HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 08:19:39 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan23183736@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>It is conceivable that we shall have to substitute
>for high quality wood, which is indeed being rapidly used up.  More
>likely, we will succeed in getting high quality wood from tree farms.


"High quality" wood is tight-grained and knot-free.  These are
characteristics of wood from trees which grow into an intact canopy to
a very old age: the very type you can't get from a tree farm.  The
tight grain is due to the slower growth which occurs in established
forests.  "Even-aged management" (clearcutting and monoculture) gives
trees which grow quickly into full sunlight, with a resulting loose
grain.  This is why wood from old-growth forests brings a higher price
than the same species from a tree farm.  Ask any cabinetmaker.


Cameron
--
He who does arithmetic day and night can spout as much nonsense as
anyone else.
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: TMI Releases & Population Dose
Date: 25 Jan 1993 10:38:04 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<Jym.8Jan1993.0930@naughty-peahen>
	<1993Jan10.232841.22830@pmafire.inel.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: russ@pmafire.inel.gov's message of 10 Jan 93 23:28:41 GMT

> The central estimate of population dose was about 2000
> person-rem for the 541,000 persons living within 50 miles.
> This is an average dose of 4 mrem.

=o= I presume these numbers come from the Tokuhata studies,
since that's the source you keep trotting out.  Care to go
into detail about how these estimates are made?  Care to give
any numbers reflecting a variance in dose, rather than some
flat average?

>> It is well-documented that MetEd does not have measurements
>> of the radiation released . . .
> There is, of course, a difference between "radiation released"
> and "dose".  That distinction seems to have eluded Mr. Dyer.

=o= The distinction does not elude me at all.  What does elude
me, though, is how you think you can get away from the fact that
"radiation released" somehow has no effect on "dose received."

=o= In fact, the premise that only small amounts of radiation
was released (a premise proven false by every independent
analysis of the accident) has had a very direct effect on the
studies used to estimate the dose received.  Since the official
amount released was small, Tokuhata saw no point in actually
monitoring the health of hundreds of thousands of people.
    <_Jym_>
From: kruppd@westminster.ac.uk (Declan Kruppa)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Contact in Cuba
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:12:55 GMT
Organization: University of Westminster

Sender:Ben Croxford 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Westminster
Keywords: energy environment press

I am finishing off a PhD in England on the subject of intelligent controls for heating systems. After this I hope to travel to Cuba. I would be interested in receiving the names and addresses of any groups in Cuba working on intelligent controls, solar heating systems, air pollution, or alternative energy. If you know anyone who might know of such a group. I would be very grateful for the information. I can be contacted by e-mail on
  croxfordb@uk.ac.pcl.mole or
  kruppd@westminster.ac.uk

or letter mail to Ben Croxford,
                    12a Southwold Mansions,
                        Widley Rd.
                            London W9 2LE
                               ENGLAND.
:wq
From: rfriedel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Friedel)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Real CAFE Standards
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:44:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: rfriedel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu



Recently there has been a series of discussions about automotive 
fuel economy on the sci and talk.environment newsgroups.  Some of 
this discussion was started when somebody posted a set of goals 
from some environmental group.  (Greenpeace, the Greens, Sierra 
Club, etc., ?).  I do know that the Sierra Club is pushing for a 
new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard of 45 miles per 
gallon.  The present standard is supposed to be about 27 miles per 
gallon.  In reality, this in nowhere near being met at this time.  

Why not, you ask?  There are too many non-cars being sold.  They 
do not have to meet the same standards that are applied to cars.
What are these non-cars?  They are the trucks, multi-purpose 
vehicles, & sport-utility vehicles that so many of us drive.  This 
includes the very popular mini van.  (I was looking at a mini van 
this morning in the dealer's lot.  EPA mileage numbers were 17 in 
the city and 23 on highway; in no way could that mini van get 27 
miles per gallon in average use.)

Here is a list of the top ten vehicle sellers, 1992.

     1.  Ford F-series pickup (truck)   488,539
     2.  Chevrolet C/K pickup (truck)   455,250
     3.  Ford Tarus (car)               409,751
     4.  Honda Accord (car)             393,477
     5.  Ford Explorer (truck)          306,681
     6.  Toyota Camry (car)             286,602
     7.  Ford Ranger (truck)            247,777
     8.  Dodge Caravan (truck)          244,149
     9.  Ford Escort (car)              236,622
     10. Honda Civic (car)              219,228
     
The car and truck classifications are my opinions.  The numbers 
add up as follows:
     1,739,396 trucks
     1,545,680 cars

I would suggest that the environmental groups should be demanding 
that the private vehicle fleet economy be 27 miles/gallon.  The 
vast majority of the privately driven trucks are being driven as 
cars, taking one person to work each day.

Looking at the list above, I can see two vehicles that have an EPA 
average (EPA City + EPA Highway)/2 > or = 27 miles/gallon.  Those 
probably are the Ford Escort and the Honda Civic.  Could any of 
you fill in the numbers for all ten vehicles on the list?  (Yes, I 
know it is complicated because of all the engine and transmission 
combinations but some  "ball-park" numbers could be found.)

Rather than demanding 45 mpg cars (or 60 to 100 mpg science 
projects) that few people would buy, we should be asking for a 
real CAFE standard of 27 mpg that applies to all vehicles in the 
private vehicle fleet.


Ron Friedel


-- 
Ron Friedel
GeoSciences  UW-Milwaukee
rfriedel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Real CAFE Standards
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1k0jqhINN66b@uwm.edu>, rfriedel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Friedel) writes:

>some  "ball-park" [MPG] numbers could be found.

>     3.  Ford Tarus (car)               409,751

That's Taurus, and it runs around 27-28 MPG.

>     4.  Honda Accord (car)             393,477

The Accord runs 28-30 MPG.

>     6.  Toyota Camry (car)             286,602

The Camry runs high twenties.

>I would suggest that the environmental groups should be demanding 
>that the private vehicle fleet economy be 27 miles/gallon.  The 
>vast majority of the privately driven trucks are being driven as 
>cars, taking one person to work each day.

I have to agree that trucks and other utility vehicles should not be
exempt from from fuel economy figures - in fact, they should not be
exempt from _any_ regulations that apply to standard cars unless the
buyer can prove the vehicle will not be registered or used as a private
vehicle.  While I think the entire CAFE thing is stupid to begin with,
failing to apply it equally leads to inequities and weirdness in sales
patterns which is undesirable in itself, and I think it is responsible
for a goodly amount of the switchover to trucks and sport-utes.

>Rather than demanding 45 mpg cars (or 60 to 100 mpg science 
>projects) that few people would buy, we should be asking for a 
>real CAFE standard of 27 mpg that applies to all vehicles in the 
>private vehicle fleet.

Sauce for the goose...

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.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace Press Releases
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:31:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.045005.23404@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
> In article <1993Jan25.192627.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> 
  parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
>> GP was more interested in bashing DuPont than in doing anything constructive 
>> about ozone depletion.  
> 
> It appears as though DuPont and Greenpeace are finally on the same side of the 
> table now -- when CFCs are phased out and the ultra-expensive "replacements" 
> are phased in, the chemical companies will stand to make *billions*.
> 

 Nevertheless Greenpeace is still bashing DuPont, by declaring war on HCFC's
 and other substitutes. 

 DuPont looks after its own interests. 
 
 As does Greenpeace. 
 
 Here's my hypothesis:
 GP needs to have an "enemy", that is their historic role. They thrive on
 confrontation. I don't think they sit in their offices and say, "subscriptions
 are down, let's bash evil corporation #35 today so we can make money by 
 exploiting people's chemophobia", although that is the effect.  I think that 
 they naturally approach problems by looking for evil, profit-making 
 perpetrators. Organizations with these kinds of attitudes can be found all
 along the political spectrum.

 That's my reaction, after reading a number of Jym's press releases (as well
 as reports in the popular media.) 

 Robert
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth
From: max@megatek.com (Max Elliot)
Subject: Re: New energy budget, please write
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:17:54 GMT

From article <1993Jan19.222038.11614@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, by constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino):
> In article <1993Jan19.070527.5722@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>>Background:  In the last 12 years energy efficiency, conservation, and
>>renewable energy have taken a back seat to reliance on fossil fuels.  The
>>environmental consequences are devastating: smog, acid rain, global warming,
>>water pollution, toxic waste and more.  Fortunately, strategies to improve
>>America's energy efficiency and utilize renewable (i.e. solar, wind, biomass,
>>and geothermal) and natural gas technologies exist today that can deliver
>>energy while protecting the environment, creating jobs, promoting the export
>>of American technologies and improving our security by reducing our dependence
>>on oil.
> 
> You contradict yourself. If in fact global warming does occur and is due to 
> CO2, building hundreds of natural gas plants won't slow it down.
> 
> Killing off nukes AND fossils? Wow. That's a pretty lofty goal. 
> 
> I'd rather be dependent somewhat on fossils than completely dependent on
> the wind, the sunshine, etc.

  I'd rather be totally dependent on the wind and sun. It may not be possible
  in the short term, but thinking only of the *short* term is *short* sighted.
  I'm curious as to why you would not like being totally dependent on the wind
  and sun? Worried they might let you down? I'm worried that our friendly fossil  will *definitely* let us down, it's just a matter of time.

  Max
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:43:52 GMT

Phillip Johnson (philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: I am not sure that it is possible to hold a discussion in this
: group, because the majority of participants seem to consider the
: neo-Darwinian theory to be so obviously true that doubt is not
: taken seriously.  On that basis, what is there to discuss?


First of all, I'm really happy to see some discussion here.
So, I now glady take back my complaint that you choose not
to reply to any questions.

Second, you have written a book dealing with Evolution.  That
implies that you perceive yourself to be some sort of expert on
this subject.  If this is so, it seems natural that you should
be easily able to answer any of our questions about your book.
(This is what Chris Colby asked for a couple of weeks ago.)

What is there to discuss?  Neo-dawrin theory seems obviously
true with the data we have.  If you have some new data that
changes this, please share it with us.  If it is valid, you
will change my mind about the truth of neo-darwin theory.

You seem to be saying that we are looking at our existing data
incorrectly.  This is tricky.  To convince people of this, you
first have to demonstrate complete understanding of the current
accepted view and then tell us how your view is better.

I wish you good luck with this.

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: in defense of directed mutagenesis
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:01:00 GMT

   Ever since I stuck my foot in it last year by denying directed 
mutagenisis takes place when, in fact, an issue of Science with 
an article on it was sitting on my desk I've been thinking about 
it.  I've distilled it down to a couple questions...

#1
   Is there room for redundancy that does not use the same coding?
If genes are being restored to the wild state from a modified state the
information is coming from somewhere.  Possible sources would be...

   Other Genes (not likely)

   Stress (the wild genes are at some sort of potential minima so that
           mutation back to that state is favored by something like the
           mechanical forces on the molocules involved or a quirk of the
           biochemistry.  If there were such forces genes that minimized
           them would have an added advantage...)

#1a (muy stupido variant)
   Are all the copies of the wild genes modified?  If not that would be a 
great place to ge the information from.

#2
   As I recall derected mutagenisis is triggered (in at least one example)
by starving the organism.  Does a hungry bacteria start splicing the part
of it's genome that code from food utilization enzymes as a response to the
stress until the stress goes away?  This would be hyperevolution rather than
directed mutagenisis.

#3
   Chris, what ARE the leading proposed mechanisms anyway?  I mean the ones
that won't cost you your fingernails to explain via keyboard.

Eagerly awaiting Chris' report on that talk he mentioned...

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: SWAA Lecture
Date: 29 Jan 93 00:34:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1jelm6$ejh@agate.berkeley.edu>
philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
|>  
|> > The anti-Darwinian evolutionary theory of Grasse provides an
|> > interesting contrast to the orthodox Anglo-American Darwinism
|> > of e.g., Chris Colby's FAQ.

Hmm, I suppose that Dr. Dobzhansky, the respected *Russian* geneticist,
and one of the architects of the New Evolutionary Synthesis, would be
surprised to discover he was part of an Anglo-American orthodoxy!

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:20:05 GMT

In article 8562@nmsu.edu, epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
>In article <1jvlplINNl54@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com  
>(Jon Livesey) writes:
>> In article <C1DrDw.39y@world.std.com>, pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C  
>Duggan) writes:

[deletia- ususal stuff about science not being able to test spiritual stuff]

>> You can have a material test for the material effects of immaterial
>> influences.
>> 
>> jon.
>
>	No, you can't.  Anything observed is always assumed to have a  
>natural cause, whether or not a naturalistic explanation is immediately  
>apparent.  The supernatural is automatically cut out of science.
>					Erik Powers

I think this rather depends on what you mean by "supernatural"; this
may be true. BUT  it isn't inherint in science to assume a cause
upon find an effect. You postulate the cause then look for the
affect. If the cause is supernatural, fine.

Alternately, I don't have a clue what science is. But I doubt that.
(I sure hope I have a close)
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:24:46 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: dgt@phy.duke.edu (Dinko Eduardo Gonzalez)

In article <9157@news.duke.edu>, dgt@phy (Dinko Eduardo Gonzalez) writes:
>  Don't be so dense.  Just like the animals, they came to Noah.  God said to
>the plants "go to Noah" and they just uprooted themselves and marched their
>way to the ark.  Sheesh, it's so simple.  Oh, as for how they stayed alive
>in the ark, the answer is obvious -- God did it.

What I want to know about is the slime molds and other fungi.  Some of
them have more than 2 sexes, remember.  Did they go 4-by-4, or 12-by-12,
or whatever?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Burgess Shale problematica again (was Re: SWAA Lecture)
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:40:51 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)

In article <106720@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@pender (Mickey Rowe) writes:
>>	I know about the Hallucigenia identification (it had to be
>>flipped over), but where does Wiwaxia go? 

>Look for a polychaete worm called a sea mouse.  The resemblence is
>quite striking.

The general resemblance was noticed a long time ago--I think maybe as
far back as Walcott.  What's new is that there are also small details
which correspond rather well.

>>I've also heard of one for Opabinia, also, and even Anomalocaris,
>>though I don't recall them offhand.

There have been several modern suggestions, including aschelminths and
even arthropods.  The problem is, this is too easy.  Nothing definitive
stands out.  In contrast, the reclassifications of Hallucigenia and
Wiwaxia are probably definitive.

Conway Morris has a new NATURE review article, "The fossil record and
the early evolution of the Metazoa", v361, p219 (21 Jan 9), pp219-225.
For what it's worth, in his phylogeny, he places the anomalocariids
closer to the trilobites, chelicerates, and crustaceans than he does
the uniramians, onychophorans and tardigrades.  I do recall uniramian
placement has been subject to recent molecular progress, but I don't
recall the details.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: More Gish
Keywords: one more
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:15:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Jan.21.23.14.26.1993.26487@remus.rutgers.edu>, trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott) writes:
|> 
|> One more quote from Dr. Duane T. Gish.  
|> 
|> I forgot this little gem:
|> 
|> CLAIM #3:  "The alleged horse series was created more out of
|> imagination than from fossil evidence.  ...
|> 
|> Ignoring for now that he skipped several species (and several
|> million years) between Orohippus and Pliohippus, does anybody know
|> what he is talking about in that second sentence?  ...

Interestingly, in this case Dr. Gish is sort of 1/4 right.

That is the commonly (popularly) presented version of the evolution of the
horse treats the matter as if it were a simple linear series of progressively
more horse-like forms.

This is false, horse evolution, like all evolution, is bush, not linear.
Of course Gish seems to think of evolution in a linear manner, so he gets
all confused about what is going on.  The evidence does not, and never has,
supported the simplistic linear version presented in many museums.

Now, the really ironic part of the whole thing is that Gish seems to think
evolution is *supposed* to be linear, and takes evidence of bushiness as
evidence against evolution.  Unfortunately for him, the bushy version is
what is expected, and the linear version is the one that would cast doubt
on modern evolutionary theory!  (Since that sort of sustained directionality
in evolution is not possible under Darwinian selection modified by genetic
drift - and would thus imply some sort of *directed* evolution).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:34:27 GMT

In <234@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In article <C13oKn.Az3@world.std.com>, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
>^In article <222@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>^>This would involve Earth and possibly one or two other small planets
>^>being suspended BETWEEN Jupiter and Saturn, possible at or near some point
>^>of equal attraction, which you might call a "baricenter" or some such.
>^
>^Gee, Ted, what would happen to the felt effect of gravity if the earth
>^were suspended at a point of equal attraction like that? Wouldn't it
>^be 1g?
>^-- 
>^Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com

>Again, the historical evidence, or the evidence involving large antediluvian
>life forms either one alone would be sufficient grounds for believing in
>SOME form of Saturn myth.

>Unfortunately, I do not possess a time machine to allow me to see precisely
>which form (of those proposed) the Saturnian configuration actually took,
>or to tell you precisely how it worked.  Perhaps the earth was being held
>in an electro-magnetic baricenter, and the gravitational forces were yet
>unequal.

	[in response to some other posters]  what I think is meant here is 
that there were electro-magnetic forces of strength comperable to the grav-
itational forces which kept the Earth-Saturn system in equilibrium.  What
I would like to know is 1) how these forces were generated.   It is currently
believed that convection in the molten inner layers creates a dynamo which
sustains the earths magnetic field.  What mechanism is proposed to generate
magnetic fields strong enough to give forces comperable to gravitational
forces?  2) why is there no sign of these massive fields?  Magnetic field
strength is recorded by being 'frozen in' to magnetic crystals, and show no
sign of being as great as is hypothesized.
	When I have more time, I could perhaps think of more questions, but
these will do for now.

Ben

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011