HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.environment

In rec.nude, jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes:

 >To summarize the articles I've seen this year:
 >
 >1.  Ozone levels over Antarctica have been systematically

Major agreement from most everybody.
[...]
 >2.  Ozone depletion is getting worse, faster, than was widely

Major agreement from most everybody.

 >    predicted.  CFCs and other man-made gases are *definitely*
 >    a major cause.  The scientific community is now nearly
 >    unanimous in its alarm, and in its call to immediate action.
[...]

I have a little trouble with this, though.  Has NASA or anyone else EVER
found any evidence that CFCs are the source for the chlorine in the chlorine
monoxide?  As far as I know there has never been a reasonable explanation
for the *lack of fluorine in any form* in the midst of all that chlorine
monoxide.   It can't just disappear.  And it hasn't been measured.  So why
pick on CFCs when there are so many sources of chlorine?

The danger of not having a good answer is that we will switch to something
else which turns out to be *much worse* in 20, 30 or 40 or more years.

Then, maybe you'll sunburn your *mutated* bare buns!

 > 7. The governments of the world are showing a surprising ability
 >    to recognize seriously bad global news, and react to it.
 >
 >I've seen the NASA Antarctic data.  It's scary.

So who can account for the missing fluorine?

I'm not trying to be flip.  I think it is an important question which has
NOT been answered, yet.  In fact, I think it is so fundamental, that it must
be being ignored by those involved in the investigation.

This question was IGNORED in sci.environment and I bet it will be ignored
here, too.  I'd love to be educated   :-)

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Hybridization of Bird Species
Keywords: conservation of allels
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:01:56 GMT

   In Science Vol. 256 10 April 1992 there is an article,

                   "Hybridization of Bird Species"

   Which had some matters of interest to both talk.origins and sci.environment.
_please_ edit your newsgroups line when replying, as appropriate.  The article
is an easy read with gobs of references.  The particular point that I thought
interesting was that the authors establish a lower bound of approximately 10%
on hybridization of wild bird spiecies.

   In other words, at least 9.42% of all wild bird spiecies breed outside their
spiecies and create hybrids, some of which a fertile.  I find this sort of
surprising.  The notion of spiecies for birds is more sociological and less
genetic than I had thought.


   talk.origins:  this should make selection and hence evolution of bird
proceede much more quickly.  Chris Colby: any comment?


   sci.environment: either birds have less genetic diversity than we thought 
or their diversity is more widespread (and hence more easilly conserved).  In
any case it strikes me that this implies birds are more environmentally robust
than we might suppose when reasoning by analogy from other vertibrates.

   The article mentions that hybridization is not observed as much in tropical
birds but opines that this is because they are not observed as much.  Definite
need here for DNA probe relatedness studies.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:04:51 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <4609@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>You are missing the point, Victor.
>
>Transportation doesn't mean personal transportation necessarily.
>It could be the transportation required to move the raw and processed
>materials that make up the computer systems you use (many of which
>are probably far from UMass), the food you eat (far from UMass, especially
>in winter), etc.
>
>Ever seen all those trucks delivering food to supermarkets?
>

I'm just don't understand how you can think that reconstructing whole
species from some bits of genetic code is a reasonable project, while
finding an alternative to petroleum powered transportation is too
hard. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:23:05 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <46290@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.115131.1189@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>>In article <40911767@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>>	I don't think it is stupid at all.  Today's society *depends* upon
>>transportation to feed, shelther, etc. itself.  You can counterargue that
>>today's society would not have developed without the auto, but I would
>>disagree.  Today's society would still be here, but constantly on the brink of
>>starvation.  Look at the xUSSR.  Technologically advanced enough to be a first
>>world nation, but without the transportation network necessary to feed itself.
> 
> This makes no sense at all. Surely a pro-technologist like yourself should
> be able to come up with transportation alternatives to IC automobiles.
> 

	Of course, hydrogen/solar/etc powerd cars.  The point is that you can't
point to a piece of technology as say "BAD technology!  All evil comes from
you!"  So cars pollute, and that is not a good thing.  So make cars that don't
pollute.  Cars in and of themselves are not bad.

>>	Perhaps we should just sit around in grass skirts and contemplate the
>>universe.
> 
> Could do worse.
> 

	Yes, but is that enough for humans, or do they need more?

>>	"Imbalences" are best cured by raising the rest of the world up to the
>>same technological level, and not be decreasing it.
> 
> That's an interesting idea. If the rest of the world used the same amount
> of petroleum per-capita that we do, where would all the petroleum come from?

	1) Synthetics
	2) Use something else

> How about, if the rest of the world produced the same amount of garbage
> per-capita as we do. Where would they put it? 
> 

	1) Space/Ocean/Sun
	2) Reduce garbage output
	3) Increase reuse

	Having the same technological level doesn't have to equate to the same
pollution level and more than having the same intelligence level means having
the same political persuasion.

> 
>>	The solutions to today's problems will largely be technological,
>>despite green fiction horror stories to the contrary.
> 
> Really? And some guy told me just recently that the messiah was
> going to solve all of today's problems. He had the same quality of proof
> that you do.

	He has his faith, I have history, the greens have green fiction.

Brett---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________The best thing about morning________________________________________
__________________________________is that it's over by noon.____________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gbell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Greg Bell)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Food scrap recycling: Worm bins!
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:37:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Has anyone else started this radical-recycler system?  The idea is
this: The "Worm bin" is a composting system that uses redworms to
munch your kitchen scraps.  No bad odor, and it produces fantastic
"worm castings" for use in your garden, houseplants, etc.

I have one set up that has been very successful.  My biggest suprise
has been the lack of odor.  The thing smells like rich, damp soil.
And, on a good week, our household of 4 guys only generates a single
grocery bag of landfill destined trash.

Anyone else have a worm bin?


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Who:  Greg Bell   Address:  gbell@ucsd.edu (UC San Diego)
"Beer!  Now there's a temporary solution." - H.Simpson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (anmar mirza)
Subject: Re: Solar Power?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 16:30:06 GMT

In article <JMC.92Apr2144552@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Do the proposals for local solar power require anything of the householder
>other than paying a bill?  For example, does he have to climb on his
>roof occasionally to sweep the leaves of his solar collector?  If he
>buys an electric dryer, does he have to call a contractor to have
>more collectors installed?  Unless the answer to *all* the above
>questions is no, there won't be a market for household power systems
>except among hobbyists.

Answers to the above questions, no, no, and maybe.

I've had photovoltaics on the roof for 3 years now and never had to
sweep a single leaf off.  The wind does that quite nicely thank you.
I used to climb up to the roof every couple of months and wipe the
dirt off of the panels, but I stopped after I noticed how little
difference that made in the amount of power I receive.  It is also
self-limiting, only so much dirt will collect on the panels and it
gets washed off by rain.  The panels have now gone ~2 years without
being washed and inspection reveals no high accumulation of dirt.
Your mileage may vary if you live in a highly industrialized area. 
Snow slides off the panels mounted on the tracker, and melts quickly
off the panels that are fixed mounted. (high angle to accomodate
winter sun allows for little snow accumulation).

In my proposal for a diverse system, addition of panels to accomodate
the new electric dryer would not be needed, one simply would draw the
extra power from the grid.  If the utility company decided more panels
were needed, or maintenance was required then they would perform that
on a PRN basis.  Recall back, my proposal calls for a diverse system
that best utilizes the local resources and balances them with local
demand.  As with anything, there is no one ideal cure.
 As I said before, highly industrial areas might need several nuclear
plants to deal with the demand, residential areas in sunnier climes
might have distributed solar, windier areas may utilize wind more,
etc.  



For the dryer (not that I have one) in my personal home system 
I'd use my generator for the high-demand, short duration loads.  
But that's the kind of guy I am ;-)

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! Not IU's!# Support Search
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! # and Rescue,
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion# GET LOST!
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #
From: scottp@pvec.bridgewater.ns.ca (Peter Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Env. Jobs?
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:08:27 GMT
Organization: Parkview Education Centre, N.S. Canada



	Can anyone give me a list of career or job possibilities for someone 
wanting to do environmental work (sciences, research, new technology? etc..)
	Thanks in advance!
				Peter Scott

scottp@pvec.bridgewater.ns.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) /  3:35 pm  Apr  8, 1992 /
>Alan McGowen writes:
>
>     Human intelligence is a specific set of biological
>     adaptations peculiar to one species. There is noting
>     "general" about it -- the belief in the existence of
>     "general" intelligence abstractable from the biological
>     substrate is a myth of AI. Mind you, I am not saying that
>     human intelligence cannot be produced artificially: if you
>     can emulate the neurobiology with sufficient detail, you
>     will emulate human intelligence. But we are a *very* long
>     way from being able to emulate the neurobiology.
>
>Why "myth" and not hypothesis?

A hypothesis is generally an explanation of something (in this 
case intelligence) for which there is evidence. The evidence for 
a neurobiology-independent algorithmic explanation of natural 
intelligence is lacking: everything neural science has learned about
the brain and what it does shows it to be a complex of adaptations 
like all others in biology, arising out of local optimizations of 
innumerable historical contingencies, full of quirks of history. Human
intelligence is a human adaptation.  The lack of success of AI based on 
the "hypothesis" of generalizable algorithmic intelligence is further 
evidence against it. Persistent belief in a "hypothesis" for which there 
is no evidence and plenty of counterevidence smacks of mythology.

If you want to emulate bits of intelligence in an artificial substrate,
you will have to emulate the neural architectures natural selection has
produced to generate intelligent behavior. When that is possible, some 
form of AI will be possible. Artificial intelligence capable of passing a 
"Turing test" is pretty unlikely though -- emulation of human neurology closely
enough to accomplish this would require emulation of human social, emotional,
and personality development: rather difficult without a human body growing 
up among humans. More likely, practical applications of AI will be less 
concerned with emulating human intelligence in detail than with confering 
bits of animal visual systems and movement control on machines: if you want 
to build a machine that can climb a tree and retrieve a cat, you are going 
to have to put a great deal of monkey neural business into it.

The road to AI is neural science, not programming trickery.

NB: I am generally bashing "cognitive science" here, not asserting that 
there is something nonmechanistic about intelligence or conciousness, nor 
that some sort of quantum weirdness differentiates humans from machines. 
Humans are machines, biochemical machines. But intelligence is not something 
separate from the details of that machinery. Intelligence is still biology,
and AI, when it finally exists, will be a kind of biotechnology, even if it
is partly done with software.

----------
Alan McGowen
From: kychen@chem.nthu.edu.tw (Kuang-Yu Chen (035)715131-3352)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: help!!!
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:26:31 GMT
Organization: National Tsing Hua University (HsinChu)

Dear Mr. & Mrs. :

I am applying for admission to Marine-Estuarine-Environmental
Science Graduate Program at the Univ. of Maryland. The Graduate
Admissions Committee informed me that it is not possible for me
to be admitted without a major advisor.

I want to contact some faculty members in MEES Program, but I
have no their email addr.. It's urgent for me.

The list of the professors is in the following :
(1) Dr. Bashore, Terry,   NATS/UMES
(2) Dr. Hoogland, John L.,  AEL/CEES
(3) Dr. Inouye, David W., ZOOL/UMCP
(4) Dr. Kuenzel, Wayne J., POUL/UMCP
(5) Dr. Mench, Joy A., POUL/UMCP
(6) Dr. Provine, Robert, PSYC/UMBC
(7) Dr. Rohwer, Frank C., AEL/CEES
(8) Dr. Costanza, Robert, CBL/CEES

If someone knows their email addr., please tell me or you can
give me other advices.

Thanks in advance.

______________________
kychen@y5.nthu.edu.tw
886-35-715131 ext3352
Room 265, Dept. of Chemistry, National Tsing Hua U., 
Hsinchu, Taiwan 300
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: EMI from radio towers, health risks?
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:06:06 GMT

In article <s05juINNov4@agate.berkeley.edu>, abulloch@garnet.berkeley.edu (Anthony Bulloch) writes:
>Depends on how you think flies drop off. There have been a number
>of studies recently which have suggested a link between EMIs and
>childhood cancers, and less serious disorders in adults.

If you're thinking of the study done a couple of years ago (at Berkeley or
Stanford, I think), please remember that the correlation was between the
disorders and the PREDICTED exposure to electromagnetic fields.  The people
doing the original study decided that their grant money would be better spent
on other aspects of the investigation than actually MEASURING the thing that
was supposed to be causing the problems.  A subsequent followup study actually
measured the field strengths, and found no significant correlation between
MEASURED exposure and childhood cancers.  So, while it appears that living near
high-voltage power lines may increase the chances of childhood cancer, exposure
to elecromagnetic fields is NOT the mechanism by which this works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Statistics Needed
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:37:45 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1466601303@igc.org> tgray@igc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>From: Tom Gray <tgray>
>Subject: Statistics Needed
>
>/* Written 12:14 pm  Mar 23, 1992 by earthisland in cdp:data.farmnet */
>/* ---------- "Statistics Needed" ---------- */
>Earth Island Institute is seeking information and statistics
>about the rate of land loss for black farmers, particularly
>in the southern states.  We are trying to verify statistics that
>anticipate all farms owned by black farmers will disappear by
>the year 2000.  If you have any information on this issue please
>direct it to the "earthisland@igc.org" account.  Thank you.

The two biggest, and best run farms in my county are black owned,
but the majority of black farmers, like white farmers, are small
operations. The USDA now classifies any farm under 50 acres as
a "hobby" farm. That classification includes most black farmers.
While many small white farmers also hold off farm jobs, only a few
small black farmers do so. Unless this changes soon, most black
owned farms will disappear.

Gary
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: [policy] Capitalism leads to dirtier environment?
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:22:14 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: [policy] Capitalism leads to dirtier environment?
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Keywords: 


     Please read responses in "Soc.Culture.Esperanto", too.  Some
are replies to my article.

					*Zhong* Qi-Iao, U.S.A.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: degroff@tricorder.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: NOT Vegitariansim was: Short Population Facts
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:21:36 GMT

In article <1466601304@igc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.org> writes:

(Much deleted, below retained items is small analysis of
"vegitarian culture as bad for ecology" Les
|> |> 
|> Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed by the grain needed to
|> feed 1 meat-eating person:  20
|> 
|> Number of people who will starve to death this year:  60,000,000
|> 
|> Number of people who could be fed by the grain saved if Americans
|> reduced their intake of meat by 10%:  60,000,000

|> 
|> Co-op America is a member-controlled and worker-managed nonprofit
|> organization promoting a sustainable economy and educating consumers
|> and businesses on how to align buying and investing habits with values
|> of peace, cooperation, and environmental protection.  By using our
|> collective buying power, we can begin to change the American economic
|> system to one that is just and sustainable.
|> 

|> Individual membership is open to all concerned people
 pending screening for social responsibility|> criteria.
|> 
??? What the hell is screening for social responsibility!!!! Could you 
please post the criteria. (Yes, I am a ugly carnivore and may tear it
to shreds) Les DeGroff  (degroff@intellicorp.com)

 I frequently meet people who for deep personal reasons have selected
vegitarianism as a way of life, many of them are concerned about the
impact of humanity on the planet earth.  What they seldom consider is that
vegitarianism can be taken as both a symptom of and an acceptance of
human over population.  The sympathy, the statistics like Mr. Grey 
presents are significantly oriented toward human retention, human life
as being of most crucial importance.  You may trace the high level of
vegitarian belief in India and China as either a cause or as effect of
human over population.  The success of intensive rice cultivation,
the overwhelming success of agriculture led to the limitations on meat
eating... a direct measure of environmental destruction.  In the
longer, multigenerational view, its a warning and a driver environmental
failure to have agricultural based vegitarianism! 
So a billion more could eat if the us had no meat,
and they all would cut trees for fuel 
and in the next generation when they have doubled again they still starve.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Evil Man Is (Was: Re: Pigs
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:13:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: topaz.STEINLY.92Apr12201356
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
In-reply-to: alanm@igc.org's message of 12 Apr 92 04:08:00 GMT

In article <1466601323@igc.org> alanm@igc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:


   /* Written  1:51 pm  Apr 11, 1992 by carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU in cdp:sci.environmen */
   In article <40911811@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
   >>
   >
<This bit is Alan's, talking about his interpretation of Carl's argument>
       position is that if the economy of a country 
   depends upon slavery and it would be too inconvenient to change 
   it then slavery is not evil,

Actually, there are schools of history that would say exactly that,
slavery was accepted and rationalised while economically convenient,
and abolished as an evil when the cost became higher than the
benefit. 
Moral posturing is all well and good, I even do it myself, but
humans have a strong tendency towards expediency followed by post
hoc rationalisation.



*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:04:50 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Apr10113322@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Someone, perhaps Victor Yodaiken, posted the rhetorical question:
>
>> How about, if the rest of the world produced the same amount of garbage
>> per-capita as we do. Where would they put it? 
>> 
>
>There would be no problem unless they wanted absolutely free dumping
>grounds.  Do the arithmetic.  Starter: the U.S. produced 500 million
>tons of waste per year some years back.  Countries with far higher
>population density than the U.S. manage their waste without much fuss.
> 

500million/200million = 2.5 tons per person per year, times 6 billion
is 15billion tons per year.Maybe someone has some averag volume per
ton numbers, and we can see how long it would take to cover Palo
Alto with a 20 foot thick layer.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu