HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:17:28 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep11.223009.15329@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>I think the blinders are over your eyes instead.  Do you really find
>>it believable that someone is planning on building a nuclear facility
>>that under normal use will release half as much radiation every year
>>as Chernobyl did in its accident?

>Yes.

I think this is a rather excessive level of paranoia.  After all,
don't you think that people will get upset to the tune of lynch mobs
when residents near the site start dropping dead of radiation
sickenss?  I mean at the levels Greenpeace is implying we aren't
talking cancer thirty years down the road for .1% of people within
five miles.  We're talking hair falling out in six months for people
within fifty miles.  Do you really think that a Western government
would need Greenpeace's badgering to convince them that this is a bad
idea?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 00:36:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <STEINMAN.92Sep9145437@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
>I think we all agree that radiation is dangerous, although we may
>disagree on the dose. Then it becomes not a matter of protecting us
>from nature, but avoiding adding to nature's existing perils.

Sure.  And fire is dangerous.  Water is dangerous.  Crossing the
street is dangerous.  Driving is *incredibly* dangerous.
Eating is dangerous.  Going to the bathroom is dangerous.

All of these things are more dangerous than a couple of millirems
couple of millirems of radiation, even given the very pessimistic
linear hypothesis.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Humboldt County Redwoods on the Chopping Block
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:47:49
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mike@execu.execu.com's message of 12 Sep 92 21:39:01 GMT

>> On March 6, 1991 . . .
> If someone came, would they be 18 months too late?

=o= Uh, no.  The current situation is a consequence of events
that took place on March 6, 1991.

=o= I was afraid that the article's starting off with that date
was going to confuse folks.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company
	<1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com> <8tsn3_#.sss@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:54:37 GMT

In article <8tsn3_#.sss@netcom.com> sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions) writes:
   Beach sand near Jacksonville, FL has a very high natural
   concentration of Thorium, and lying on the beach will give an alpha
   dose many times higher than "background" radiation.

Doctor: "What seems to be the problem?"
Patient: "I hurts when I hold my head this way."
Doctor: "Then don't do that!"

   Not an artifact, mind you, a "natural" phenomenon.  I wonder if
   "natural" radiation is embraced by the Greenbozos with the same
   enthusiasm with which "man-made" radiation is villified.

Staring at the sun is also a natural phenomena, but will make you
blind. I sincerely hope all the green-baiters will start eating light
bulbs, lying on radioactive beaches, and staring at the sun so they'll
die off and we won't constantly be insulted with ridiculous straw-man
proposals such as this!

I think we all agree that radiation is dangerous, although we may
disagree on the dose. Then it becomes not a matter of protecting us
from nature, but avoiding adding to nature's existing perils.

I have no desire to lie on a plutonium or thorium beach, but the
thorium one is already there, while we can avoid the plutonium one if
we chose.

--
: : Jan Steinman	   steinman@is.morgan.com		 Bytesmiths : :
: : 2002 Parkside Court				   West Linn, OR 97068-2767 : :
: : 503/657-7703					       212/956-8722 : :
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3684 sci.environment:11308 alt.activism:16212
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:48:42 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


Mark, please keep your lines under 80 characters.

In article <1992Sep10.152713.19965@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> mark@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Mark Webster) writes:

>All you anti-environmentalists are really picking the wrong thing to use
>as a rant against "eco-terrorists".  All of you are focussing on a
>"few millirems 
>of harmless radiation".  Even trace amounts of plutonium are
>dangerous. 

YES!!! IT IS THE EVIL KILLER PLUTONIUM.  IT'S MERE TAINT DESTROYS ALL
IT TOUCHES.  THERE ARE NO NO NO SAFE CONCENTRATIONS!!!!!  

Is that the idea, Mark?  Kind of like cooties where you touch someone
who touched someone who touched someone who had cooties so now you
have them?  

There are safe levels of plutonium and anyone who believes they are
not has a serious problem involving cranial insertion in the rectum.

The interesting question is whether the levels near Sellafield are
dangerous or not.  As Greenpeace avoids all mention of the issue I
think it is safe to assume that they are safe.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3646 sci.environment:11238 alt.activism:16121 talk.politics.misc:44549
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:49:12 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <STEINMAN.92Sep9145437@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
>In article <8tsn3_#.sss@netcom.com> sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions) writes:
>   Beach sand near Jacksonville, FL has a very high natural
>   concentration of Thorium, and lying on the beach will give an alpha
>   dose many times higher than "background" radiation.

>   Not an artifact, mind you, a "natural" phenomenon.  I wonder if
>   "natural" radiation is embraced by the Greenbozos with the same
>   enthusiasm with which "man-made" radiation is villified.

>I think we all agree that radiation is dangerous, although we may
>disagree on the dose. Then it becomes not a matter of protecting us
>from nature, but avoiding adding to nature's existing perils.

>I have no desire to lie on a plutonium or thorium beach, but the
>thorium one is already there, while we can avoid the plutonium one if
>we chose.

But why should we bother if the danger from the plutonium beach is
many thousands of times smaller than the danger from the thorium
beach?  After all, if the natural thorium beach isn't dangerous enough
to justify inconveniencing ourselves to avoid it then why should we
inconvenience ourselves to avoid creating a less dangerous plutonium
beach?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: "Global Warming"
Date: 11 Sep 92  16:08:00 EST

Organization: University of Lowell

I wish the enviromental nutcases would get there crises straight.  Not so long
ago we were told of the impending "New Ice Age." This was because temperatures
around the globe showed a steady decline.  Then in the 70's the temperature
started going up.  Now everyone's concerned about global warming.  So which one
is it, ice age or global warming?  In case you were wondering, CO2 emissions
from people, industry, etc., are negligible compared to those produced by
volcanoes.  Even if we eradicated every source of non-volcano CO2 emissions we
wouldn't change the "global warming" trend one iota.
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Xref: sparky talk.environment:3635 sci.environment:11205 alt.activism:16095 talk.politics.misc:44399
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.055251.23318@edsi.plexus.COM>, grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing) writes...
>Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally 
>anywhere on earth.  If it is indeed plutonium, it was put there by 
>man.

Actually a small amount of Pu-239 can be detected in uranium ore from the
spontaneous fission of uranium which releases neutrons that convert some U-238
atoms to Pu-239, the same process that occurs in a nuclear reactor.  Also
according to the CRC a small amount of Pu-244 has been detected in some other
ore.  I don't know what the origin of this (half-life of millions of years,
perhaps it was originally a large deposit of plutonium ore that decayed away
except a few atoms?)

>  Other radioactive elements with the exception of amercium 
>either self-decompose so rapidly they have no practical life, or 
>exist naturally in nature.

This is totally untrue, unless by "self-decompose so rapidly they have no
practical life" you mean anything with a half-life under 500 million years
or so.  Every single element has at least one known radioactive isotope,
and the half-lives of them range from nanoseconds to billions of years.
There are many with half-lives in the thousands or millions of years that are
not found in nature, if there ever was any it has decayed away.

There is nothing special about plutonium compared to other radioactives,
a similar amount of activity of any alpha-emitter if ground into dust and
breathed into the lungs stands a good chance of causing cancer.  One theory
behind _how_ smoking causes lung cancer is the tobacco plant tends to absorb
natural radioactives which get breathed into the lungs when it is smoked.

-Mike
From: Richard.Childers@iphase.UUCP (Richard Childers)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 11 Sep 92  00:17:25 EST

Organization: Memes-R-Us

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. 

>How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.

				.
				.
				.

>>Up to 27.5 million curies of radioactivity will then be 
>>released annually.  This may be compared with 
>>the approximately 50 million curies which, according to 
>>official data, were released at Chernobyl during the 
>>accident. 

Gee, Michael, why do you ask questions that are answered below ?

>Now why do I think that something in that paragraph smells fishy?

Because you read it with blinders on.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:00:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.215708.14026@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes...
>moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>>There is nothing special about plutonium compared to other radioactives,
>>a similar amount of activity of any alpha-emitter if ground into dust and
>>breathed into the lungs stands a good chance of causing cancer.  One theory
>>behind _how_ smoking causes lung cancer is the tobacco plant tends to absorb
>>natural radioactives which get breathed into the lungs when it is smoked.

>It's worth noting that this is thought to be specific to tobacco grown in
>Virginia, in the tailings of local uranium mines ... which brings us back
>to the question of whether nuclear processing or reprocessing should be a
>default approach to redressing whatever imbalances we perceive in the world
>today.

The 'culprit' I read about is the phosphate fertilizers used, which naturally
contain a noticeable amount of uranium and/or thorium, and therefore their
daughters.  Tobacco is very efficient at absorbing one of these daughters
(Po?).  Most tobacco fields have used these fertilizers, and so just about all
of it is affected.  In addition U and Th aren't all that rare, many granites
contain them, so soils derived from these granites contain them.

I didn't even know there were uranium mines in Virginia (thought they were
all out west)

-Mike
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Followup-To: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<casseres-110992161430@missmolly.apple.com>
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:10:49

I'll bet that Friedman is somewhat more likely to look something
up than Casseres who offers no new facts at all - merely picks nits.
Pretty good nits, some of them, but still just nits.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: dodeca!clyde@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: NEW electric vehicle mailing list
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:35:53 GMT
Reply-To: cvisser@ucrmath.ucr.edu ("Clyde R. Visser, KD6GWN")
Organization: Ameritec Corporation
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA21044; Sun, 13 Sep 92 16:07:29 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA02982; Sun, 13 Sep 92 16:07:28 -0700
X-Received:  by dodeca.UUCP (UUPC/extended 1.11q);           Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:35:57 PDT
X-To: talk.environment.usenet
X-Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


EV on LISTSERV@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu -  EV Electric Vehicle Discussion
                                   Mailing List

The  EV Electric Vehicle Discussion Mailing List is  intended  to 
provide  a  forum  to discuss the current state of  the  art  and 
future  direction of electric vehicles.  It is *not* intended  to 
discuss  either  EV  appropriateness or  comparisons  with  other 
transportation primary drive modes such as the venerable internal 
combustion engine.  Those "discussions" are best relegated to the 
appropriate usenet newsgroup.

An  electric vehicle is any vehicle which uses an electric  motor 
as  the primary or sole motive force.  The energy storage  device 
used  to drive said motor can use any technology  including,  but 
not  limited  to,  solar  electric,  electric  battery,  internal 
combustion  engine  coupled  with a electric  generator,  or  any 
combination of these.  Production electric vehicles are currently 
available.  Internal combustion engine vehicles can be  converted 
to electric.  There exist a number of companies who perform this
conversion.  There is also a number of manufacturers of equipment 
allowing you to do-it-yourself. 

To  subscribe,  send the following  command  to  LISTSERV@SJSUVM1 
(bitnet) or LISTSERV@SJSUVM1.SJSU.EDU:

SUBSCRIBE EV firstname lastname

After  subscribing, messages may be sent to the list  by  sending 
to: EV@SJSUVM1 (bitnet) or ev@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu.

Owner:  Clyde R. Visser, KD6GWN <cvisser@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,pnw.general
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Defenders of Wildlife responds to Bush's speech
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:07:47 GMT

In <1992Sep15.020626.7703@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

:Here is a statement by Defenders of Wildlife 
:on President Bush's speech in the Pacific Northwest:

:.....deleted to save space.
:environmental protection, but the Bush administration policy has been
:too short-sighted to recognize this fact," said Rodger Schlickeisen,

It isn't only the Bush administration.  Clinton and all the other
``major'' canditates I've heard are pandering to whatever group
they're talking to at any given time, but what's new about that?

None of the politicians in the U.S. are doing the jobs they're
being paid to do -- run the country.  Can they pass a budget?
Can they make the difficult decisions about priorities?  They
just promise the illiterate electorate what they want to hear
regardless of what is really in the best long-term interests of
the whole country/society/world.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: --Public Backs Renewables
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:33:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

Which proves that people can be trained to give the "right" answers.

It sure is scary and depressing that such a large percent of the people
are so gullible.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3628 sci.environment:11182 alt.activism:16073 talk.politics.misc:44276
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 9 Sep 92 06:12:50 GMT
  <1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>>RADIOACTIVE SAND FROM SELLAFIELD PROVES NUCLEAR REPROCESSING IS 
>>UNLAWFUL 
>
>>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. 
>
>How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.

BZZZZZT!!!  Irrelevant.  We're talking *religion* here.  There is no
concept of quantity in orthodox religion.  Just as the strict observance
of Passover requires that only foods certified by a rabbi to be TOTALLY 
free of leavening be consumed, the new Green state religion considers
*detectable* amounts of radioactivity, or heavy metals in fish, or
what-have-you to be Sins against Mother Earth.  Unlike Jewish religious
law, the new Green state religion is exempted from the "establishment"
clause in the First Amendment.

I remember well how in the 1970's people would actually propose that
NO DETECTABLE AMOUNTS of such nasty things as mercury in tuna be 
permitted.  All this would do is let instrumentation technology set
limits.  Not only is this illogical on its face, but these limits would
automatically recede to never-never land as the technology advanced.
(Instrumentation has gone from parts-per-million to parts-per-billion
since then.)  The whole sad story of how civil-service Lysenkoites
sold the public on this bullshit is documented in Edith Efron's book
_The Apocalyptics: Cancer and the Big Lie_.

>>Sand from the shore 
>>in the area around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in England.  
>>Sand in which children play and families have their picnics.  
>
>Note the brazen scare tactics.
>
>>Many people have become ill with cancer in this region.  
>
>Of course.  Many people have become ill with cancer in every region.
>Note how the carefully avoid saying that radiation is the cause -
>being caught in blatant lies is embarrassing.

Efron's book shows how the Lysenkoites would turn their half-baked
doomsday stories over to the scientifically illiterate Media without
subjecting them to peer review by established epidemiologists.  The
signal-to-noise ratio in any demographic statistics you care to name
is horrendous.  Unless you use the techniques learned over many years
by the science of epidemiology, you can "prove" any kind of BS you
wish, thereby becoming a liar of the third kind.  The Lysenkoites
did just that.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3669 sci.environment:11287 alt.activism:16173 talk.politics.misc:44938
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:30:09 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>I think the blinders are over your eyes instead.  Do you really find
>it believable that someone is planning on building a nuclear facility
>that under normal use will release half as much radiation every year
>as Chernobyl did in its accident?

Yes.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.