HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jking@nmt.edu ('Admiral JC')
Subject: Re: Request info on homemade eco-friendly cleaning products
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:40:51 GMT

In article <1ef45kINNhgv@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.152418.19074@pellns.alleg.edu>, jannotj@pell2l22.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot) writes:
>=
>= 	I wish to find some information on making your own laundry  
>=detergent and home cleaning products.  I once had formulas for these  
>=things, but I lost them before I could try them out.  Is there a way to  
>=make these relatively inexpensive but still effective and environmentally  
>=safe?  What should you look for in store bought detergents and cleaners?   
>=I know that chlorine, phosphorous and enzymes are No-Nos - but I can't  
>=help feeling sick everytime I purchase these products.
>
>Just why are enzymes no-nos?  Other than a lot of hysteria about a decade or so
>ago?

    Eeek.... amylase, bad enzyme, wouldn't ever want THAT anywhere near my
environment...

    Sorry, just had to toss that out...

        _
/\/\/\/\> ... Slither ...

Homebrewing - the ultimate recycling experience.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 07:23:00 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov17.153842.18622@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov writes:

 > If it's not done often, and there is a court process, then your system is
 > very similar to ours.  I wonder, then, if that makes us communistic?

I should add that as one of the outcomes of a still ongoing dispute
over the redevelopment of one particular industrial site, the High
Court of Australia handed down a ruling (I think Crown vs Swan Valley
Fringedwellers 1990, something) that no Australian Government as an
interested party in itself can any longer assert crown prerogative
on land a posteriori.

The assertion of prerogative must now be debated in Parliament, and
if passed by both Houses through normal procedures written into the
legislation pertaining to each particular case a priori.

There you go.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: NO WINDSHIELD IS SAFE FROM ECO-NAGS
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:56:37

Here's the beginning of a Mike Royko column.  I strongly recommend
reading the whole column.  At the end he suggests that Rifkin
come to Chicago and tag his (Royko's) car.  Royko's fantasies
involve an unconventional use of a tire iron.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Mike Royko)
Newsgroups: clari.feature.mike_royko

MIKE ROYKO
	Jeremy Rifkin and his fellow environmentalists have come up with a
wonderful idea, and I hope they pursue it with great vigor.
	Rifkin is president of an environmental group called Greenhouse
Crisis Foundation.
	His group has banded with others to launch a nationwide program
called ``Ticket America.''
	Their idea is to go around slapping tickets on the windshields of
cars that they consider environmentally incorrect gas guzzlers.
	The tickets will have no legal standing. The idea is to shame the
owners of the cars into getting rid of the gas guzzlers and buying
vehicles that are acceptable to Rifkin and his associates.
	It's their goal to recruit enough like-minded volunteers so that they
can ticket at least 1 million cars in the next year.
	Now, they aren't talking about some 1976 smoke-belching rust heap of
an old Caddy or pickup truck.
	They have established standards for various types of domestic and
foreign cars.

etc.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:20:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.171111.491@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>workers in the information age. It's Catch 22. If American, European,
>and Japanese companies can continue to export jobs and job training
>to these countries, then they have a chance of reaching critical
>mass and taking off as rich countries. But if restrictive trade
>policies block this, then they are doomed to poverty and starvation.

This type of trade extracts natures wealth for the long-term gain
of the investor - otherwise they wouldn't invest.  The local
economy gets jobs, but thats primarily a short-term gain so it
isn't likely to provide the type of wealth that you and John were
referring to.  The training usually isn't of the type that will 
compete in the world economy, but even if it is, they need some
mechanism to keep the wealth created within the country - 
something that free trade doesn't do.  Trade restrictions will 
slow the investment but permits what development does occur to be 
for the interest of the local people.  I don't know whether this 
kind of development will be able (or fast enough) to move these 
countries to low population growth.
>
>Gary


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Keywords: yep, they sure know how to fuck things up
Date: 14 Nov 92 17:40:15 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov9.034442.12361@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>
>Just reported on CNN:
>
>     The Greenpeace ship following the shipment of plutonium from England
>to Japan has collided with the craft in the English Channel. Those were all
>the details given at the time. 
>
>
>Weren't they out there protesting the safeguards of shipping plutonium from  
>terrorists? This surely looks like a terrorist activity to me. I think that
>this is a good time for national governments to evaluate their tolerance
>towards these worldwide eco-guerrillas.
>
>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?



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.environment:12966 talk.environment:4735
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Affluence and Land Use (from I = PAT)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:07:24 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 23 Nov 92 18:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.182641.25465@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

 ...

   Whether or not such equalization is required, 
   there seems to be a requirement that A, as currently defined, 
   must decrease in the developed world.  While I am

 ...

How _is_ "A" currently defined? I know of no good definition.
At least on sci.env "A" seems to be defined in terms that
produce the answer the definer is seeking (which is in fact one of
the strongest weaknesses of the P=IAT formula - it leaves the
definition of A (and to lesser extent T) so arbitary as to
be useless). 
	As I perceive it, A is not uniquely defined within any
culture, much less between cultures, and cannot be well defined
in terms of either land use or physical throughput? 

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		         "standard disclaimer"    *
* Oh look out my country's patriots are hunting down below	  *
* What do they know of England who only England know  - B.B. 1991 *
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Keywords: the Enrico Fermi mix-master works again...
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:14:06 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov16.063255.4320@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>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 

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"? 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:43:43 GMT


	Apologies,I should have made myself clearer.As far as I know the
amount of Pu that is officially regarded as "harmless" for the usual 70
kg man is 0.5 ng, which is 0.000 000 000 5 g .That's not very much,and I
certainly was under the impression that the amount determined toxicity,
and the speed was described as virulence.Could someone tell us more
about this? Could anyone actually give us an estimated LD-50?
	Also,re. French atmospheric nuclear tests,they did this in the
Pacific around 1970,well after most other people had stopped,and this
was one of Greenpeace's earliest involvements with the French Govt.
Needless to say the French weren't exactly gentle.

	G.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:26:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.145341.5393@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>In article <28409@castle.ed.ac.uk>, gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>> 	If Greenpeace wish to make the point that trying to ship large
>> amounts of the most toxic substance known,which also happens to be
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> exceedingly fissionable,is a bit stupid,then their avenues are limited.
>
>Gee, I didn't know that cyanide and nerve gas was fissionable?

Um, I think the most toxic stuff is 'natural' ... isn't it the 
shellfish toxin that is worst?  (Botulinum toxin is pretty awful,too).
Whichever it is, there are some natural biological toxins that are
lethal in extraordinaily small quantities ... 

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan)
Subject: Back of the envelope calculations of oceanic CO2
Organization: Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:30:59 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:18:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.021224.10985@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1dmfrvINNha9@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.172217.2590@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>=If the propert is collective and society wants to preserve it,
>>=then it does not need to determine a quantitative value.
>>
>>Just how do we determine that "society wants to preserve it"?  
>>Ask Dean Alaska, and if he says society wants to preserve it, 
>>then society wants to preserve it?
>
>Thats probably not too bad of a place to start :).  There are plenty of other
>people in society that could be asked, also.  If one person doesn't want
>to preserve it, is the rest of society wrong?

It depends on how badly that one person wants the resource and how strongly
other individuals want to preserve it. That's where the market can set a
quanitative valuation. If 100 million people want to preserve a resource,
but are only willing to spend a penny each to do so, and one individual
is willing to expend 10 million and *one* dollars to use the resource,
then the market says that his voice wins the decision. The market is
valuable because it forces people to face hard choices straight on rather
than depending on "somebody should do something" and "there ought to be
a law." If they value something, they must *personally* bear their share
of the cost to obtain and keep it.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov16.063255.4320@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:13:11

In conjecturing about who caused the collision, consider who benefits
from it.  

The Japanese are transporting on this trip only 1.5 tons
out of 47 tons of plutonium resulting from the reprocessesing.
One can hop they will not need 30 voyages to transport it all, but
they will need some more.  The less fuss there is, the better for
them.

Greenpeace, on the other hand, wants as much fuss as possible.  The
bastards hope they can make subsequent voyages more and more politically
difficult.  They want collisions and other confrontations.

I suppose the ultimate upshot of the flap is that the Japanese will
build their own reprocessing plant.  Then when we finally give up
Jimmy Carter's foolish idea that it would provide a "good example"
to not salvage the plutonium from our own spent fuel rods, we can
send our fuel rods to Japan to be reprocessed - with one more
well-deserved hit in the balance of trade.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:52:01 GMT

>In article <1ec3rtINNc33@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.215924.829@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>> Volcanic eruptionsput out 1,000's upon 1,000's more ozone depleting
>>chemicals than we humans have ever done. Since volcanoes have erupted
>>for 1 billion years I think our ozone level is just fine.
>
>Volcanos put out lots of REACTIVE chloring compounds, along with sulfates. 
>Mostly these go into the troposphere where most of them are removed before ever
>having a chance to reach the stratosphere (occasionally are really large
>volcanic eruption may inject some chemicals directly into the stratosphere). 
>CFC's, on the other hand, are not  very reactive (that's one of their big
>advantages for refrigeration and industrial applications).  They have a very
>good chance of reaching the stratosphere before being scavenged.  Hence pound
>for pound, they present a MUCH larger threat to the ozone than do volcanic
>compounds.
 
 Ok say that 0.01% of these chlorine agents reach the actual ozone.
Now lets say its roughly 10,000,000,000 particles of chlorine (I'm
no chemist what is the actual amount?) That is 100,000,000 particles
that reach the ozone per eruption. Say on average there is one eruption
every ten years (and going 1,000,000 years back) this is 
10,000,000,000,000 particles in the ozone. While it may not get there 
all that often they have been there a lot longer and in much larger
quantities than CFC's (which are being phased out by 1996).

>You might consider taking a chemistry course or two.  While it's true that
>eliminating ALL the ozone from the stratosphere would require shielding the
>atmosphere from the ultraviolet radiation, reducing the concentration
>dramatically requires nothing so drastic.  All one has to do is increase the
>rate of the 2O3 => 3O2 back reaction.  By supplying a catalyst, for example.

 You don't have to be an aeronautical engineer to know how to fly! Use
your common sense, Sun creates ozone. Where are the holes located, at
the poles. Where is there no sun for 6 months, at the poles. It seems
pretty reasonable to me.
 Everything isn't scientific, remember theoretically I can put my
hand through a desk w/o touching it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Topsoil as a commodity
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:39:15

Thanks for greatly extended information beyond the dirt I was able
to dig up.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: tomd@netcom.com (Tom Dempster)
Subject: Re: Ozone (A few questions I would like answered.)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:03:29 GMT

A followup question:
	Given that:
	   1) Much publicity has been enjoyed by the theory that ozone
	      depletion will continue for many years (I've heard 10
	      years or so) *even if* all sources of human-induced
	      ozone-destructive agents were to stop immediatly,

			-and-
	   
           2) Ozone is easily produced via a simple electric discharge

If the prospects of a global environmental disaster were to become an
undisputeable reality, would there be any hope of the human race saving
itself and the planet from the harmful effects of UV exposure by creating
a replacement source of ozone in the atmosphere?

Problems:
	1) What amount of ozone molecules are we going to need?
	2) What amount of electrical energy would be required to
	   create this much ozone? (if corona discharge were to be
	   the method)
	3) If this artificially-produced ozone were to be created on
	   on the earth's surface, how could it be transported to the
	   atmosphere where it is needed?

I appologize- I know nothing about the scientific fields of expertise
involved here. I do know however that in my line of work, we go to great
lengths to *minimize* the emission of ozone into the atmosphere.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan)
Subject: Re: Ozone (A few questions I would like answered.)
Organization: Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:28:18 GMT

In article <Bxqy4z.KJu@ucunix.san.uc.edu> klasmekj@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Kevin J. Klasmeier) writes:
>1) What is the major source of chlorine into the atmosphere?
>   I have heard that Clorine from the seawater is hands down #1.

One might think so, but as Carl put it, it's the chlorine that makes it into
the stratosphere that's important for stratospheric ozone considerations.
This means that chemicals containing chlorine have to be extremely stable to
survive the troposphere, or they have to arrive in the stratosphere quite
quickly. CFCs are the primary source via diffusion, volcanoes run a distant
second in terms of direct injection (REALLY distant).

>
>2) Is the formation of ozone (in the atmosphere) responsible for the
>actual absorption of UV light, or is it the breaking apart of ozone from
>UV light, or is it both (or neither?)?
>
Both. The formation of singlet oxygen requires dissociation of oxygen gas (O2)
which involves the absorption of UV in the 180-240 nanometer range. These
singlet oxygen (O) then combine with other oxygen gas (O2) to make ozone.
The destruction of ozone occurs when O3 absorbs UV in the 200-320 nanometer
range, disassociating into the oxygen gas and the singlet oxygen. Note that
the UV light absorption only occurs when no other chemicals interfere.
(from UNEP Programme Report #2, "The Ozone Layer", 1987)

>3) Aprox. what percentage of Chlorine to humans omit into the
>atmosphere, and aprox. what percentage does nature itself omit into the
>atmosphere? 
>
Again, I must agree with Carl, and say that it is the percentage that gets into
the stratosphere that is the issue. Current research is being undertaken to 
assist in our understanding of the chlorine cycle, but to my knowledge there
is no definitive stats yet. (Anyone?)

>4) How long has there been an ozone hole, or do we really know?

According to the scientific community, only since 1985, when the British     
Antarctic Survey paper published by Farman, et al. (citation on request)
came out. (This is assuming that one only thinks of facts after they are
published, not after the research begins....)
However, inconclusive data hinting at the existence of such an
occurrence had been gathered since the mid-70's. Whether there has been a
similar set of occurrences in the (geologic) past hasn't been looked into.

>I am intrested in ozone depletion. I am not sure, however, if there is a
>problem or not, I have read some pretty powerful evidence on both sides
>and would like to draw a conclusion based on all known facts.
>
A twenty-five page research paper, and a summer at Goddard in the Atmospheric
Chemistry and Dynamics branch (home of TOMS) convinced me quite nicely.

Bryan Hannegan
Dept. of Geosciences, University of California, Irvine
hannegan@halo.ps.uci.edu
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Air Not Really Cleaner (was: Steering Clinton onto the right track)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 00:45:10 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com's message of 15 Nov 92 07:05:11 GMT

>> Air pollution is destroying the quality of our lives, as
>> well as many of our economic resources, such as our crops
>> and wildlife. 
> By the way, according to reports from CARB, among others,
> it's getting better.

=o= If by "it" you mean air pollution, no, it's not really
getting better.  It's true that cooler weather has yielded
cleaner air statistics in some urban areas, but that's not
the same thing at all.

=o= For one thing, cooler weather isn't the overall trend, but
a localized abberation.  For another, measuring cleaner air in
certain places doesn't mean there's less pollution going into
the air (there is in fact *more*), it merely means that the
pollution is going elsewhere.
    <_Jym_>
.
Newsgroups: sci.environment