HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Population growth and cultural destruction (Re: Nasty ...)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Dec11104207@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Dec11.212540.6301@vexcel.com>
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:05:55

Some years ago the _New Scientist_ reported on the outcome of an
appropriate technology project to bring a new design of cooking stove
into East Africa.  The new stove used local materials, used local fuel
and was efficient in energy.  Meetings were held in villages, and
after a few years 250 were in use.  About the same time, a new stove
made in the Far East using kerosine was introduced through normal
trading channels and sold 10,000 in about the same time.

Was this a case of "appropriate technology" doing more harm than good?

I'm inclined to think so.  It used up an extremely scarce resource
in all backward countries - initiative and organization - with an
essentially trivial result.

My opinion is that strengthening a country's connection to the world
market is the main way of modernizing it, and making the country
or some part of it technologically special is a mistake.  To the
technological romantic, having a network of wholesalers, having the
means of advertising new products and having the commercial institutions
permitting taking part in world trade are all rather dull things.
However, their lack is often the main barrier, because the technology
per se is well described in books and courses.

In support of that, the Soviet Union was nowhere near behind in
the aspects of computing that could be read about in journals as
it was in those aspects of technology normally transferred by
salesmen.

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: toxic spill remediation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:13:49

On the one hand, the rules probably call for entering the premises of
a mercury spill with self-contained breathing apparatus.

On the other hand, when I was in Junior High School we played with
liquid mercury quite freely, and it was explained that only ionized
mercury was harmful.  Perhaps many of those junior high school
contemporaries who have since died, had their lives significantly shortened
by the mercury, but I doubt it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Return of Nasty, Brutish and Short
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:53:06
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au's message of Mon, 14 Dec 92 01:44:24 GMT

In article <724297464snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:


   My response to your .sig would be to dump both of you together in the
   Western Desert, and see how you can both finally get along well enough
   that you both survive. Keep it in mind that that environment is so
   marginal that if you wasted any energy at all trying to compete with
   one another you will probably *both* perish.


That actually sounds like an interesting challenge that I'd
respectfully decline - summers in Arizona, California high desert
and Morocco have quite convinced me I'm better adapted to colder
climates. Of course you and your aboriginal friends would probably
have a comparably short life expectancy in the mountains of my
home and I suspect Alan would fair poorly in either...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.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			*

Xref: sparky sci.environment:13695 talk.environment:5124
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Rainforest Alliance, Who Are They ???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 11:45:50 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Today I received a solicitation passed through my employer to contribute
to the "Rainforest Alliance".  I have no idea who these people are.
Do they assault legal industrial operations with pipe bombs studded with
nails?  Do they infringe on people's property rights?  Do they oppose
the most benign form (in the environmental impact sense) of producing
electric power without contributing to the greenhouse effect or the
production of chemical waste?  Who are these people?  I want to know !!!
From: alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Return of Nasty, Brutish and Sh
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:31:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:hpindda.cup.hp.com:149180148:cdp:1466601987:000:2221
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Dec 13 15:31:00 1992


Sigurdsson's logic remains as bizarre as ever. He makes a flat 
assertion of what he considers to be a self-evident truth. I post 
statements from a standard recent introductory text on 
anthropology which contradict him. He declares the statements to 
be wrong, and demands proof for them. I post further statements 
from other (including refereed) sources and list some suggested 
reading to serve as a point of departure for an interested 
reader's self-education. He looks at one of these and declares 
the study to be flawed, contaminated in ways which were instantly 
obvious to him but which the anthropologists in question hadn't 
the wit to notice. He flips out at the statements I posted from 
Barkow's _Darwin, Sex, and Status_ and declares them to be 
obviously unscientific since they clash so severely with his 
cultural myths.
    
And now he makes again exactly the same demands and claims of 
powers to detect flaws in anthropological studies instantaneously. 

No, Sigurdsson. It's time for *you* to put up or shut up. Where 
is *your* evidence? Give us data to prove your claim that hunter-
gatherers have higher birth rates and infant mortality rates than 
agriculturalists. Don't use outmoded editions of texts -- use a 
contemporary one, or, if you prefer, referred journal articles. 
[I wonder if Sigurdsson is able to guess the reason for the 
difference between the first and third editions of Bates & Plog?
Hmm... probably more creeping multiculturalism or the growing
power of the PC crowd...]

I get the impression that Sigurdsson thinks he can establish 
*his* position by means of a kind of pseudoacademic filibuster 
against something he doesn't like: demand (unreasonable and 
undoable) studies of precise "average" rates over all cultures. 
Dismiss all case studies as contaminated. Eventually the other guy 
will give up in total frustration. Apparently he think that this 
establishes the truth of his view. Well, it doesn't. It merely 
establishes pig-headedness.

As for his crack about the "big eco-words", I didn't make it up. 
But, no I don't have a copy of the post in which he made it. I 
don't archive most of my own posts. I archive none of his.

------------
Alan McGowen   
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: A1.KAK@isumvs.iastate.edu (Kevin Kettner)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:09:43 GMT

>In article <1992Dec15.135124.1011@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu writes:
Gil Hardwick writes in response:

>I do think the issue here is based less on a notion of "science" (a
>*lot* of bad science around, as there is bad anthropology, biology,
>law, politics) than on the quality of evidence presented. While it
>appears popular to berate the discipline involved with the Arts and
>the Humanities, it remains that the acceptability of evidence among
>scientists and scholars together is of a quite different order than
>that accepted among lawyers, activists and politicians.
>
>Reasonably, scientists and scholars while not being able to claim a
>substantial "objectivity", of course, nevertheless remain impartial
>and to a considerable extent indifferent to whatever politics are
>going on around them. That is not the case with lawyers and activists
>whose explicit role is to persuade and convert people to their way of
>thinking...

I think you are right there is a "*lot* of bad science around, as
there is bad anthropology, biology, law, politics."  But I am not
sure that I agree scientists and scholars remain all that impartial
and indifferent to politics, especially when that politics controlls
the funding.  It seems that with lawyers and activists you have a
good idea what you are getting up front, while the motivations
of scholars and scientists seem often hidden behind the claims of
objectivity and neutrality.

--
............................................................
:   `Be good and you will be lonesome` ==> Samual Clemens  :
:..........................................................:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Enviro-industry on ABC
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:50:48 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec16.192912.473@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
=: Did they describe how they are to be linked?  I don't know of any
=: available transmission technology that can link such widely
=: separated sources.  This limitation is the biggest technological
=: hurdle for utility-scale renewables though I have heard of advances in
=: transmission technologies.
=
=	Long cables.

That much was obvious.

=With anticipation of improved transmission technology.

What improvements are they assuming?  Transmission of DC electricity is a
pretty well-understood field.  You've got a pair of conductors separated by an
insulator.  The effectiveness of the insulator limits the voltages you can use.
Go to too high a voltage, and the insulator breaks down.  The conductors, on
the other hand, have some resistance.  So the more current you run through
them, the more losses you have.  In order to improve on what we currently have,
you've got to either increase the effectiveness of the insulator or decrease
the resistance of the cables.

So what are they assuming will provide the improvement in transmission
technology?  Room-temperature superconductors?  40-foot thick cables?  What?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen 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.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas & Petroleum go together
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:46:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.192944.268@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
(Paul Dietz) writes:

> Unconventional gas deposits, such as geopressured zones or seafloor
> clathrates, contain enormous quantities of methane, and are not
> necessarily associated with petroleum.  These cannot be economically
> extracted now, but that could change.

I agree that there may well be large gas deposits in such cases, but I
believe this does not actually conflict with my original statement, which
was that strictly gas wells: " ... are more expensive to drill".

It would also be possible to produce mostly gas from an oil & gas well
if one knew exactly where the oil/gas contact in the formation was located
and tried only to get the gas out.  I say mostly gas because remember,
this
is gas and oil squeezed into the pores of rock (spaces between the grains
in sandstone, for instance) and because of the pressures involved, a
petroleum "mist" will make it up along with the gas unless the gas is
extremely dry or pressures very low.  Another problem is, this oil/gas
contact changes during the life of the well (if half of the gas is
removed,
the oil will be pushed upward by the water below, in this example).

Example cross-section:

                +
               /|\  <--- Oil & Gas well
                |
  Anticline -+  |
             |  |
             V  |
        --------|---------
       /........|.........\
------/.........|..........\-------
............----|----.............. <--- Gas Zone this sandstone
.........../::::|::::\.............        (a few feet thick)
........../:::::|:::::\............
---------/::::::|::::::\----------- <--- Gas/Oil contact
::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: <--- Oil Zone this sandstone
::::::::::::::::--:::::::::::::::::        (a few feet thick)
:::::::::::::::/++\::::::::::::::::        
--------------/++++\--------------- <--- Oil/Water Contact
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <--- Water Zone this sandstone
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------

 (Apologies for the crude graphics)


This example is by no means illustrative of the only way in which
gas may be found.  There are many possible configurations for 
subsurface hydrocarbons.  There is also no intention here to be
patronizing or to try to "teach my grandmother to suck eggs".  I will
readily yield to those with greater knowledge or more accurate data.


John G.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Bad science
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:20:21 GMT



I quoted the entire text of the _editorial_ (except for my typos).  There were
no references.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural Gas? ("structural impediments")
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:20:01 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <12940001@hpavla.lf.hp.com>, beatty@hpavla.lf.hp.com (Chris Beatty) writes:
>By the way, several of the 0 emission vehicles
>already exist. BMW has built a hydrogen powered car (the exhaust is
>water)

That's interesting.  How did they manage to prevent formation of NOx?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen 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: ajw@Think.COM (Andy Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Geiger counter
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:57:22 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

Does anyone have information on how to get
a surplus Geiger counter?  Please reply to
me directly.

I'll post the responses if there is interest.

Andy

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.chem,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.archives
From: ludwig@klimet.unibe.ch (Christian Ludwig)
Subject: New program for chemical SPECIATION
Keywords: program speciation equilibrium constants
Reply-To: ludwig@klimet.unibe.ch
Organization: Department of inorg. chemistry, University of Berne, Switzerland
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:24:45 GMT


I have just uploaded to iamsun.unibe.ch a new program with the name GRFIT:

*******************************************************************************
                                  "GRFIT"

                     A USERFRIENDLY PROGRAM FOR SOLVING
                        CHEMICAL SPECIATION PROBLEMS:

                     EVALUATION OF EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANTS,
                CONCENTRATIONS AND OTHER PHYSICAL PARAMETERS.

******************************************************************************

              Christian LUDWIG, Berne (Switzerland), 11.Dec.1992

******************************************************************************

GRFIT is a program written for IBM-PC computers working under
DOS. It solves solution speciation problems in heterogeneous and
in homogeneous systems. It is specially written for evaluating
concentrations, thermodynamical equilibrium constants and -
depending on the chosen double layer model - capacities or site
densities as well.

GRFIT can be downloaded from iamsun.unibe.ch via anonymous ftp. You find it
in the directory /PC.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Ecocentric Criterion (again)
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:01:40 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au's message of Thu, 17 Dec 92 03:39:41 GMT

In article <724563581snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

   In article <1992Dec15.222425.17854@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:

    >I've read Sahlins thesis of the affluent society, and while
    >it makes some excellent original points, I feel the thesis
    >is too often taken too far. In particular, it relies on a
    >relative definition of affluence, where people become inured
    >to hardships to the point where they're no longer considered
    >hardships - which is subjectively true, but says more about
    >the flexibility of the human psyche than the happiness and
    >health of people  (defined by some "objective" measure, in
    >so far as that is possible).

   Sure, "taken too far" is as subjective. We had a recent thread on
   sci.anthropology which touched on the subjectivity of indigenous
   peoples in relation to the apparent objectivity of "science". I
   certainly have no problem with subjective truths, except where the
   Western "scientists" strut around pretending that their subjective
   truths are somehow more objective and universal than others'.

I saw that thread, I'm not going to touch it with a barge pole,
suffice to say I prefer function over form for some aspects of my
life.

   You might also attend to the somewhat annoying fact that people who
   have "become inured to hardship to the point where they're no longer
   considered hardships" tend to regard the so sophisticated Westerners
   as wimpy little shits. I mean, what do they want all those comforts,
   human "rights", hysterical political ideologies and excessive energy
   consumption for, like infants swaddled up in a humidicrib with tubes
   coming out everywhere just to survive. What, can't they handle the wind
   in their hair, or the sun on their face, or that flake of obsidian used
   for circumcision by that old father-in-law?


Hey, if it makes 'em feel good to get all macho that's fine,
I feel no more obliged to evaluate my society by their standards
than they accept my evaluation of them by my standard. 
But don't err on the other side, is it any better in any objective
sense to be able to survive naked in a desert or wearing
a tie in downtown LA? 

If some people do not wish to seek health, long life or
soft lounge chairs then let them go their own way - I do think
they should be presented with the option and allowed to make
an informed choice though - of course even that becomes a problem
when the choice is to accept smallpox vaccine (with attendant risk
of cultural contamination) or to suffer nobly, die or bear your
scars with pride... and remain a reservoir of infection to the
rest of us.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "What is OZONE", 6 year old's Science Project
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:09:41 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Ah, yes, a question about the O-zone layer.  That is the layer of Earth's
atmosphere above the M- and N-zones, but below where the P- and Q-zones
used to be.  The P- and Q-zones were destroyed by the corrosive effects from
the exhaust of the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters.  :-)
From: andersmc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Harmony -Landfills/wetlands
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:01:51 GMT
Reply-To: andersmc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.rose-hulman.edu

Would anyone in earshot of this net have any information on the integration
of wetlands and landfills leachate treatment.  I am hoping to research
this topic and was wondering anyone had any experience or knowledge of this
happening.  I know of one in Orange County, Fla. I hope research the 
possiblity and the feasability of this project.  Any help would be greatful.
Thanks in advance.
Matthew Anderson
andersmc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
From: scott@abyss.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Scott Denning)
Subject: Re: Bad science
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:03:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Dec15.195331.16086@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean  
Alaska) writes:
> 	Three thousand years before Christ, the saplings of
> 	bristlecone pines poked through the earth and began 
> 	recording what would become 5,000 years of climatic
> 	changes.  In studying these trees, University of
> 	Arizona scientists have detected no fatter outer
> 	rings that would inevitable announce the so-called
> 	greenhouse effect.

Once again, we see the confusion between the word "global" and the word  
"ubiquitous."  Global warming refers to an increase in the mean surface  
temperature of the entire world. It does *not* imply that warming occurs  
at every point on the globe.  No one has said that warming is to be  
expected everywhere.  Some places will likely cool.

Global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases has not happened yet (at  
least not very much). There is a slight upward trend in global mean  
temperature over the past 100 or so years, but it is not at all clear that  
this is not just slow recovery from the "Little Ice Age."  Atmospheric  
scientists aren't predicting global warming because they find their back  
yards warmer than last year, they're predicting it *in the future* based  
on simple physics of the transfer of radiation in the atmosphere.

It is patently ridiculous to say things like "Gee it's cold out today (or  
this month, or this year, or even this century), so the climate will not  
warm up because of excess greenhouse gases.
--
A. Scott Denning    (303)491-8346
<scott@abyss.atmos.colostate.edu>
Dept. of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523