HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Loaded phrasings
Reply-To: greenpeace-knocks@truffula.sj.ca.us
Organization: Save the Humans!
Followups-To: alt.save.the.earth
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 07:43:11 GMT
Summary: Put up or shut up

In article <1k37asINN29k@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>Do you suppose that requests that GreenHype include all critical information
>(e.g., the amount of Pu found on beaches near Sellafield, the time-frame for
>their 1/17 probability of a Candu meltdown) in their press releases might have
>an effect?

Not if you post them in this newsgroup.  Perhaps you're *afraid* of
the asnwer you might get if you actually communicated your complaint
to Greenpeace.

I opened a spool for that purpose here on truffula.  So far, none of
the people who frequently complain about "GreenHype" in this newsgroup
have mailed anything into it.  I believe that these complainers do not
actually want their complaints addressed by a Greenpeace spokesperson.

If you do want to influence the writing style in Greenpeace's press 
releases, or their direct mail fundraising techniques, or their
*focus* and *priorities*, then do something constructive about it.
Otherwise you're just full of hot air.

Mail your serious, calm, specific complaints about Greenpeace directly
to Greenpeace, and share the results with us.  (But don't whine about
what someone with only a first name once told you on the phone that you
can't remember exactly.  Who cares?)  Or, email them to
                 greenpeace-knocks@truffula.sj.ca.us
and I'll do the work.  Messages longer than *20* KB will be
automatically truncated.  Everything I've received so far has been
highly constructive.

One correspondent said I should extract his complaint from an ongoing 
thread here.  That's not what I volunteered to do, and I don't see why
I should do your editing for you.

Cameron
From: eapg137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Bryan Joseph Hannegan)
Subject: Re: Chemical Composition of the Atmosphere - Why Mass Doesn't Matter
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:34:06 GMT

I should be quick to note, however, that just because we feel justified in 
using traditional atmospheric science to determine the effects of an increase
in trace gases does not mean that the problem is by any means easy, or already
solved. Before the cynics declare that some scientist from UCI says he knows
everything, I should state that because trace gases are so "trace", any attempt
to measure them accurately on a global scale is somewhat like looking for 
needles in haystacks. There remains a lot of uncertainty concerning the effects
of such gases, and I only wanted to point out that despite the common 
perception that "the atmosphere is changing", we still are able to justify 
the use of traditional tools for further research.

Hope I covered my rear on that... :-)

NOTE: My opinions in no way represent those of the dept, or of UCI.
          
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Hannegan                              eapg137@orion.oac.uci.edu
Dept of Geosciences, UC-Irvine              hannegan@halo.ps.uci.edu
If you fall on your face, at least take heart in making forward progress.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14776 soc.culture.usa:10036
From: fskanes@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: WASTE MANAGEMENT
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:19 GMT

Hello, I am trying to find out some information on waste management in 
Canada and the U.S. I am particularily interested in finding out about
incineration and large scale dumping. Here in Newfoundland we are now
in the situation of political immobility concerning such projects.

Does anyone also know anything about the practices of a company called 
Hollinger? Any help would be greatly appreciated.      


________________________________________________________________________________
Fred Skanes(fskanes@kean.ucs.mun.ca)      WHADDAYAAT??
Department of Anthropology
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, Newfoundland
A1C 5S7
                                         
______________________________________________________________________________
From: ecologycntr@igc.apc.org (Ecology Center)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Chief Seattle
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:45:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1jiiu1INN706@master.cs.rose-hulm:197945069:cdp:1466602058:000:319
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecologycntr    Jan 22 08:45:00 1993


In alt.native is the text of a speech by Thomas Banyacya, given at the
UN to the General Assembly on December 10, 1992. It is a better speech
on aesthetic (poetic) grounds than the alleged "Chief Seattle" speech,
and has the added benefit that it is documentable.

Thomas is a representative of the Hopi Elders.

chris
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Source for compact fluorescent lights?
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:29:44 GMT
Followup-To:  misc.consumers
Summary: Real Goods of Ukiah
Keywords: compact fluorescent


In article <18048@umd5.umd.edu> bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams) writes:
>Can someone tell me where I might be able to mail-order these 
[compact fluorescent bulbs with output equivalent to 100W incandescent]
bulbs?


My favorite mailorder store for such things is Real Goods Trading Company,
966 Mazzoni St.  Ukiah, Ca. 95482-3471  (800)-762-7325.  They've got 'em.

Cameron, 10 miles past the end of the San Francisco Bay
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:35:54 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <20JAN199319183511@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu writes:

 > I agree with Alan that good discussions are being derailed here.  The only real
 > solution in a place like this, I believe, will come from basic civility and a
 > willingness to let ideas be fully articulated before attacking them.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 > Nevertheless, this is an interesting newsgroup. ;-)

Also.

Gil
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: rich@astro.umd.edu (Rich Puchalsky)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: "Earth Budget" report
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:29:30 GMT
Organization: U. of Maryland @ College Park, Astronomy

I would like to recommend a report "Earth Budget: Making our tax dollars
work for the environment" that has recently been published by the
environmental group Friends of the Earth.  This report details an
analysis of how much each U.S. Federal agency spends on the environment.
(Of course, this may not be of much interest to those of you who live
outside the U.S.)  The report breaks down funding into 12 environmental
categories, including "International Assistance" and "Population", as well
as describing the environmental budget of each agency.  The report claims
that total U.S. environmental spending is $34 billion annually (about 2
cents out of every Federal dollar).  It also details an "anti-environmental
budget" of $14 billion per year in the form of tax expenditures, subsidies,
and spending programs that encourage environmetal destruction.  A major
thesis of the report is that the envioronmental budget can be increased
without increasing the deficit by eliminating the anti-environmental
budget.

Scientists reading this group may be particularly interested in the
section on research spending.  According to the report, the U.S. spends
about $4 billion per year total on environmental research, about the
same amount of money as is spent on the Star Wars (SDI) program. The EPA
R & D budget in particular has declined by 11% in constant dollars
since 1980.  The EPA's total operating budget is only 5% higher than
in 1979, even through the report estimates that EPA's workload has
doubled since then.

To order this report, you can call Public Interest Publications at
1-800-537-9359.  Unfortunately I don't know how much it costs, since
I got my copy free for some minor help I contributed to the "Chemical
Accidents and Right-To-Know" section. (I am not a member of Friends
of the Earth, nor will I gain any financial benefit from sales of
this publication.)  I am interested in hearing whether other people
find it useful, and how accurate it is.  I think that many of the
discussions on this newsgroup might benefit from real world 
considerations of how much money we are spending in one area or
another; although of course money spent does not directly correlate
to environmental progress.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14715 sci.energy:7109
From: louis@cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Help with radiation detected
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:42:05 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Distribution: sci
Organization: Athabasca University



I have been asked to comment on the following report of analysis of
core samples:

	... reported on the coring of Lake Athabasca sediments and the results
	at the meeting last week.  -there were three cores - one off
	Crackingstone Pt. in 360 ft of water.  Radiation ~17 Bequerels.
	Maybe Louis knows what that means in the real world.  No
	sedimentation rate given.
	 ...
	Radionuclides are 238Uranium, 226Radium, 210Lead, and Polonium.

I have no access to library materials to answer this.  Would some kind
soul indicate where that level fits in the big picture?  email
preferred.  Thanks
-- 
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Organization: Save the Humans!
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 08:39:41 GMT
Summary: bicycles are part of the answer


In article <21JAN199323271566@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
>Are there no realistic ideas for a mode of transportation which caters to the
>individual while avoiding serious environmental harm?

Many commuters could get to work by bicycle most days.  Bicycling is good
for you, clears the head in the morning, and creates approximately zero
environmental harm.  It's also a lot less dangerous than most people think.

Cameron
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Ozone ADDITION, not depletion?
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:49:00 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan21.164909.21376@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu writes:

 > Let me try again to make an important point about all this.   In my
 > field, mathematics, in principle, any person can master the basic concepts
 > and present arguments justifying some contention or other.  However,
 > we regularly get `proofs' from amateurs who think they have solved some
 > famous problem or done some construction known to be impossible.   The
 > reason is that these people have not immersed themselves in the general
 > consensus of the discipline (which goes back to Euclid or earlier),
 > so they don't understand what is relevant what is not.   If this is so
 > in mathematics where falsity is relatively easy to recognize, it must
 > be much more so in sciences like atmospheric chemistry which are
 > complex amalgams of theory, observation, and experiment.   In such an
 > area, not every possible inconsistency in reported data will be
 > accounted for.   If you don't work regularly in the discipline, you
 > just won't be able to understand what a valid argument is and what
 > is relevant.  It is easy to misunderstand a subject by going in and
 > picking out a `fact' here and a theory `there' and trying to draw a
 > conclusion.   

This is really very much to the point. Thanks, Len.

 > It is also useful to remember that scientific theories are attacked
 > from `the outside' for ideological reasons.   The theory of relativity
 > was attacked because it was felt to challenge established morality
 > by making everything `relative', (which of course it did not).  We
 > all know about `creation science'.   The theory of ozone depletion
 > is not in the same category as these examples, but there are people
 > who have difficulty with this theory precisely because it has led
 > governments (including our former conservative government) to take
 > action based on it.  Of course, there are also people whose acceptance
 > of the theory is based more on some other ideological bias than on
 > understanding.   However, if this matter, it would be best to leave
 > the science to the scientists who understand it.

And again, although I fear there are many who want to jump the gun for
political reasons, who just can't wait for a valid translation to be
made into everyday language so ordinary people can get access to the
knowledge, and end up getting everyone "baffled with science".

Or perhaps obfuscation is part of their strategy for gaining "power",
believing that to the blind even the one-eyed man can be king.

Thanks anyway,

Gil
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:35:50 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <149180366@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>That future is worth infinitely more than any "substitutes" for it. The
>technologies and technologists we need are those that will help us to
>reach that future, not those that will help to make it forever unreachable: 
>technologies that serve life -- *all* life -- not destroy it. Ecologically 
>sane technology, not technological substitution gone insane and become 
>technological supremecism.
>
>The time of morally empty technology, driven by greed, limited only by 
>derided threats of "doom", is over. The real challenge for technologists
>is whether they can overcome the counsels of greed and fear and find within
>themselves the moral purpose and strength to be able to just say "no" to
>technological changes that take us ever farther from where we should be, and 
>to seek out with all their intelligence the changes that will bring us, day
>by day, year by year, sensibly closer to our heart's desire: our true home 
>on earth, among our innumerable living kin, the tapestry of life rewoven. 
>
>But can such technologists exist? Will they appear in the years ahead?
>

"The degradation of scientists, from independent researchers and thinkers,
to conscienceless stooges in science factories has proceeded at an 
undreampt of rate" N. Wiener 1948 (paraphrased)

>Just watch! 

>"Force the Spring." -- Bill Clinton

I've got hopes for the Clinton administration, but I have seen, and 
smelled, Pine Bluff Arkansas, and have visited the clear-cut deserts of
the Ozarks. 




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Evolution of the Atmosphere (Re: Another ozone question)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:53:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.175931.9409@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <18183@umd5.umd.edu> bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams) writes:
> 
 [concerning the evolution of atmospheric oxygen]
>>
>>Wouldn't it depend on the global rate of photosynthesis, arguably much
>>lower during the early
>>evolution of photosynthetic organisms?
> 
> 
> Undoubtedly.  It would also depend on the rate of sedimentation, which
> was arguably higher early in the history of the earth (when
> radioactivity was higher, which might increase the rate of tectonic
> activity), and on the rate of decomposition of seafloor organic
> matter, which was argubly lower when the oceans were more anoxic.
> 
 Yes to all of the above. 2 billion years ago the only O2 sources were
 photosynthetic bacteria and blue-green algae. Don't know what their
 population densities were (any estimates?). Eukaryotes (cells with
 nuclei and all that machinery) need much more ambient oxygen. The
 biosphere/atmosphere seems to have bootstrapped itself up to high
 oxygen levels. I heard once that one theory for the Cambrian explosion
 involves O2 levels passing some critical value, ~10% present, that
 allowed hardbodied animals (that wouldn't have to devote all their
 surface area to breathing) to evolve.

 One thing I don't know is whether there is any direct geochemical evidence
 for precambrian O2 levels, or whether they are inferred from the biology
 present at the time.

 Robert
Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
From: cgilbert@igc.apc.org (Claire Gilbert)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Rivers in the sky?
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:31:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466602059:000:2037
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cgilbert    Jan 22 19:31:00 1993


                       Rivers in the sky?

     AP carried a story today (_Times_ [San Mateo]) which says that
scientists say there are half a dozen streams of vapor flowing
through the LOWER atmosphere, carrying huge quantities of water
toward the polar regions.
     It quotes R. Newell of MIT who says "'It's a lot of water for
the atmosphere to moving in a concentrated stream.'"  One "'river'"
moves southeast from Brazil with about 6 million cubic feet of
water every second.
     The rivers are up to "4,800 miles long and 480 miles wide." 
Newell discovered them while analyzing satellite date, as reported
in Geophysical Research Letters_.

***  Scientists were surprised as the prevailing believe is that
such moisture was spread rather smoothly through the atmosphere,
according to the article.  ***

     The newly discovered rivers move moisture as believed, from
warm equatorial regions to the cooler poles, but moving in narrow
streams rather than spreading it out over a large area is what
surprises Newell and others.
     Four months of data were analyzed.  More analysis to follow.
     Joining R. Newell in research were N.E. Newell of Arlington,
Mass., Y Zho of MIT, and C. Scott of NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center in Greenbelt, Md.


Articles carried in _Blazing Tattles_ described "ribbons" of aerosols
or particulate matter being transported without diffusing or spreading
evenly throughout the atmosphere, and was heavily critized for not
averaging out the particulate matter throughout the earth's entire
atmosphere in order to determine concentration.

Therefore, I find the above interesting.  CWG
-----------------------------------------------------------------
               Claire W. Gilbert, Ph.D., Publisher
                  B L A Z I N G   T A T T L E S
                         P.O. Box 610037
                   Redwood City, CA 94061-0037
                  E-Mail:  cgilbert@netcom.com
                     Phone:  (415) 306-9569
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mack@risc.sps.mot.com (Gregg Mack)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Oppose Signal Synchronization Projects!
Date: 24 Jan 1993 12:10:51 -0600
Organization: Motorola (Austin,TX)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ome.sps.mot.com

jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:

>An excellent point.  But, even with well-designed bike routes, you
>*still* see lots of ("too damn many") bicycles on College Avenue in
>Berkeley during rush hour for instance.  There's a great bike route
>system in the East Bay (particularly Berkeley-Oakland) and there's just
>no excuse for seeing bikes on a street not designed for it.

Since I'm in Texas, I'm not familiar with College Avenue.  However, the
tone of your comments just don't mesh with the society that I live in.
Cyclists have every right to use virtually every city street in the 
state (except freeways and short stretches of certain roads in the
Dallas area).  You have just as much right to tell the cyclists to
stay off any particular road as I have telling some farmer to get his
tractor off the roads I cycle on (ie NONE).

-- 
Gregg Mack                  ---------- __o       __o       __o       __o
gmack@paceline.sps.mot.com  -------- _`\<,_    _`\<,_    _`\<,_    _`\<,_
Motorola RISC uProcessors   ------- (*)/ (*)  (*)/ (*)  (*)/ (*)  (*)/ (*)
Austin, Texas  USA          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Temperate zone habitat loss
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:16:02 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <STEINLY.93Jan22155531@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>So, question is whether establishing a species in a new habitat which they
>could not reach naturally will, in the long run, lead to (several) new
>species evolving?

Clearly it possible. Look at the Galagapos finches, one species reached
the islands radiating into 13 species today.  An artificial introduction
could produce the same result.  This does not mean it is likely.

The vague possibility of a few new species, closely related to an existing
species, in perhaps ten thousand years time is cold comfort for the
threat that introduced species pose immediately.

One of man's older introductions is that of the domestic dog into mainland
Australia.  It is now considered a separate subspecies.  The Dingo likely
played a large role in the extinction of the Thylacine in mainland Australia
and probably some other extinctions too.  Even if the Dingo were a full
species, it would be little compensation for the loss of the Thylacine -
the last surviving large marsupial predator.

I think economic considerations alone, justify much more effort being
expended on the preventing the introduction of foreign species.

Andrew Taylor
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:22:55 GMT
Subject: The rights of local people
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
From: ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Biosolid info needed
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:50:17 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

Hi...

I am helping to develop a method for sampling biosolids
(microorganisms) in pulp mill effluent and then performing a
bioassay to determine toxicity. Because the concentration of
biosolids (approx. diameter 10um) is 150 mg/L of effluent, I need
to filter or centrifuge 10 000 L to obtain sufficient material for
a bioassy. If you have any information pertaining to similar types
of sampling OR to the toxicity of biosolids, please contact me 
at the email address below. I will post a summary to the net if 
there are enough responses.

Sabrina Taylor
Environmental Protection, BC Environment (Canada)
Phone: 604-847-7224
E-mail address: sstaylor@smithers.env.gov.bc.ca