HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Save the planet or mankind? (was Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....)
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:59:22 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct13.141717.7912@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>[Followups redirected to alt.save.the.earth, ironically.]
>
>In article <Bw1C7z.Bo6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.164945.24090@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>
>>What's wrong when a person says:
>>
>>>I'm an environmentalist,
>>
>>And then says:
>>
>>>I just don't think people ought to say "save the planet" when they mean 
>>>"save mankind". 
>
>Nothing.  Nothing at all.  The true environmentalist knows that saving mankind

A true enviornmentalist doesn't post to alt.destroy.the.earth
reminds me of christians posting to alt.satanism
go away please
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Save the planet or mankind? (was Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:28:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.055036.25463@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.141717.7912@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>>Nothing.  Nothing at all.  The true environmentalist knows that saving mankind
>>requires saving mankind's habitat, including all of the species that form the
>>incredibly complex and delicate web of interdependencies that support man.
>
>I've got news for you.  "Including all of the species" is what gives
>conservatives heartburn when listening to radical environmental wackos.

But that's just a fragment of what I said.  I didn't say "all species,
period".  If you can convince me that a threatened species is not part of the
web that supports man, I won't have any problem letting it go extinct.

>I have no problem with conserving nature.  I do have a problem with
>choosing red squirrels or spotted owls or minks over people.

The spotted owl issue isn't about the spotted owl, it's about old growth
forest.  If you can preserve real old growth forest, then, fine, waste the
owls.  But if the owls are an integral part of the forests, or if the forests
will disappear without the preservation of the owls, then I will fight to
protect them.

>The biosphere is dynamic, and our effect on it is miniscule compared to
>other factors such as solar input, tectonic activity, etc.  Species
>have become extinct in the distant past, are becoming extinct now,
>and will continue to become extinct.  Mankind's presence has no more
>effect than any other short-lived local disturbence.

I'm certainly not proposing that we attempt to control things beyond our
direct contribution to the biosphere.  The last thing we need is man trying to
engineer a better biosphere.

>In the evolutionary timescale, all of human history is just a blink of
>an eye.

Yeah, but our entire existance is contained in that blink, and I'd like to
make it last as long as possible.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: hydridepg3
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193

AHA-SV Page 3

19. Cool the hydride storage tank down to 50 degrees F., maint-
    taining the 300 psi hydrogen gas pressure.
20. Repeat 17, 18, 19.
21. Repeat 17, 18, 19. [ Three times should be sufficient ther-
    mal  cycling to make the hydride absorb as much hydrogen  gas
    as possible.
22. Seal the valves of the hydride storage tank and ship it to be
    installed at the site of hydrogen use.

!INSTALLING THE HYDRIDE STORAGE TANK

When  installing make sure that the connection lines  are  purged
with pure hydrogen gas right before connection, to ensure that as
little as possible of air gets into the hydride storage tank. The
Co,  Co2, and H20 vapor in the air can all poison the hydride  so
they must be excluded.

Whenever recharging the hydride storage tank make sure that the
hydrogen  gas is as pure as you can get it. (See the  article  on
the  AHA  Electrolyser and its cleaning  systems.)  The  standard
recharging sequence is:

1. To connect a high pressure hydrogen hose from a compressed gas
   source  or  directly  from  the  outlet  of  an   electrolyser
   to  the  hydride storage tank. Taking care to purge  the  hose
   during the process of connection.

2. Hook  up the internal cooling system of the  hydride storage
   tank and keep it as cool as possible as long as the hydrogen
   gas is entering the tank. The hydriding reaction creates heat
   and the hydride must be cooled or it will heat up and the
   sponge action will not take place.

2. Increase the hydrogen gas pressure to approximately 100 psi.
    for  approximately ten minutes, to start the  hydriding  pro-
    cess,  then  increase  it to 300 psi for  an  additional  ten
    minutes to complete the process.

3.  Disconnect the hose and make sure the inlet valve is  sealed.
    ie.  quick disconnect. and replace the quick disconnect  back
    into a clean protected storage holder.

The  hydride  storage tank will cycle between charging  and  dis-
charging  some ten thousand times before the  ferrous,  titanium,
manganese hydride decrepitates to such a small particle size that
it  doesn't function very well. At that point bring  the  hydride
storage tank back to the recycling station so that the  materials
of  the hydride can be taken out and remelted and reused to  give
another ten thousand cycles.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
                                                      
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:43:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,sci.environment
From: jimwen@watson.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: HELP ME... styrofoam cups.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:40:16 GMT
Reply-To: jimwen@radical.watson.ibm.com ()
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

the cafeteria service here uses styrofoam cups - except for the largest
size, which is paper (waxed).  i'm told the styrofoam is compressed and
doesn't have the cfc stuff.  furthermore, i'm told that, in landfills,
everything is compressed so much that it matters little what is biodegradable
since nothing gets to do much biodegrading...could i get some clarifications
on the issue, please?  i'd like to get them to change over if their practices
are harmful.

thanx,
jim
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: isupstud@bnr.ca (Wayne Hutton)
Subject: Re: Please Help
Reply-To: isupstud@bnr.ca (Wayne Hutton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:38:04 GMT

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [X]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [X]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [X]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [X]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [X]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [X]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]  None [X]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]  Canadian [X] (don't follow American politics)

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]  2nd year University [X]
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,alt.destroy.the.earth
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: <None>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:55:51 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct14.133341.24146@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.005922.11830@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:
>>
>>A true enviornmentalist doesn't post to alt.destroy.the.earth
> 
> A true person with a brain doesn't post to alt.save.the.earth asking someone
> not to post to alt.destroy.the.earth, but a true environmentalist might well
> cross post to alt.destroy.the.earth when the honest question of whether/how
> the Earth can be destroyed is involved.

I have to say he's right. A true environmentalist posts to
alt.destroy.the.earth in the hopes of finding a good plan, as they are well
aware that the only environmental hope left is to wipe the slate clean and start
over.
 
>>reminds me of christians posting to alt.satanism
> 
> Which is also quite a reasonable thing at times.

You drop in on alt.satanism sometime and see how "reasonable" it is. Or
alt.atheism, if you are operating on the false assumption that the posts will
be somehow more "mature."

>>go away please

Give it up, it'll never work. Haven't you learned that by now?
 
--Semhaza
"The problem with the American Melting Pot is that the people at the bottom get
burned and the scum floats to the top." --Unknown
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Solo drivers disincentive, please write
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:07:33 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Oct14003517@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

	[A "parking cash-out" scheme to help non-drivers]

:    Cameron Spitzer, currently unable to collect the $3/day my employer spends
:    to provide the parking space I don't use.

	Actually, as long as government money goes into supporting
road building and maintenance (how's that for violation of Libertarian
principle?), then it is certainly legitimate to try to discourage road
overuse.

: If Clinton and Gore win, as now seems likely, people like Cameron
: Spitzer will get the power to pass all sorts of gimmicky laws and
: regulations.  They will overreach themselves, and there will be a
: reaction that will wipe out greens politically as totally as the
: prohibitionists were wiped out.  In the case of prohibition it took
: from 1918 to 1932 for the public to react.

	This measure does not go _that_ far, buster.

	John McCarthy, you have a professed aversion to Big
Government, but one that ends whenever government does something _you_
like. Be honest with us.

	And you seem to have a thing against environmentalists. What
is it? It can't be statism, for the reason listed above.
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
From: Zed <zed@silver.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: environmental charities
Reply-To: zed@silver.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: Liars for Truth
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:31:35 GMT

Hi all. I plan to donate to an environmental charity this year, and
seek more information about them than I have in their junk mail. Is
there a reference that compares them, describes their activities,
reports on the cost of their administration as a percentage of their
income?

Wondering how the Nature Conservancy stacks up against the World
Wildlife Federation,

Zed
-- 
                                                         Usa puyew usu wapiw!
zed@silver.lcs.mit.edu
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Save the planet or mankind? (was Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....)
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:50:36 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct13.141717.7912@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>[Followups redirected to alt.save.the.earth, ironically.]

>Nothing.  Nothing at all.  The true environmentalist knows that saving mankind
>requires saving mankind's habitat, including all of the species that form the
>incredibly complex and delicate web of interdependencies that support man.

I've got news for you.  "Including all of the species" is what gives
conservatives heartburn when listening to radical environmental wackos.

I have no problem with conserving nature.  I do have a problem with
choosing red squirrels or spotted owls or minks over people.  The
biosphere is dynamic, and our effect on it is miniscule compared to
other factors such as solar input, tectonic activity, etc.  Species
have become extinct in the distant past, are becoming extinct now,
and will continue to become extinct.  Mankind's presence has no more
effect than any other short-lived local disturbence.

In the evolutionary timescale, all of human history is just a blink of
an eye.

David Shackelford
From: IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: What Hole?
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:45:38 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

Whatever happened to the cataclysmic hole in the ozone that was supposed to
form this fall?  Just wondering...
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Save the planet or mankind? (was Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....)
Followup-To: alt.save.the.earth
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:17:17 GMT

[Followups redirected to alt.save.the.earth, ironically.]

In article <Bw1C7z.Bo6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.164945.24090@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>What's wrong when a person says:
>
>>I'm an environmentalist,
>
>And then says:
>
>>I just don't think people ought to say "save the planet" when they mean 
>>"save mankind". 

Nothing.  Nothing at all.  The true environmentalist knows that saving mankind
requires saving mankind's habitat, including all of the species that form the
incredibly complex and delicate web of interdependencies that support man.

>Clue, that person doesn't know the meaning of "environmentalist."

I think you've grossly misinterpreted my statements, probably because they
don't fit the standard Environmentally Correct (tm) mold.  Stop listening for
buzzwords and catch phrases and *read* what I wrote and *think* about it.

>>Given the choice, I'd prefer to save our species--not a lifeless chunk of 
>>minerals.
>
> If Allah is merciful, you won't be given the choice.

Oh, would you choose the lifeless chunk?

>Someone who knows what they're talking about will have it, if it isn't already
>too late for choices.

It's never too late to start down the right path.  Sure, we've missed some
opportunities, but that's no reason to throw our hand.

>Let's hear it for single species ecosystems!

The implication here is that I support single species ecosystems.  I don't,
and challenge you to supply a single, clear quote or set of quotes that
indicate otherwise.  "Save mankind" vs. "save the planet" won't cut it,
either.  It matters little to me whether Earth remains a planet or not unless
there are sentient beings around to appreciate it.  We want to save ourselves,
damn it, not the lump of rock we're attached to.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,talk.environment
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Solo drivers disincentive, please write
Organization: Save the Humans!
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 02:29:55 GMT


_Moving People_, newsletter of the rail transit advocacy organization Modern
Transit Society, alerts Californians to a bill which would help equalize the
auto subsidy a little.
-begin-

                An End to a Key Incentive for Solo Drivers?


A bill awaiting Governor Wilson's signature would give employees in air
quality non-attainment areas a significant incentive to stop commuting alone
by auto.  The measure, AB 2109 (Katz), passed the Assembly by a 46-32 vote and
the Senate (where it was sponsored by Sen. Gary Hart) by a 23-12 vote.

If Wilson signs, employers of 50 or more in smoggy counties who pay for
employee parking would have to allow employees to take the equivalent sum in
cash instead.

The "parking cash-out" program has a number of loopholes designed to prevent
hardship.  It would not be required in cases where parking spaces are owned by
the employer or subject to existing leases as of January 1, as long as those
leases are valid.  AB 2109 expressly allows employers offering "parking
cash-out" to deduct expenses of the program as ordinary and necessary business
expenses.

The measures allows employers to require employee participants to certify that
they will comply with company guidelines designed to avoid neighborhood
parking problems.  Payments would count as income to the employee, subject to
the $21 monthly allowance for tax-exempt ridesharing purposes under current
Federal law.

Meanwhile, on July 30, the US Senate passed energy legislation which would
raise the limits on employees monthly tax-free benefits for transit fares to
$60, making commuting by bus and rail a much better bargain.

For years, the lure of receiving "free" employer-paid parking without having
to pay taxes on this significant benefit have biased commuters' choices
against using transit.  If both are signed into law, commuting via transit
will finally become financially painless.

-end-

Address letters to:
The Honorable Pete Wilson
Governor
State Capitol,
Sacramento Ca. 95814 
or call 916/445-2841

Modern Transit Society
PO Box 981
Sacramento, Ca. 95812
916/443-1529, 510/649-9543, or 408/371-9738

Libertarians will quickly point out that these measures add one more subsidy
to the vast system of transportation subsidies already in place.  That's true.
Greens would prefer that each mode of transportation bear *all* its own costs.
But until that great day comes when there's a "free and fair" market in
transportation, we'd prefer that those who don't drive to work be
treated fairly with respect to those who drive alone.


Cameron Spitzer, currently unable to collect the $3/day my employer spends
to provide the parking space I don't use.
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,sci.environment
From: jon@oas.stanford.edu (Jon Claerbout)
Subject: Re: HELP ME... styrofoam cups.
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:46:31 GMT

In article <1at9lsINNs22@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.060521.17762@morrow.stanford.edu> jon@oas.stanford.edu (Jon Claerbout) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.204214.10213@bcrka451.bnr.ca> isupstud@bnr.ca (Wayne Hutton) writes:
>>>
>>>	At my work place several people drink coffee from styrofoam cups.  This produces a lot of waste.
>>
>>I am enjoying reading, "Rubbish! the Archeology of Garbage",
>>After sorting 19 tons of garbage from many landfills,
>>they report (p 97) that all fast food packaging including styrofoam
>>amounted to less than 0.5 % (a half percent) the total.
>One interesting note- newspaper was some time ago the worst offender in terms
>of being in landfills... and it shows a significant drop as one looked at newer
>and newer garbage. 
Also from "Rubbish..", a New York Times subscription brings you about
550 pounds of paper a year.  By weight that is about 50,000
MacDonalds styrofoam clamshells or about 15,000 by volume.
Newspaper rarely biodegrades because landfills are deliberately kept dry.  
Newspaper ink has hazardous metals.
>Styrofoam-  can and does release chemical contaminants.
The older methods of manufacture released gasses that affect the ozone layer.
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Why aren't computers recycled/recyclable?
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:20:50 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Net Digest


While chatting with folks over on the Prism BBS [see my previous message],
I came to the realization that _nothing_ in my computer setup, not even my
mousepad, is labeled as being recyclable, or being made from recycled 
materials.  This seems somewhat silly to me.  I would think that many 
components of computers could be "green."

Recycled, recyclable plastics:	All plastic component cases 
				All material containers [disk boxes, etc]
				Mouse "skins"
				Cable claddings
				Diskettes [the outer bits]

Recycled, recyclable metals:	All metal component cases and chassis.

Recycled, recyclable papers:	All documentation
				Diskette envelopes and labels

Recycled, recyclable rubber:	Mouse-pads!


I look forward to the day when I can see that familiar recycling symbol 
on computer bits.  By the way - if you come out with a recycled/recyclable
computer product, I _will_ buy it instead of its wasteful equivalent.

-Shag
-- 

     Freedom belongs to only those without video screens for eyes and mouth.
		- Queensryche
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: Why aren't computers recycled/recyclable?
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:55:08 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <Oct.15.18.20.50.1992.13704@pilot.njin.net>, birchall@pilot.njin.net
(Shag) writes:
|> 
|> While chatting with folks over on the Prism BBS [see my previous message],
|> I came to the realization that _nothing_ in my computer setup, not even my
|> mousepad, is labeled as being recyclable, or being made from recycled 
|> materials.  This seems somewhat silly to me.  I would think that many 
|> components of computers could be "green."
|> 
<< lots of examples deleted>>
|> 
|> I look forward to the day when I can see that familiar recycling symbol 
|> on computer bits.  By the way - if you come out with a recycled/recyclable
|> computer product, I _will_ buy it instead of its wasteful equivalent.
|> 
|> -Shag

While I sympathize with the sentiment here, I offer the following
observations:

* Are there any reasons why we computers could/should be any better or
  worse in 'greenness' than other kinds of products?  As computers have
  a high price to mass ratio compared to much of what people buy, any
  extra cost that recycled feedstock or recyclability might cost would
  be relatively small.  On the other hand, the amount of material per
  dollar is also small.

* Using recycled feedstock, and recyclability, while good ideas, may
  be minor in the overall 'greenness' of a computer and related office
  equipment.  Toxics used in production, energy and paper required
  to use the equipment, and durability (physically, and logically)
  may have much larger impacts on total 'greenness'.  Getting the
  recycled/recyclable logos all over computers and making no other
  changes would be a step, but just one of many we could take.

* Many companies in the computer industry are beginning to pay attention
  to energy consumption of computers.  Look for the "Energy Star"
  logo soon (not sure when).

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,misc.activism.progressive