HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Public Citizen Rates States on Energy Use.
Keywords: Oh no! King Satan! Nuk-u-lar! Duck and Cover!
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:31:02 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Nov19.4341.8667@dosgate> "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com> writes:
> Public Citizen Rates States on Energy Use
>
>   WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- All but three states rely on 
>"dirty, dangerous and depletable" energy resources to meet a
>majority of their energy needs, according to a report released by
>Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, while none of the 50
>states has even approached its potential in developing alternatives
>to coal, nuclear and oil-generated power.

I have yet to see an inexpensive, environmentally-safe alternative to
nuclear power for base load. Do these 130,000 members know something that
I don't? Tell me quick, before I get my M.S. in this "accursed" technology.

>   The report, Energy Audit: A State-by-State Profile of Energy
>Consumption and Conservation highlights the need for greater
>funding of energy policies at the state level and describes some
>policy tools states can employ to increase energy efficiency and
>reliance on clean, safe and renewable energy resources.

Once again, show me an alternative that could pull, say 15 GWe, for the
city of Chicago. 

>   "Federal energy policy is still controlled by the fossil-fuel
>and nuclear power lobbies," continued Becker.  "It has been left up

Also, base load is still handled by fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants.
Why don't you convince one of these "eco-friendly" states to build a
15 GWe solar power facility. (Note: you're not allowed to cover the entire
state with solar panels - THAT wouldn't be very eco-friendly at all)

>   Public Citizen is a non-profit research and advocacy
>organization founded in 1971 by Ralph Nader.  Public Citizen has
>over 130,000 members nationwide.  The Critical Mass Energy Project
>is its energy-policy arm.

I enjoy having the lights come on when I hit the switch. When (hypothetically)
we shut down 75% of our capacity, what do we do next?

I'm tired of Public Citizen's finger-pointing. Let's see some of these
"clean, safe and renewable energy resources."

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Help needed about Climatic Change!!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:20:05

Since talk.environment has become dominated by reposted propaganda, I have
decided to stop reading it and posting to it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:00:48 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov13074101@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>After the ships get out in the open Atlantic, I would favor the
>Japanese saying, "If you don't stay away, we will sink you."  Since
>the Greenpeace ships are charter Dutch seagoing tugs (ah, what
>money will do for a cause), and their crews did not sign up to
>die for Greenpeace, they will leave when threatened.  Greenpeace
>will huff and puff, but that would end the matter for now and
>the Greenpeace publicity machine would have to find some other
>material.
>--

Such a scenario will only occur in the wet dreams of GReenpeace's
executive director and fundraising director. It would be the greatest
thing to happen to the group in terms of fundraising since the French
secret service blew up their ship a few years back. Unlike the French
government, I am reasonably sure that the Japanese are not that stupid.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:59:41

In article <16NOV92.11886370.0072@VM1.MCGILL.CA> IEGS@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA (IEGS) writes:


   I'M TAKING A JOB AS A SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER AT A HIGH SCHOOL
   IN DENVER, CO. DOES SOMEONE KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND A LIST OF LOCAL
   ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD COMETO SPEAK TO MY CLASSES
   Please, reply to MC.BER

Very likely, Petr Beckmann in Boulder, (303) 444-0841 home, 443-2211
x7313 office would be glad to speak to your class.  His views are not
entirely conventional.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:20:52 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov17160634@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> 
> While we aren't using the plutonium in our spent fuel rods, we aren't
> throwing it away either.
> 
> Can any of the nuclear engineers say how much fissionable material there
> is between the plutonium and leftover U-235 compared to the original
> content of U-235 in the enriched uranium used as fuel?
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 
> 
> 

In commerical power reactors, the fuel begins with between 2 and 3.5% enrich-
ment in U235.  They vary the enrichment loading throughout the core for a
better power distribution.  When spent fuel is removed, the % left also varies
depending on what they are allowed for their burn-up rating.  If my memory
is correct the U235 % is less than 0.5%.  What percent the Pu makes also
depends on the allowed burn-up but roughly 20% of the power generated in a
fuel assembly prior to removal is due to Pu.

Hope this helps.

Don Palmrose




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Help needed about Climatic Change!!!
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:08:49 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson


John we shall never forget your constant.


-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Pu production (was: Greennazis
Keywords: Plutonium! Satan! Evil! Danger! Run Away! Run Away!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 17:50:49 GMT

In article <FqG=1W-@engin.umich.edu> pkeller@engin.umich.edu (Paul Michael Keller) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.031642.24587@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
> 
>>I believe that if you crank out the math (342,000 lb UO2 for a PWR), you'll
>>get about 3-4 pounds of plutonium per GWe/year. This is the total plutonium,
>>so you'll have to find the Pu isotopic ratios (posted a little while back).
>
>Uh, pardon me but did you put a decimal point in the wrong place?  More like 
>300-400 lb plutonium per GWe/year.  342,000 lb UO2 is also a bit high even
>for a large PWR.  The core loading for my former place of employment, 
>the largest PWR station in the US, is only 257,000 lb.

Yep, my fault. There would be more PU production (still, none of it bomb-
grade (disclaimer for environmentalists)). The weight of the fuel was taken 
from Nero, so I'd have to check to see the capacity. It may be a 1400 MWe or
more (Nero's book was written in the 70's when everybody was a bit more
optimistic).

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The U.S. Military's War on the Environment
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:31:53 GMT

In article <ACTIV-L.16Nov1992.1753@naughty-peahen>, ACTIV-L via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
> [From EcoNet wri.news Conference]
> [Also Posted to misc.activism.progressive (by Somebody Else)]
> ================================================================
> => From: Foreign Bases Project <fbp@igc.apc.org>
> => Subject: THE [MILITARY'S] WAR ON ENVIRONMENT
> 
> THE MILITARY'S WAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT
> BY JOHN M. MILLER
> 
>  Exhaust from solid-fuelled rockets and missiles
> injects large amounts of ozone harming hydrochloric acid
> directly into the upper atmosphere.
> 
 Rocket and space-shuttle launches contribute very little to stratospheric
 chlorine. One year's worth of shuttle and solid-rocket launches puts 
 0.725 kTon of Chlorine into the stratosphere. Chlorine emissions from CFC's
 and related compounds exceeded 1200 kTon/year during the '80s.

 Ref: M. J. Prather et al., J. Geophys. Res. _95_, 18583 (1990).

 Robert
From: rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Robert Kim Rickenbrode II)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Animal Ethics?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 08:59:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

mrfgini@bu.edu (hedie park) writes:

>	I am not a vegetarian, but I am against any type of 
>hunting. 

[cut]
 
>However, I can't see the
>killing of an animal.  I for one love animals even if 
>endangered.  They were put on this land to live a life
>just like us humans, but we go and hunt them ending their
>life without their consent or acknowledgement.

[cut]

So, uh, what exactly do you think goes on in slaughterhouses?  

Robert Rickenbrode (rkrii@cco.caltech.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov16.063255.4320@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
	<JMC.92Nov16001311@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <17034@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:36:01

In article <17034@umd5.umd.edu> bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Nov16001311@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> John McCarthy,
   jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >I suppose the ultimate upshot of the flap is that the Japanese will
   >build their own reprocessing plant.  Then when we finally give up
   >Jimmy Carter's foolish idea that it would provide a "good example"
   >to not salvage the plutonium from our own spent fuel rods, we can
   >send our fuel rods to Japan to be reprocessed - with one more
   >well-deserved hit in the balance of trade.

   If the Japanese do establish such a plant, they will soon be the only
   ones.  They can have it.
   ___________________________________
   William E. Williams, bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu
   Divison of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
   St. Mary's College of Maryland
   St. Mary's City, MD 20686

Why do you think the French will give up reprocessing?  In fact, why
are you against it?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: gyld@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Leo Gildor)
Subject: Natural Resource Mgmnt Grad Schools
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 19:35:46 GMT

UC Berkeley has a dept called Agriculture and Natural Resource Management...

Anyone know of comparable dept's in other universities that have
graduate degree programs?  Departments, that is, geared more to the policy
end of management than to the hard-core science end.

Thanks much.

-Dan
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: barry@seas.smu.edu (Robert Barry)
Subject: Re: Animal Ethics?
Organization: SMU School Of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:30:47 GMT

In article <2999.2B0D2CB5@catpe.alt.za> Graeme.Montagu@p0.f40.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Graeme Montagu) writes:
> -=> Quoting Truman Fenton to All <=-
>
> TF> I have heard a great deal of talk about ethics and animal treatment.
> TF> I agree that no animal should be tortured.  That I WILL take for
> TF> granted. However,  why is it unethical to hunt?  I will agree that
> TF> standing back fro 300 yards with a dear rifle is not cunning or sporty,
> TF> but is it unethical?  If an animal is killed only for a trophy and the
>
> Unfortunately, I couldn't reply to your question from an ethical
> point of view, but I sincerely believe that hunting is justified.  It
> is a singularly major source of foreign investment in rural areas of
> sub-Saharan Africa.  Funds obtained from the trophy hunting of game is
> given back to the rural community of that area.  The animal carcass
> is also consumed by the locals.  In so doing, the continued existence
> of both endangered wildlife and local human community is ensured in
> co-existence.
>
>Regards
>Graeme
>

This kind of hunting can be tolerated, but I dont know if it is 
"justified".  IMHO

I dont hunt anything that can feel pain. (which is not a long list)

Robert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Barry		Dept. of Computer Science/Engineering
barry@seas.smu.edu	School of Engineering and Applied Science
			Southern Methodist University
			Dallas, Texas 75275

"You can put you're cat in the oven, but that don't make it a biscuit"
		from _White_Men_Can't_Jump_
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Barry		Dept. of Computer Science/Engineering
barry@seas.smu.edu	School of Engineering and Applied Science
			Southern Methodist University
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Garbage disposal
Keywords: garbage, disposables
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:32:54 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct30.054859.23903@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, tlund@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Thomas Lund) writes:

>But, what happens when people do the ultimate skimp on disposal and leave
>their garbage in inappropriate places like on the street?

Well, maybe the police would have time to catch stuff like this if they
weren't glued to their radar collecting speed taxes or wasting time on
the War On Drugs trying to stem the tide of violent crime that Prohibition
had warned us would come if we banned things people wanted to buy.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 12:57:52 -0500 
From: Truman Fenton <tf26+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: junk mail
Distribution: na

>I receive too much junk mail!  Is there any way to stop this?
> 
>                    Thanks,
>                        Bob Murphy (rmurphy@aludra.usc.edu)

YES!  Just cut out the address label and mail it back to the ocmpany
with a letter.  Tell them that you have moved or that you do not accept
solicitations or something like that.  It might take a couple of
letters, but a representativw of a local gorcery store uses this method
and has found it sucessful.

Truman Fenton
tf26@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<17034@umd5.umd.edu> <1992Nov17.213909.10492@michael.apple.com>
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:06:34

While we aren't using the plutonium in our spent fuel rods, we aren't
throwing it away either.

Can any of the nuclear engineers say how much fissionable material there
is between the plutonium and leftover U-235 compared to the original
content of U-235 in the enriched uranium used as fuel?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: bhaines@ldgo.columbia.edu (bill haines)
Subject: Re: USA - Question
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:07:54 GMT



It depends greatly on which state you live in. The more congested states
have some sort of mandetory recycling. In New Jersey (my home state) it 
started with 25% of all solid waste and progressed to 40% and is due to 
go to 60% I believe. Weather or not to sort depends on the local community.
Mine was one of the top in the state in participation and % recycled and
we had several bins 1)paper, all types with no restrictions, 2)corrugated 
cardboard 3)plastic, glass, aluminum and tin (steel) containers and
4)scrap metal 5)waste oil 6)grass 7)leaves 8)branches 9)batteries then
trash.

I have moved to New York which does recycle but it is not mandetory as it
is in New Jersey, they also restrict paper to only newspaper but this varies
from town to town.

There are many states where there is NO recycling at all except beverage
bottle because they have the land to dump and there is not much grassroot
movements to start.


Bill Haines
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964
914-359-2900

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Pu production (was: Greennazis
Keywords: Plutonium! Satan! Evil! Danger! Run Away! Run Away!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:48:20 GMT

In article <28530@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>	Any Pu produced would be mixed in with the rest of the spent
>fuel. By "not bomb-grade" do you just mean this(i.e. separation would be
>needed) or  is there a further difference?

Plutonium from reprocessed fuel rods contains a lot (something
like 10-20%) of Pu240 in addition to the Pu239.  Pu239 is what
you want for bombs.  Pu240 is very bad.  It has a high
spontaneous fission rate, which gives you a high neutron
background, which makes it somewhere between impossible and
very, very difficult to compress the plutonium to supercritical
and keep it there for long enough to get more than a "fizzle".

You can separate Pu240 and Pu239, but it is considerably more
difficult than separating U238 and U235 because the mass
difference is only 1/3 as great.  Nobody does this; people who
want to make plutonium fission bombs, without any exceptions I
know of, build a special reactor for plutonium production which
runs on a short enough cycle to avoid producing much Pu240.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:48:21 -0500 
From: Truman Fenton <tf26+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Help needed about Climatic Change!!!

In response to the post
   15-Nov-92  Help needed about Climatic ..  A. Jaber@keele.ac.uk (192)        

 
>Do You think that the natural aspects of climatic changes have are going
>faster than man-made changes?
 
Non-human-related climatic changes occur very rapidly and on a large
scale.  Obviously, the planet can change itself much more quicklly than
humans through volocanic activity.  This can easily be seen in the
global temperature drop due to the vocanic eruuption in the Phillipens
recently.

On the oother hand, humans continue a disruuption of natural processes
by steadily dumping tons of C02, CFC's, HCFC's and other such gases into
the atmosphere.  While nature is self-healing, it is obvious that we
humans are altering the natural state.  For example, if you believe the
current reports, the hole in the oozone is now three times the area of
the continental US.  In addition, entire forests are dying in Eastern
Canada and the Northeastern US.  In fact my high school in Souther New
Hampshire took part in a study coordinated by the University of New
Hampshire in which our students surveyed the damage done by acid rain on
our forests.  According to results of similiar studies trees in New
Hampshire will begin dying within five years due to the acidity of the
rain.

These statements are mine and I am not a researcher, but as far as I
know my sources are correct.

Truman Fenton
Freshman at Carnegie Mellon University 
Electrical and Computer Engineering

INTERNET: tf26@andrew.cmu.edu

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: alex@math.idbsu.edu (Alex Feldman)
Subject: Seventh Generation
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 07:41:28

Anyone ever heard of this outfit (sorry if this is a FAQ, I don't read
this group regularly)?  They just sent me a catalogue, and I would
like to know if they are on the level and as environmentally friendly
as they claim to be.

I would prefer responses by email.  Thanks.
--
	--alex			alex@math.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: parsavan@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Dara Parsavand)
Subject: Re: Recycling is wrong - NOT!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:56:50 GMT

In article <6825@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500axel@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes:
>
>The quality
>of the recycled product is always less than the quality of the product
>you started with. 

This is of course patently false with respect to aluminum and other metals -
does the poster think that the original ores have such high quality?  I have
heard people make this claim about glass, but it seems equally absurd to me. 

The two materials that most people think of as having limited cycles are
paper and plastic.  It is obvious that the fibers in paper may detoriate
during recycling and virgin pulp will need to be added.  With respect to 
plastic though, I am dismayed by all the pessimistic views on its recycling.
I don't view crude oil as being all that clean or pure, so why shouldn't
recycled plastic make a good input into the organic chemistry process to
make new plastic?

dara
parsavan@prony.colorado
From: rmurphy@usc.edu (Bob Murphy)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: junk mail
Date: 21 Nov 1992 17:18:31 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

I receive too much junk mail!  Is there any way to stop this?

                    Thanks,
                        Bob Murphy (rmurphy@aludra.usc.edu)