HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ebodin@pearl.tufts.edu (Ethan Bodin)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Resource Classification w/GIS
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:26:34 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA


I am an environmental policy graduate student writing a long-ish paper on
Geographic Information Systems use in water resource protection.  I'm
particularly interested in how GIS analysis is used to inform policy decisions
about resource area definitions.  Do people use numerical analysis, or look at
maps?  How are different land or water uses weighted in considerations of use
restrictions and zoning?

If anybody does this kind of stuff, or knows of some literature, please let me
know.

Thanks in advance,


Ethan Bodin
(617)437-0854
EBODIN@PEARL.TUFTS.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:21:35 GMT

In <1e923iINN7e2@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov16.192427.931@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>I still want to know where was Greenpeace when Saddam was dumping oil in
>>the Gulf and setting the fields on fire?
>
>They were on the sidelines asserting that if Saddam did that, the fault would
>be entirely that of the United States.

Well, they *may* have been, in America (I can't prove they
weren't - I wasn't there), but in the UK they certainly *did*
condemn Saddam's "ecoterrorism".

We also saw on TV Greenpeace members & others trying to clean up
birds (in Saudi Arabia?) affected by the oil dumped into the Gulf -
not exactly "on the sidelines"!
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================

Xref: sparky sci.environment:12838 sci.geo.fluids:418
From: dnolan@husc10.harvard.edu (David Nolan)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.fluids
Subject: Re: Back of the envelope calculations of CO2
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:55:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov18.135557.17574
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <dhalliwe.722033167@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan) writes:
>
>>> [Discussion of Henry's law deleted]
>>Anyone have any evidence of total oceanic CO2 content? 
>
>>***This is not meant as a legitimate estimate, so don't flame me for this!***
>>    (I'm just curious as to how good or bad this approximation is... I 
>>       have a big feeling that it stinks, but want to make sure.)
>
>   One factor is that CO2 doesn't remain as CO2 when dissolved in water: it
>combine with OH- to form various forms of carbonic acid (depending on pH).
>Does this affect the use of Henry's Law? (A chemist I ain't.)
>
>
>Dave Halliwell
>Department of Geography
>University of Alberta
>Edmonton, Alberta

You are absolutely correct.  The actual partial pressure of CO2 reflects
an equlibrium between CO2, HCO3- and CO3--, along with the predetermined
alkalinity of the ocean.  

For a complete discussion (that is very readable), see Tracers in the Sea,
by Broecker and Peng.  Remarkably, even when you take into account all
of the above mentioned factors, the equations that give the correct answer
will just about fit on the back of an envelope!

Dave Nolan
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Harvard University
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:36:57 -0500 
From: Stephen Sorensen <ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
	<1992Nov17.163951.24163@kth.se>

In article <1992Nov17.163951.24163@kth.se>, tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas
Palm) writes:

> Unless you can define an owner to the air your grand market
>scheme fails miserably. The air is, whatever you claim, effectively collective
>property today, and whoever should suddenly claim to own it would
>get my vote for being the biggest thief ever.

There have already been assignment of atmospheric rights to a degree.
The US has recognized its use of Canada's air; Sweden and Germany are
trying to get Poland to stop using up their clean air. Certainly, it
would be absurd to take this assignment of rights all the way down to
the individual, but whay not at least to the country level ? Or in the
US to the state level.  

>4. It thus seems natural to use pollution taxes. This would allow other taxes
>   to be reduced thus distributing the money among the population. As these 
>   taxes are often income related (in Sweden at least) it would reduce 
>   employment costs, thus hopefully increasing employment, more than
compensati
>ng 
>   for the lost jobs due to extra costs for the industry.

I don't understand how these taxes are levied and how they could
increase employment. If the government is still collecting the same
amount of revenue, then you have to show that the pollution tax is
somehow less distorting than current taxes. The only possibility for a
net gain is if the reduction in the external costs of pollution are
greater than the increase in prices due to the taxes on polluters. 
 

Steve Sorensen
From: ramanak@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Wastewater Disinfection
Date: 18 Nov 92 10:25:52 -0600
Keywords: Wastewater disinfection
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

 I need information on wastewater disinfection programs of various states of 
 U.S.A. By the latest rugulations most of wastewater plants have to disinfect
their wastewater. As far I know, Illinois has a program with some exemptions
based on flow conditions and designated purpose of the stream. I am looking for 
similar information from other states. I appreciate if somebody can provide
this information or contact addrress from where I can access this information.
Please mail replies to  RAMANAK@MEMSTVX1.MEMST.EDU.

                                            C.V.Ramanakumar                                             
  
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Habitat and economy (was: Ecocentric Criterion)
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:00:44 GMT

In article <149180091@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>
>>It is
>>clear to me that much of what we are doing is catastrophic, and in this 
>>I presumably disagree with John. But I do not see where you get these
>>numbers without an assumption that impact per individual human is nearly
>>fixed. Do you have some basis other than intuition?.
>
>I do, namely that even if all habitat conversion ceased today -- and
>this could not happen even with a population of 2 billion at current
>Japanese, US and European levels of affluence -- the existing converted
>area is too large for the extinction crisis to end immediately. 

I'd appreciate if you could expand on this at your leisure, as I see
many questions arising from the relationship between human comfort and
adequate wildlife habitat. For instance:

Firstly, I take it from this that you think the impact of the 4 billion
at subsistence levels is less than the impact of the 1 billion in affluent
nations. Is this why you think that 2 billion affluent people would demand
yet more land? I am not convinced of this. Do you have evidence?

Secondly, you seem to agree with me that loss of habitat is the predominant
problem. Is this true? Can you provide better evidence than I can?

Thirdly, why are you so certain that affluence is so tightly tied to 
land demands? I suspect that many of the most damaging uses are of small
economic value, the burning of the Amazon being an obvious example.

Fourthly, if currently available wilderness ceased but efforts were made to
trade scatterred and fragmented wilderness areas for large contiguous
areas, would that suffice to stabilize the sitation if habitat loss were
the only significant factor? (Clearly this depends on the particular
ecological and economic uses of the land. What I'm asking for here is
evidence that large scale reconversion of economic use to wilderness is
necessary, as opposed to tradeoffs resulting in larger contiguous wild areas
without major changes in total land usage.)

Fifth and most important, can you suggest any ways to weigh the economic
costs and ecological benefits of abandoning particular uses of land so
as to most effectively restore stable habitat? In this context I'd like
to point out that even though increasing human population almost certainly has
a detrimental effect on habitat, it is less clear that decerasing population
will automatically result in increasing wildlife habitat. I'd like to get
away from intuitive value judgements and into finding a way to identify those
land use conversions which would have a large positive impact on biodiversity
while having a small negative impact on short-term economic value.

Finally, what other major anthropogenic impacts are there besides habitat loss
that may need to be considered? (In my opinion, rapid climate change is one. 
Are there others?)

mt

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: martin7559@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: social justice and the environmental movement
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:46:32 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

        I would be interested in hearing opinions about
incorporating more social justice issues into the
evironmental movement.  Any opinions?

                        Heather Martin
                        martin7559@iscsvax.uni.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:20:44 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1e923iINN7e2@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.192427.931@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>I still want to know where was Greenpeace when Saddam was dumping oil in
>>the Gulf and setting the fields on fire?
>
>They were on the sidelines asserting that if Saddam did that, the fault would
>be entirely that of the United States.

Of course, this is sheer fantasy. Carl seems to believe that his imagination
is a reliable source of factual material.




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: willkome@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Request: info on campus mass transit
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:58:34 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

Does anybody out there attend a university with a campus-sponsored mass-transit 
shuttle to and from campus, thereby linking it with nearby towns or points
with the city?  We would like to look at the possibility of onene and need some 
models to follow.  Thanks for any input.  U of WI-Eau Claire Students.
From: len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:52:46 GMT

I think Mr. Dyrda has just been enjoying himself by putting us on.
I think we must presume that the following incoherent passage
complete with spelling mistakes was posted just to rub it in.

>  You're right dumb thing to say, however articles in the past from magazines
> such as Discover, Science, Popular Sceince, and National Geographic have
> twisted the facts in order to use them in their articles. (Then again
> doesn't every scientist due this in some sort of the way?)
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Richard Dyrda                         |  "I'm your ice cream man stop
> School of Nuclear Engineering         |   when I'm passing by!! They say
> Idaho National Engineering Laboratory |   all my flavors are guaranteed 
> c/o Purdue University                 |   to satisy!!" Van Halen 

-- 

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
From: ajk3@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Kibble;f110or89;[05306)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Request: Are Computers Green?
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:44:01 GMT
Organization: University of Brighton, UK


	I am currently studying for a BSc Computer Science degree at the University of Bighton. As part of my course I am writing a dissertation on the following subject.

	IT and the Environment.
        Are Computers as Green as seem ?

	I am at the reserch stage of the project at this time and would welcome any information you could provide on any of the following.

	i) CFC's in the production of printed circuit boards.
	2) Plastic & foam packaging for computers and alternatives
	3) Halon based fire extingusters in computer rooms
	4) Recycling paper:
		i)   CD-ROM instead of paper.
		ii)  On-Line manuals.
		iii) Electronic Mail
	
	5) Printers and ground level ozone.
	6) Sending of old computer systems to less developed countries
	7) Safe battery removal
	8) Energy consumption of computer equipment
	9) Recycling of printer toer cartridges.

	If you could help me with any information on the above, I would be 
	very grateful. Including any areas you think I may have missed.

	Thankyou for your help.


	Amanda Kibble.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:53:27 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov17025507@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Which people does Gary Coffman think are incapable of using a high
>level of technology?  Bangladeshis?  Africans?

Both actually. The third world is lacking in the infrastructures necessary
to support high technology in general. This isn't a flaw in the people
concerned, it's a matter of economics and development.

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Keywords: the Enrico Fermi mix-master works again...
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:19:09 GMT

In article <56346@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>I'm confused by your terminology. Greenpeace is a "terrorist" organization,
>a "greennazi" organization, according to you because it uses "constant
>badgering". On the other hand, you seem quite sympathetic to the French
>government which has admitted to murdering unarmed Greenpeace members 
>in the boundaries of another nation. Do you believe that international 
>sanctions should be used to bring the government of France to justice for
>its terroristic actions? Or do you believe that non-violent protest against
>nuclear power is "terrorism" while planting bombs in the cause of nuclear
>weaponry is not "terrorism"? 

Clandestine counter-terrorist activity has a long history. See Israel
for contemporary examples, or see British activities in Malaya, or the
US Phoenix program in Vietnam. Counter-terrorist activity by governemts
isn't considered terrorism by any but the most radical anti-statists.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:00:54 GMT

 
> So how is toxicology measured?  Is it the speed of death or the amount
> os a substance nexessary to cause death? 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
> 
> 

By a combination of both.  A small amount of nerve agent on the skin is 
sufficient to kill within minutes.  To kill someone in the same amount of time
with another substance might take a hundred times more in quanity.  Or take
years if it was given in the same small dosage.  Thus, the first substance is 
more toxic than the second.

FYI there is suspose to be a reference book by (I believe) the national 
society of toxicologist that lists substances, chemicals, and elements in
order of their toxicity.  The next time I am on a major university campus,
I will try to find this book.

Don Palmrose





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: myahgula@questor.org (Michael Yahgulanaas)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Arcata, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:02:46 PST
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670

Does anyone have a connection to Arcata California engineering 
department, or more specifically those persons responsible for designing 
or operating the wetlands disposal facilities there ?

Waiting to hear from you


--
  Michael Yahgulanaas (myahgula@questor.org)
    | QUESTOR:  Free Dial-in Public Access to Usenet Health, Medical News |
    | & AIDS forums, and Info on Global Environment at  +1 604  681 0670. |
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Browning of America
Date: 21 Nov 1992 02:15:21 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <JMC.92Nov20135714@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John
McCarthy) writes:
|> In article <By0yCF.6oG@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
|> writes:
|> <<text deleted>>
|> 	   Can we restore Americas topsoile by collecting human feces, and 
|> 	   composting our leaves, grass and garbage.
|> <<text deleted>>
|>    Does anyone have any solid numbers on this.
|> 
|>    Just a Gardener
|> 
|> What is a mere calculation in face of a Gardener's suspicions?
|> But why not cow manure?  There is a lot more of it than human feces.
|> --
|> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

The interesting comparison here would be the amount of compost
one could get from cow manure and the amount of topsoil
attitibutable to cattle, both their direct activity, and in
growing feed crops.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: scroger@crchh821.BNR.CA (Eric Scroger)
Subject: Re: Environmental Accountin
Followup-To: Environmental Accounting
Reply-To: scroger@crchh821.BNR.CA (Eric Scroger)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:58:35 GMT



Gary Green requested information on environmental accounting.  I have
read article in the June 1992 Scientific American titled:

- Accounting for Environmental Assets by Robert Repetto.

The article supplies additional references:

- ACCOUNTING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. David Pearce, Anil Markandya and
   Edward Barbier in Blueprint for a Green Economy.  London, Earthscan
   Publications, 1989.

- ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING AND USSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A UNEP-WORLD
  BANK SYMPOSIUM.  Edited by Yusuf Ahmad, Salah El serafy and Ernst Lutz.
  World Bank.  1989.

- WASTING ASSETS: NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE NATIONAL INCOME ACCOUNTS.
  R. Repetto et al.  World Resources INstitute, 1989.

- NATIONAL ACCOUNTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES.  Karl-Goran Maler in
  Environmental and Resoure Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1.  Kluwer Academic
  Publishers, 1991
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Keywords: the Enrico Fermi mix-master works again...
Date: 16 Nov 92 06:32:55 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <56222@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>If it is shown that Greenpeace violated international law and hit the
>>freighter, drastic action should be taken against this organization. They
>>are no better than the "terrorists" that they are afraid of.
>
>Are you suggesting that the French government should increase the number
>of unarmed Greenpeace members it murders via terrorist bombs?

What I was referring to is the constant badgering by Greenpeace in territorial 
waters and the open seas. An example cited earlier was Greenpeace's 
involvement in the attempt to delay/interfere with/sabatoge a naval weapons
test by the Navy. In that case, Greenpeace is in the wrong and should be
charged with the international law that they defiled.

*From Don Palmrose on sci.energy:
*--------------------------------
*International law allows for the conduct of exercises and weapons testing by
*all of the world's navies.  You have to publish the exercise and test in
*advance giving the location and general nature of the exercise or weapon
*testing.  For the US, it must also conform to all ratified arms treaties.
*It is also recognized by international law that every country has the right
*to restrict vessels and aircraft from these areas especially those occuring
*within 12 nautical miles of a country's shores.
*
*That's the facts and just the plain facts.  Thus, if you don't like it then
*you can make all of the silly "might is right" US military is evil comments
*you like and you will still be wrong.
*
*Don Palmrose

Now, in this instance, there was a collision. Greenpeace claimed that they 
will take legal action. If, in fact, it is shown that Greenpeace is in the
wrong (which wouldn't be a first), then they should accept the punishment.
We don't need pirates for "the environment" rampaging the open seas.

I still don't see how an organization such as Greenpeace is so violently
opposed to a technology that can reuse its own waste many times over, plus
supply a huge amount of baseload power. How can you beat it?

I don't see GP hijacking trains full of coal every week to protest the 
many thousands of deaths from fossil fuels. Oh, I suppose that wouldn't
install the fear of nuke-u-lar deep in everyone's hearts.  

Tino (another environmentalist for nuclear energy)
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment