also contains vast quantities of Natural Gas.  This gas
comes up along with the oil (through the same well) and is separated
from the oil before the oil is placed in the Alaska Pipeline.  The gas
is then run through huge compressors (~50,000 hp) and re-injected back
down into the oil-bearing formation (the Sadlerochit strata) to help
drive more oil out from between the pores in the rock.

As time has gone on, a greater percentage of gas comes up through the
wells as the gas is recycled while the oil is shipped out.  Some of the
gas is used to generate power for the oil facilities on the North Slope. 
Eventually, all the oil will be gotten out that is practical, and the
gas will still be there.  The gas is not shipped to the lower 48 states
yet, but maybe someday ...


John G.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:13722 talk.environment:5148
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Bad science
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:49:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec18.172102.18456@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

|This study is likely to have little bearing on the greenhouse debate
|in as much as scientists have very much better instrumental records
|available to them during modern times than tree rings. The warming
|is only now supposed to be *starting*, so tree ring records can only 
|serve as a historic record of natural fluctuations in the temperature
|record. They could not be expected to show the effects of a temperature
|increase that has not yet shown up on much more sensitive instrumentation.

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.

-- 
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
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Insanity of Building Parking atCommuter Rail Stations
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:12:29 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <liq20dINNq93@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes:

|In article <1992Dec14.014254.25602@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
|>............................. When we consider that our supplies of
|>oil will run out around 2020, laying more asphalt and concrete is
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>clearly unwise.

|You've stated this several times in the past in similar letters that
|you've posted to ca.environment. What is the basis for this
|prediction?

Wishfull thinking apparently.

-- 
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