HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alight@david.wheaton.edu (Alan Robert Light)
Subject: Ozone thing
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:10:37 GMT

Sorry I haven't been able to read this newsgroup, but my only
net access is now long distance, and I'm not rich.

I know this is probably silly, but I just had this idea and I
was wondering if it would work.  I haven't figured out for
myself yet why it shouldn't work, and that's troubling me.  Of
course, this isn't my field.

We all know about the hole in the ozone layer.  Ozone is simply
Oxygen that is O3 instead of the normal O2, so it should not be
difficult to get the raw material.  I know that we create too
much ozone in our cities, so I know that we are able to form it
without great difficulty.  What I do not know is how much ozone
could be formed easily, and by what processes, for the project
I have in mind, which is forming and transporting ozone to
where it is needed.  Obviously the use of a fleet of planes is
prohibitively expensive, but perhaps a fleet of ballons would
be cost effective, if either:

    A number of balloons could hold up a flexible pipeline (at
  regular intervals) from a ground ozone-producing station, or,

    The equipment to produce ozone and necessary fuel could be
  made lightweight enough to be lifted by a balloon.

To be taken into account:  Where would be the best place to put
the ozone if this is feasible?  Would it have to be all the way
to the stratosphere, or would getting it halfway there be
enough, with air currents and such being enough to take it the
rest of the way?  What geographical location?  How much would
be needed, especially considering a large amount that would
probably be wasted by reactions with other chemicals on the way
to the stratosphere?  Would such a project be anything close to
affordable?  Will balloons go that high?  (I think I recall the
record being over 50,000 feet, which might be enough,
especially at night).  If balloons go that high, would they
have an adequate payload?  If a pipeline, are there any
suitable materials that would work (lightweight, non-reactive
to ozone, flexible, durable) and could a powerful enough pump
be made?  Also, how much lift would be required, how could this
demand be met by using balloons, if at all?  (I don't suppose
we would be lucky enough to find that we could pump ozone so
fast that such a pipeline, perhaps 11 miles high, could be
self-supporting  ;-)

I don't expect this to actually work, it seems absurd to me,
and I thought of it.  But if there's any interesting discussion
on the subject, please send e-mail, or preferably snail mail,
as I don't know of any public access to internet in NC, and the
long distance bills to my account in Illinois would be
prohibitive if I tried to keep up with any discussions on
Internet.

Alan Light
c/o JAARS Box 248
Waxhaw, NC 28173
-- 
Alan Light          Wheaton College, Il          alight@david.wheaton.EDU
"Ever since philosophers decided that they ought to clarify language,
           I haven't understood a thing they've said."  -- me
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: population load question
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.171421.5807@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.160709.11059@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>
>> Whatever the population carrying capacity turns out to be, we can say
>> with some certainty that it is less than the current 5+ billion. Certain
>> very visible events around the world in the last years have made it
>> clear.
>
>I hope you display more rigor in your physics than you do in this
>posting.  For starters, define "carrying capacity".

Carrying capacity, n. Number of people who can live in a sustainable way
in arable land areas of the earth's surface in reasonable comfort with
reasonable nutrition.

Reasonable comfort, n. Living space at least 200 qm/person. Max indoor
temp 30 C, min 15 C. 10 full changes of day-to-day clothes. Warm
clothes commensurate with climate to allow 6 hrs of non-stop activity
in winter. Housing sufficiently isolated to satisfy temperature limits
and suffer no noise intrusion above 40dB. Mobile transportation, at
least 2 vehicles capable of 100km/hr for 2 hrs per 4 people. 20 years
education available free to every person. Nearest park or wilderness
area, 5km. Nearest sports facilities or fields, 2km. Maximum wait for
non-emergency medical services, 7 days. Infant mortality rate less than
20/1000.

Reasonable nutrition, n. Diet commensurate with that available to
primordial human populations living in areas with plentiful large-animal
game, eg., 3k cal/day, 150 gm meat/day, "daily recommended vitamin
and mineral/trace element allowances" whatever these turn out to be,
In short, all four food groups available to whatever extent necessary
to maintain the human organism at a high exercise level. No additives
made necessary for preservation by large distances.

BTW, vegetarianism is for defeatists who couldn't solve the population
problem.

Sustainable, a. All of the above with renewable resources, no exceptions.
Able to carry on for geologic time.

One hurricane goes through Bangladesh and leaves a million dead on land
not fit to live on (ie, seasonally mobile) anyway. I suppose you think
that's sustainable.

I challenge you to convince me this (probably incomplete) list is
attainable with 5+ Billion humans on the earth.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: DRAG STRIP POLLUTION?
From: nyoung@desire.wright.edu
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:25:32 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

I am part of a neighborhood coalition fighting a drag strip's
being built within a mile of our homes. Is there any information
available (journals, papers, whatever) on the toxic pollutants
generated by dragsters? Or: any info on pollution of the aquifer
from drag strip accidents or usage?
  The local zoning board, in coopertion with the county government
has seen fit to allow a "zoning variance" of agricultural land for
what they call an entertainment facility (the drag strip). That the
strip will be built within a mile of a heavily populated area, on
top of the HIdden Valley aquifer and on land which was possibly
once wetlands (and is now near wetlands) seems to have no bearing
in the case.
  Any hints on what to look for, or where will be greatly appreciated
by the community involved.

Nils R. B. Young
126 W. Main St. 
Medway, OH 45341
(513) 849-0113

Xref: sparky sci.environment:11041 rec.autos.tech:12161
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:11:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <Bu0MqA.7IM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:

> Do you have any idea of how EXPENSIVE it is to make liquid hyrdogen?
> Even discounting the environmental impact (i.e. you generate more
> pollution when burning the coal to make the electricity to separate the
> hyrdrogen from the water than you would simply by burning the equivalent
> amount of gasoline in your car's engine), it's many times more expensive
> to separate hyrdogen from water than it is to refine gasoline from crude
> oil.


This is surely nitpicking, but the route from coal-->hydrogen would
almost surely not involve electrolysis.  It would be much more
efficient, as well as cheaper, to gasify the coal by partial
combustion with oxygen and steam.  This produces a mixture of gases,
mostly CO and H2.  The CO can be reacted with water to make CO2 and
more hydrogen ("shifting"), then the CO2 separated by a number of
processes, ultimately cryogenically.

A chemical plant using cryogenically purified CO and H2 from gasified
coal for methanol and acetic anhydride synthesis is being operated
today by Eastman Chemical, in Kentucky.  Some 99.7% of the sulfur is
recovered along the way, mostly in the saleable elemental form.  There
are also coal-->hydrogen plants in operation in China for producing
ammonia.  Most of the world hydrogen production is from natural gas,
however.

About the only way hydrogen could be competitive in a car would be
with fuel cells (if those could be made cheaply enough); otherwise, if
you want a low-smog gaseous fuel natural gas seems far superior.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: lattanzi@coos.dartmouth.edu (Stephen C. Lattanzi)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Diapers (probably a FAQ)
Keywords: diapers,environment
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:28:25 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

What are people's opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of cloth and
disposable diapers?  I have heard arguments on either side of this issue
(from an environmental perspective), but only vaguely.  I'd be interested
in hearing what people have to say, as it will be an important issue for
my wife and I sometime around 3/92 :-).
 
Sorry if this is a FAQ.
 
Steve Lattanzi (lattanzi@coos.dartmouth.edu)
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: [gasoline] please drive less
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:18:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.save.the.earth
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article chung writes:
>I really hope the government can *tax* gasoline higher.

You really ought to include alt.save.the.earth.

Both state and federal governments CAN.  Do you wish they WOULD?  Why?

[No!  Don't hit F!  I don't really want to know!]
From: hcart@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Block seriation
Date: 25 Aug 92 07:26:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


    Does anyone know of any interesting applications of block seriation
in the physical sciences?

    Hugh Cartwright
    Physical Chemistry, Oxford.
From: ford@hpmcaa (Dan Ford)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Question on CFC ban
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:21:07 GMT
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


  I don't get much time to read this notesgroup, so I hope this has not
already been thrashed (if so, could someone just email me some of the
relevant discussion?).

  Today, someone put a photocopy of an article written by one Alston Chase
regarding the CFC ban and the Ozone layer.  The photocopy did not show
what publication it was taken out of, but the biographical note for Mr.
Chase said that he "writes about the environment in his syndicated columns".
His perspective is definetly critical of the CFG ban and thinks it is a bad
idea.  However he did raise some interesting points IF his facts are right.
That's what brought me here, could some of you more informed folks out there
shed some light on the points he makes?  His main points are:

	1.  The NASA reports alleging the formation of an ozone "hole" over
Antartica turned out to be false, but were only shown to be false after
the Montreal Protocol was signed.

	2.  Why worry about the 7,500 tons of chlorine annually produced
by CFC's when volcanoes emit 36 million tons of it each year?  Is this
true?  If so, it would seem that the 7,500 tons of man-made chlorine is
statistical noise.

	3.  He claims that stratospheric ozone levels today are the same
as they were in 1962, and that NASA can only show a decline by comparing
today's numbers with 1970 (when sunspot activity and ozone concentrations
had peaked).

	4.  He cites studies done at Cambridge University between 1926 and
1945 showing ozone concentrations below those found later in the Antartic
ozone hole.  (This brings into question his earlier statement that the
Antartic hole was false.)

	5.  He claims that ultraviolet radiation is actually declining
instead of increasing.  He cites a 1988 study by the National Cancer
Institute.

	6.  He questions the danger posed by the UV radiation increase,
saying that other factors totally swamp the potential increases due to 
reduced ozone (such as living near the equator).

	So there they are, I would really appreciate some comment on these
points.  

Thanks,

Dan Ford
McMinnville, OR

email: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:26:01 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <l9ns6oINNmol@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>[Followups, again, directed to misc.consumers.]
>
>In article <1992Aug26.195524.25813@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>
>>Yet somehow people become morbidly fascinated with the radioactive sources
>>in smoke detectors, as if they were somehow A Class Apart, because they
>>work by means of Invisible Mysterious Rays.
>
>They *are* different.  You can't see, smell, taste, hear, or feel
>radioactivity.  This isn't true of most physical phenomena people deal with,
>including chemicals and electricity.  It's hardly surprising that it's treated
>differently.

Well, you can't see, smell, taste, hear, or feel carbon monoxide, either,
yet I don't hear the same paranoia about it that I do about radioactivity.
Both are dangerous in concentrated amounts, and get less dangerous in 
smaller amounts.  CO does occur naturally and always has, just like
radioactivity.  People *die* every year from CO poisoning. Where's the
balance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Quayle doesn't inhale (which explains a LOT)."
                   ---William Hsu
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: edstrom@Elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca (John Edstrom)
Subject: population load question
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 22:33:16 GMT
Organization: Neuroscience Division, U of Calgary School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Its a broad question but what are the current estimates of the
carrying capacity of the earth for humans?  Somebody told me it around
2 billion.

John Edstrom | edstrom @ elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca

--
 RM 2104, HSc Building,  Div. Neuroscience
 U. Calgary School of Medicine,  3330 Hospital Drive NW
 Calgary, Alberta       T2N 3Y4
 (403) 220 4493  (wk)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:40:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.022349.25576@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>Nuclear power was very popular in its early years so its not the "newness"
>that causes the kind of reaction we have been seeing it here.  Although
>there may be some people who benefit from the current attitude and are
>lead to lie about it, I think that the vast majority of people are
>simply ignorant.  Why is it so hard to educate about issues of
>radiation?  Who does the average non-scientific person trust?

Jane Fonda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug26.195524.25813@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<l9ns6oINNmol@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>
	<1992Aug26.222601.2002@pmafire.inel.gov>
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:36:52

The fear of radioactivity isn't a spontaneous superstition in the
sense that each person reacts independently to the facts and some
people react superstitiously, e.g. because radiation is invisible.

There are some memes, i.e. self-perpetuating social entities
that include it, are reinforced by it, and reinforce it.

1. Notions as to who are the bad guys.  Notice that this thread
started with someone who wanted to boycott General Electric - or
maybe that was the second post.

2. Association of any use of nuclear material with nuclear weapons.
While some of this could be spontaneous, it is substantially maintained
by publicity.

3. General luddism.  Nuclear applications are new.

4. Various explicit alliances among different causes.

Explanation that a particular use of nuclear material is not dangerous
can succeed in calming individuals, but it can't keep the same
superstitions from arising again and again.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: hemmadst@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Srikant Gurudas Hemmady)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: FTP sites for ecological / environmental systems simulation?
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:55:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucunix.1992Sep1.135510.23000
Organization: University of Cincinnati


Hi:

I would like to know if there are public domain softwares
for ecological/environmental systems simulation available
by FTP.

Thanx

- Srikant
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Composting
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:35:56 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <BtwI4s.31z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>>in our back yard, and would like some advice on exactly how to go about doing
>>this.  Where does one start?  I don't really want to buy $100 "composting
>>bins" I see advertised in specialty catalogs, but I don't want an ugly,
>>smelly heap either.  Is there an easy, foolproof "do it yourself" method to
>>compost that isn't expensive or time-consuming?
>
>Buy some chicken wire fencing about 2' high and make a circular bin
>out of it.  Remember to turn it every few weeks.   Cost ~$5.

Not so fast. If you live in an organized development area (subdivision,
addition, whatever) check with the bylaws of it; chicken wire fencing
may be great if you're in the middle of the boonies or have 2 acre lots,
but at 1/2 or 1/3 acre lots common in this area, the $5 chicken wire
fence may cause friction with neighbors or the association. The same
applies also to the $100 variety. 

There may also be local environmental laws with regards to composting
or leaving exposed food residues (if, i.e. you dump food scraps in it).

Spiros



-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Re: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:04:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.182616.28478@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier) writes:
   Tom Gray (tgray@igc.apc.org) wrote:
   : Subject: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind

   Has the UK done anything to prevent killing birds-of-prey?  It
   is my understanding that, here in California at least, the
   wind-power stuff came to a standstill when they realized how
   many birds, especially hawks, eagles, etc., were getting mulched
   by them (this from a friend working for S. CA Edison, no
   numbers provided).

It came to a halt when the Carter-era alternative energy incentives
went away. (Of course, nuke and petroleum subsidies continued,
according to UCS.)

--
: : Jan Steinman	   steinman@is.morgan.com		 Bytesmiths : :
: : 2002 Parkside Court				   West Linn, OR 97068-2767 : :
: : 503/657-7703					       212/956-8722 : :
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Andrew.Robinson@anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 03:44:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.083747.4840@ugle.unit.no> haralds@ifi.unit.no writes:

[After my bits about animal experimentation]
>
>I'm sorry - where is the connection to Whale hunting?
>
>harald
>
The Japanese Gov't use "science" to justify their whale hunting activities.   
Therefore it seems reasonable to discuss the issues associated with killing
things under the blanket of "science".

regardless,
Andrew

now hit d
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers)
Subject: Nuclear hurricane killing
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Distribution: sci.environment
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:40:12 GMT

     Do we really appreciate how much more powerful a hurricane is than
a puny nuclear explosion?  Try nuclear bombs per second as an energy
measure for a hurricane.

Vince Summers
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10939 sci.engr.civil:411
From: eric@mpl.ucsd.edu (Eric Terrill)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.engr.civil
Subject: Re: Dredging.
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:46:19 GMT
Organization: Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiko.ucsd.edu
Keywords: planes, maintenance, winglets

In article <17sgfhINN3kn@agate.berkeley.edu> utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
>
>Some years ago there was a dispute/discussion on how a certain
>portion of the SF Bay was to be dredged to keep shipping channels
>open.  The main problem is that when dredging operations stir up 
>the muck it kills a lot of flora and fauna, at the very least, 
>temporarily.  Another problem is wherever you dredged is going to
>silt up again sooner or later.


The technique you are thinking of was developed and tested by 
Dr. Scott Jenkins, Scripps Institute of Oceanography,  Center for
Coastal Studies, sediment transport division

I don't know his e-mail address but you could write him at Scripps,
using the above information along with the post code:
La Jolla, CA  92093-0209


Good Luck
Eric

et@mpl.ucsd.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Terrill						et@mpl.ucsd.edu
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 0213	        (619) 534-1085
La Jolla, CA 92093
Newsgroups: sci.environment