HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: A simple solution (was: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!)
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:56:34 GMT
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <7314@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500axel@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes:
>The Plan
>========
>All development programs for third world countries are stopped
>immediately. Instead, every industrialized country adopts one or two
>underdevelopped countries (a suitable matching could be worked out by
>the UNO) and promises to pay social security benefits to elderly and
>to construct a working health care system in this third world country. 

I don't like this idea because it looks like the TWC (3rd world country)
would end up depending on the FWC for a long time. I DON'T like to see
people depending on any government. I would much rather teach them how
to do it for themselves. NOT that I am against giving them financial or
material support; I just think such help should be temporary
and that it should be paid back to the FWC in a reasonable amount of
time.

Playing the eternal Santa Claus doesn't fix the real problem.

>The Effects 
>=========== 
>Consumption in the first world will have to be reduced drastically
>since there is less money available and therefore living standards
>will go down. 

I don't buy that. I don't believe that because consumption increases
in a TWC that it has to go down someplace else. It WILL if you just
funnel money into that TWC in an attempt to achieve parity between it
and the FWC. But if you show the TWC how to do for themselves, the 
effect on the FWC will be slight, because you now have the added resource
of an entire country being more productive.

>The Problem
>===========
>You can't convince first world countries that this is a good plan.

No, the problem is that you can't convince the TWC's to do for 
themselves. And if you can't convince them to do so, then leave
them alone.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:50:29 GMT

In article <58197@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <51736@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>>In article <58188@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>> methods are large, their effectiveness is not known. The NRC shut down
>>> Yankee Rowe precisely because its containment vessel showed signs of
>>> losing enough ductility to make its continued operation dangerous. The
>>> utility chose to decomission rather than to attempt annealing. The
>>
>>Why not take a chunk of vessel to a lab and see exactly what annealing
>>treatment will restore ductility?  Then simply design new reactors with
>>an installed annealing system - annealing could be performed as part of
>>regular maintainance every few years.
>
>This would not affect the projected lifespan of current reactors, and
>might not provide an accurate indication of how weld points or different
>topologies  or larger chunks of metal will behave in situ.

What's the current state of university research into nuclear power?  It
seems to me that a university with a nuclear reactor would be a perfect
candidate to perform a number of the required experiments needed to get
the answers to these questions.

If we don't know the answers to the questions you raise above, would it
not be a good idea to get those answers?

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: averting doom
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com

BPH>Do you seriously believe that a species capable of creating
   >and enjoying The Love Boat is capable also of learning
   >galactic engineering?

Absolutely - we will always have drones with us, and they need
entertainment.  Those few technoweenies who design and build the boats
and the TV's and whatever have _always_ been in the tiny minority.
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                  
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Re: Oil Spills (Valdez); Shetland
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:27:02 GMT

> Desiree Bradley writes:
>
> breaking up the Valdez spill and cleaning the beaches.  The use of hoses to
> spray hot water onto the rocky beaches was great asthetic effects but was
> hard on the invertebrates that were between or under the stones.
>


According to the Vancouver Sun, Thomas Suchanek of the University of
California talked of the results of efforts to clean up the Valdez spill.
Talking of the use of chemical dispersants and the high-pressure,
high-temperature water sprayed on the rocky shores in Alaska, he said "The
pressure drove the oil farther into the sediments and the high temperatures
killed everything they were trying to save." (He was at the conference of the
American Society of Zoologists in Vancouver)  Suchanek also is quoted in the
newspaper as saying "the cleanup treatments apparently had a greater
deleterious impact on shoreline communities than did oil alone."

SOURCE ----- VANCOUVER SUN (JANUARY 8, 1993)

If you want more details, perhaps you can ask Thomas Suchanek.  But I have
the impression that some findings are preliminary and that others are secret
because of Exxon publication restrictions.  (Suchanek had been hired by Exxon
to study impacts of spilled oil.)

Desiree Bradley
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:31:03 GMT

In article <58220@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.193353.6234@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>While it should be obvious that we should take all the "cheap"
>>efficiency steps we can, economic growth, and the coupling it
>>has with energy consumption, can't be ignored. Energy usage and
>>the GDP track quite well. We can argue which causes which, I think
>>some of both, but we can't argue that they don't go hand in hand. A 
>
>Yes we can. The energy to run an early industrial revolution era
>machine shop was enormous because a single power source had to drive
>a mechanical gearing system that distributed motion to each machine and
>lost a great deal of power in the process. Dropping energy requirments
>by putting individual electric motors in each machine increased
>productivity. Energy use <-> GDP seems like an anachronism.

Actually that's mostly incorrect. My father owned an "early industrial
revolution" machine shop that was powered by a single 15 hp electric
motor driving overhead jackshafts that turned the machines by way of
flat belts. That type of power transmission is over 95% efficient.
He ran 5 lathes, 2 milling machines, 3 drill presses, a shop compressor,
the blower on the forge, and a fan off that 15 hp motor. Today the same
lathes *each* require a 7 hp motor. That single motor could run everything
because it didn't have to overcome startup inertia because it was always
running.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14345 sci.energy:6708
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:45:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <w6xr1_c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>This is not at all what it was about.  It did not use any renewables
>>or "soft energy" sources
>>nor did it force any conservation - in fact conservation was not
>>mentioned.  Remember that conservation and efficiency are different.
>>No social changes were suggested, let alone forced.  _All_ it
>>recommended was capital investment in efficiency.  
>
>Yeah, I keep forgetting that "investment" is the new PC word for 
>"tax'n'spend" and "efficiency" is the word for forced conservation.
>
>As in "We're comitting the country to investing in energy efficiency."
>Translated that means "We're going to steal an ever larger chunk of
>your wealth in order to play around with social engineering."


And this from someone who was just telling us how he had hoped that DOE
would pick up the n*hundred million dollar costs of an experimental
annealing at Yankee Rowe.  From the glossary of the far right

    Social engineering: government policies or expenditures that are not
            approved of by the far right. For example: government policies
            that favor conservation are social engineering, those that
            subsidize energy waste are not. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: QUANTUM@brownvm.brown.edu ()
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Toxicity of Fenvalerate to fish and lobster?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:06:21 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

Does anyone know about the toxic levels of
the insecticide FENVALERATE towards lobster
and fish? Fenvalerate also goes under the
trade names PYDRIN; SUMICIDIN; BELMARK.
Thanks.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: objective environment? (was Save the Planet)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 06:01:19 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <726136614snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>Now, are biologists pursuing dynamic models as we anthropologists are
>doing, ready to accept an idea that the relationship between a human
>pig farmer and his pigs is far more substantial than that between pigs
>and whales, that we might *reorder* the taxonomy?

A species placement in the Linnaean taxonomy should be consistent with
its evolutionary ancestry. If it is placed in a taxon then it should be more
closely related to all members of this taxon than it is to any member of
another taxon at the same rank.  Taxa at each rank are chosen to comply with
this restriction and to reflect a certain degree of similarity, depending
on the rank, between the members. 

Placing pig-farmers and pigs together in a low level taxon would not only
be inconsistent with their evolutionary ancestry, it would conflict with
the intention of taxa containing similar species.

>is the answer to make the taxonomic "hierarchy more and more complex, and so
>more and more inaccessible to the laity out there?".

What makes you think the taxonomic hierarchy is getting more complex?

>Or perhaps finally abandon it in favour of more practical and reliable models
>of reality which inform us in not too technical jargon about what is actually
>happening in a particular local environment?

Linnaean taxonomy does not yield information about ecosystems, for that
you want ecology.

Also I'd like you to cite examples of biologists holding human remains against
the wishes of the kin.  I can't see why a biologist would be interested in
such material at all.

I suggest strongly you do some reading about biology before posting more.
Edward Wilson's "The Diversity of Life" would be a gentle start.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: plutonium arrives in Japan
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:51:48

Here is part of a U.P. story:


	     TOKAI, Japan (UPI) -- Workers unloading 1.7 tons of
     plutonium from the tanker Akatsuki Maru expected to finish
     the job Wednesday, while anti- nuclear groups continued
     protesting the arrival of the lethal cargo from Europe.
	     Eight of 15 containers holding the reprocessed
     plutonium packed in 130 sealed casks were removed from the
     vessel and trucked Tuesday to the Power Reactor and Nuclear
     Fuel Development Corp. about a mile away, but the effort was
     halted by darkness.

1. The U.P. reporter in Tokyo has been consistently biased in
using expressions like "the lethal cargo".

2. It looks like the Japanese will tough it out.  Good for them.

3. Greenpeace and the Japanese anti-nukes apparently managed only 500
protesters after many months of beating the drum.

4. Later in the article, it tells about efforts to get the U.S.
to demand that the Japanese not use the plutonium.  They pin
their hopes on the new Administration.  I sort of hope the
Administration makes noises in this direction, and the Japanese
tell us to mind our own business.

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hsk@microplex.com (Harjeet Kalsi)
Subject: Sulfer-Free Diesel
Organization: Microplex Systems Ltd.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:22:33 GMT


I remember recently reading in the newspaper and seeing on the tv that new 
legislation in the USA required diesel fuel to be sulfer free and all diesel 
cars and light trucks to be equiped with a diesel catalyst.

Would someone be kind enough to tell me when this new legislation is to take 
effect and how long before only non-sulfer diesel becomes widely available?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Harjeet S. Kalsi
hsk@microplex.com

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:04:19 GMT

In article <j0wr-mh@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>But we're not talking about evolutionary LWRs.  In the context of the study -
>remember, that's what we're talking about - the author used old 
>nuclear numbers and then compared them to the results of radical 
>social changes involving forced conservation, conversion of fossil 
>to other forms of energy and heavy use of soft energy sources.
>
This is not at all what it was about.  It did not use any renewables
or "soft energy" sources
nor did it force any conservation - in fact conservation was not
mentioned.  Remember that conservation and efficiency are different.
No social changes were suggested, let alone forced.  _All_ it
recommended was capital investment in efficiency.  The "old
nuclear numbers" tnat it used appear to be the same as most
nuclear proponents are using today.

>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
>Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
>jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14355 sci.energy:6720
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:50:51 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <a0yrjcf@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>Diesels can burn natural gas.  (Masters Thesis in the Berkely Engineering
>>Library, I don't remember the authors name, demonstrated stationary 
>>diesel plant on natural gas.)
>
>One of the things I've done at several nuke plants is performance qualify
>the standby diesel generators so I have quite a bit of experience with
>these beasts.
>
>A demonstration and anything in production with a proven track record
>is very different.

There are also available commercial production conversion kits to
convert a diesel to use propane and natural gas as well.  I didn't
include this in the first post in the interests of brevity.  If you
would like, I can post the stuff.  (I posted it once a few years ago...) 

>>Diesels can come up almost instantly.
>
>The typical tech spec for standby diesel generators is off-to-full-load
>in 10 seconds.  They can - barely - but at a huge cost.  

You will note that in my post I also stated that diesels were being
phased out due to high cost ...  We agree...

[...]
>>Diesels can power Very Large Ships.  (Pistons several feet in diameter,
>>many per engine...)  Practical diesel generators can be Very Large...
>
>But not VERY VERY large.  Combustion turbines of 100 MWE or larger 
>are not that uncommon.  The diesel generators at Sequoyah (largest I've seen) 
>were 10 MWE and required two 16 cylinder ship-type engines per generator.

So you would use 10 of them, which makes them expensive, which we both agree
on ...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,rec.equestrian,rec.running,chi.general
From: horse@cbnewse.cb.att.com (nancy.nehls.nelson)
Subject: ILLINOIS PRAIRIE PATH NEWS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: il
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:33:34 GMT
Followup-To: poster


ILLINOIS PRAIRIE PATH NEWS
(This message concerns the Illinois Prairie Path that winds through the
western suburbs of Chicago...thru Warrenville, Wheaton, Glen Ellen, etc.)

The Illinois Commerce Commission is scheduled to decide, this year,
whether or not ComEd can build a line of 138,000 volt transmission
lines along the Prairie Path.  ComEd engineers have stated that up
to 85% of the trees currently lining the Path are "junk trees anyway
and should not be missed".  The nonprofit grassroots organization 
FRIENDS OF THE PRAIRIE PATH have set up a legal fund to raise money
for legal efforts to stop ComEd from using the Path and come up with
another plan that would not impact the Path.

	Donations are being accepted at:

	Friends of the Prairie Path Legal Fund
	P.S. Box 4413
	Wheaton, IL 60189-4413

	Checks payable to: Friends of the Prairie Path Legal Fund

Questions can be answered by calling 708 393 6276

Also, the "Friends" want to alert people interested in this issue to
the following:

	Senator Paul Simon will hold a TOWN MEETING on 11 JAN 1993
	from 7 to 8pm at the K Building at College of Dupage.

	The Prairie Path folks will be there to bring this
	issue to Senator Simon's attention and ask for his
	support in demanding ComEd to seek alternative plans.


Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.sources.wanted
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: "Urgent warning"
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:10:34 GMT

In article <90236@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan12.111839.10118@ac.dal.ca> zaigi@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>
>
>|Dear all,
>
>|In The Chronicle-Herald : The Mail-Star Saturday, January 9, 1993 C2,
>|David Suzuki, a Canadian scientist and writer mentioned that at "The end
>|of November, the prestigious Union of Concerned Scientists released an
>|urgent warning tha the planet is undergoing catastrophic ecological change
>|that threatens all of humankind. Their global call to action was signed
>|by over 1500 senior scientists, including 101 Nobel laureates from around the 
>|world".
>
>|Any idea where can I get the documentation?
>
>|Nick 
>|email: zaigi@ac.dal.ca
>You migh want to check into to the background of these so called scientists.
>I wan't aware that they were giving out Nobel's in environmental sciences,
>so mentioning the laureates makes me think they are indulging in a bit
>of resume padding.
>-- 
>Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
>a government.
>It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

He never said environmental scientists.  The UCS sent the "Global Warning"
to all living nobel laureates in the sciences, all members of the
National Academy of Sciences and most members of other scientific
academies around the world.  The majority of these Nobel
laureates have endorsed the warning, along with many academy members.
The recent issue of the UCS publication "Nucleus" contains the
entire text of the warning.

Is this resume padding?
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:00:20 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Summary: Reference provided
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <svtrpg@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>
>>I agree that one of the options which has to be taken seriously by the
>>environmental community is nuclear fission reators.  
>
>>But how are we to proceed.  A first step here would be to quit calling
>>us names, and realizing that there are deepseated fears of reactors
>>even among otherwise rational people.  I tried last night to convince
>>a couple of friends that Chernobyl could not happen with a Candu type
>>reactor, or for that matter with any of the reactors designed outside
>>the former Soviet Union.  I failed...  There was nothing that I could 
>>point them to for reading.  Where is the non-doctrinaire, non-PR
>>type of literature explaining the benefits of nuclear power to the
>>general thinking public?
>

"Radiation and Health Effects", a report on the TMI-2 Accident and
Related Health Studies, published by GPU, authors, Behling and
Hildebrand.

With a foreword by Fabrikant, Auxier, and Eisenbud.

GPU Nuclear Corp.
Middletown, PA  17057

-------

A p-r document of sorts, but available for review and shot-taking, which
is the way things should be done.

Those who do obtain a copy should note the summaries of "other studies",
which generally report/verify that the average dose to the 541,000
persons living within a 50-mile radius was about 4 mrem...about 10% of
the annual _incremental dose_ for those of us who live in the
intermountain region (compared to sea level).

Also, the summary of the Aamodt study, p. 41-2, is a giggle.  They found
that the cancer rate in a population they studied was 5.2-6.5 times
higher than expected.  They "selected" four streets in Newberry Township
(of 14); curiously these were the only ones with cancer deaths (4),
while the other 10 had none.  

Of such high standards of integrity are public fears built and
propagated.  The only question was whether they were dishonest or stupid.