HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:08:37 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <STEINLY.92Jul27164005@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <50926@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>   I have no opinion on microwave ovens, but Prof. McCarthy has attempted to
>   argue as follows:
>	 A) Nader attempted to stop the use of microwave ovens
>	 B) Burns from ordinary ovens are not unusual
>	 C) No injuries at all are caused by microwave ovens
>
>You exaggerate Victor. The argument boiled down to: there is a known,

I most certainly did not exaggerate here. 

>finite injury rate for children from conventional ovens. Nader argued
>that microwaves have a higher probability of injury, McCarthy
>suggested the injury rate was in fact _lower_ - not zero.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Here are  Prof. McCarthy's very words:

In article <JMC.92Jul25195926@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>   >I dunno about Greenpeace, but Ralph Nader did try to ban microwave
>   >ovens for that reason.  If Nader is responsible for the slower
>   >penetration of microwave ovens in the U.S. as compared to Japan,
>   >he killed a lot of children.  No-one has been injured by a microwave
>   >oven, but the conventional cooking that might have been displaced
>   >partly by microwave cooking has proabably killed a few hundred
>

Please note: "No-one has been injured by a microwave oven". 

>Ah, but Nader contends (I understand) that the microwave oven (manufacturers?) are liable
>if they increase the injury rate, by that standard of argument, it is
>possible to argue that Nader is responsible for excess injury, if in
>fact microwaves have a lower injury rate and Nader was actively
>responsible for microwaves not being used.

We don't know either (a) what Nader's arguments were, or (b) what
the relative rates of injury are, or (c) whether Nader's activities
lead to more stringent safety standards for microwave ovens. What
we have, instead is a specious chain of shaky reasoning, founded on
a false statement and relying on a dubious deductive rule.


>The specific instance used above is at an end due to lack of data
>and the particpants lack of inclination to gather the necesary data
>(I would, my commercial rate is $125 per hour!). However, the data
>used in the argument so far is at least as good as that used by Nader
>in the first place, and so should be considered, no?

I have no idea what data was used by Nader in the first place, and am
under the impression that neither you nor Prof. McCarthy are much more
knowledgeable. If one is going to accuse others of "lawyers science", it
seems as if a short stint in the library might be in order.  

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10031 talk.environment:2993
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Ocean Warming and Rising
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:33:06 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Jul25.153727.4138@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>An article titled "Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise Along the Southwest
>U.S. Coast" appeared in the 17 July 92 issue os Science...
>
>"Hydrographic time-series data recorded during the past 42 years in the
>upper 500 meters off the coast of southern California indicate that
>temperatures have increased by 0.8Deg C uniformly in the upper 100 meters
>...The effect of warming the surface layer of the ocean and thereby
>exanding the water column has been to raise the sea level by 0.9 +- 0.2
>millimeter per year. 

This gives a sea level rise of 0.0529 m/degree C.  If the temperature 
rises by the IPCC median scenario (2.5C in perhaps 100 years) we get a sea 
level rise of 0.13 meters, or five inches; worst case of 5C gives ten inches.  
By comparison, waves and tides measuring above 10 feet are common. 
The additional inches may cause local flooding and erosion in some areas, 
but the cost of many "carbon tax" proposals, in the $hundreds of billions 
to $trillions, would likely dwarf the cost of lost real estate.  We should 
allow greenhouse gas emmitters to reimburse owners for lost real estate 
as an alternative to subsidizing non-greenhouse gas emitting plants.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: How water pollutes
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:48:46 GMT

It's a pretty simple principle if HUMAN life is the yardstick you use
to judge good/bad.  You seem to reject this in favor of some kind
of "environmental" yardstick for which I suspect you can offer nothing
but emotion as a justification for.  Right?

-Brian

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:44:13 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul26224246@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I happened to land in Paris just as the 1987 strike shut down all
>trains and planes, and I had to be in Marseilles the next day for a
>lecture.  A Hertz rental got me there.  The point is that the
>availability of cars gives the transportation system important
>flexibility in emergencies.
 
Neither I nor anyone I know is against the AVAILABILITY of cars for purposes
such as that.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul27170433@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jul28.164536.5134@aero.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:55:25

In article <1992Jul28.164536.5134@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul27170433@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   #In 1979 there was a conference on what might be done in a possible
   #energy emergency, and the representative of Westinghouse said that
   #nuclear plants could be built in two years without wartime priorities
   #but also without regulatory delays.
   #

   And they of course are totally unbiased and accurate in their statement.:)

   #--
   #John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

   Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Maybe they weren't unbiased, but they *were* the people who would
have had to sign the contracts to build plants on a specified
schedule.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:08:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <STEINLY.92Jul29153540@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.140712.798@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>I thought it was saving on projected demand - I agree that that is
>possible - in fact, make a stupid enough a projection and you can save
>as much as you like - I also consider it the scientific equivalent
>of me saving $90,000 in the next six months because I'm not going to
>buy a BMW 735i like I projected I'd do in 1982 ;-)   

Actually, I'm not sure that this is a good comparison.

In a sense the savings is from current demand, since the savings are from
retrofits for current consumption on existing hardware.  This is different
from savings on new purchases, like your BMW or from a new factory. 
This is very different from savings that comes from doing without.  Since
it takes time to implement the savings, it is difficult to separate
current demand from projected demand.  By the time the current demand
is decreased by efficiency, new demand exists.
>
>What would really impress me is if efficiency savings would enable
>current capacity to be retired without the need for replacement.
>Still, every little bit helps...

This should be _possible_ but would require a significant effort,
probably including federal assistance in financing, such as low
interest loans.  There are two components to the financial equation.
The first is the savings by avoiding building new plants.  This is
the major motivation for utilities since efficiency is dramatically
cheaper for the first 20 to 30% in savings.  The other component is
the savings to the user.  Although I have read of a variety of periods
required to payoff the capital expense, none were included in the EPRI
report or related Sci Amer article because they focused on utilities.
Since DSM strategies usually involve the utility some how subsidizing
the retrofit to avoid building new plants, the payoff time for
end users would be reduced.  Most of the numbers I have seen for
payoffs have been for residential retrofits and range from 3 to 5 years
for an extensive retrofit to a home.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	  *
>* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
>* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
>* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Cars vs. Bikes (Was: Why electric cars?)
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:27:13
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: szabo@techbook.com's message of 16 Jun 92 16:57:47 GMT

> I'll wager that the vast majority of people promoting bicycles
> to replace cars are childless . . .

=o= True for me, but I see a number of folks in this area
hauling kids around in Burley trailers.

> . . . live on or near college campuses, or live in rented
> apartments near their worksite.

=o= I currently live six miles from my worksite.  I've lived
distances ranging from 15 to 40 miles from my worksite, and
commuted by bicycle to them.

> They dwell in snow-free climates.

=o= I do now.  I had a 15-mile commute in New Hampshire and
a 30-mile commute in Massachusetts.

> They disdain sports that require travel like skiing.

=o= I'm a hiker and a backpacker.  Sometimes I take rather
long bike trips to go hiking and backpacking.  I'm also a
cross-country skier.  Last time I went skiing I rented a car.
Note that none of this has anything whatsoever to do with
what vehicle I use for commuting.

                              =o=

=o= After a message that was nothing but one long mindless
flame, we get this preemptive remark:

> Yes, I suppose the one or two exceptions will respond to this
> post with massive flames.

Wow, I suppose the real life experience of we exceptions isn't
nearly as valid as your made-out-of-thin-air claims.  Get real.
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10086 sci.physics:11719 sci.energy:3709
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:08:01 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.020800.8476@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>>     Another thing, the free-market people certainly did not come up with 
>>     insuring accounts in federally-insured institutions with the 'full
>>     faith of the US treasury'.

>True, but it was, unfortunately, in the name of the free market that an idiot
>decided to relax the regulatory constraints without tying insurability to the
>business practices of the S&Ls.

Yes, but we shouldn't take this as a warning that giving all the power to the
gov't isn't a good thing. I'm sure President Quayle will be able to tidy up
that mess real handily just as soon as we get rid of the Bill of Rights.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:43:53 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul22200100@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
|> Many of us suspect the environmentalists and environmental
|> bureaucrats, e.g. Mr. Reilly, of wanting to use global warming "as a
|> good excuse and a great opportunity to make fundamental changes in our
|> society that we should be making anyway for other reasons".  The
|> quotation is from what Russell Train said about the "energy crisis"
|> when he was EPA Administrator.  Can anyone assure us that our
|> suspicions are mistaken.
|> --
|> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|> *
|> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
|> 

Sure they can, but it's just part of the plot :-)

Actually most people tend to have opinions in many areas, environmentalists
are no exception. This will of course affect the way they want to solve
problems, and what society they want. Personally I see no problem, as long as 
they admit the fact, and Mr. Reilley obviously does just that. 

I used to vote for our conservative party,but that hasn's stopped me from working 
with communists (of the rather mild form we have in Sweden: recently they even 
started to attack the conservatives for refusing to put a price on environmental
pollution and let market forces reduce damage!) You just stick to the areas where
you agree. It also leaves the field open for interesting discussions in other
subjects :-) 



-- 
"Goood planets are hard to find."    Thomas Palm
				     Department of Microwave Engineering
				     Royal Institute of Technology
				     S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
				     tpalm@mvt.kth.se
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9916 sci.physics:11541 sci.energy:3619
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:08:23 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <1992Jul22.073842.2892@cco.caltech.edu:, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
: In article <R4Q-##A@engin.umich.edu>, blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
: >In article <1625@heurikon.heurikon.com> daves@ex.heurikon.com (Dave Scidmore) writes:
: >That's what I thought ABS did too until an ME friend corrected me.  The
: >ABS system just mechanically pumps the brakes, test systems monitor the
: >wheel motion, but the production systems just pump the brakes.
: >Note that ABS (like power steering and power brakes) are passive systems.
: Passive systems?  I don't think so.  There's probably a proper term for such
: systems, but "passive" certainly isn't it.

Hm, how about safe failure mode?  Example: the safety brakes in the elevator
engage if the cable holding it open fails.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:27:23 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Jul26.165306.12370@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>In article <50892@dime.cs.umass.edu:, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>: In article <JMC.92Jul25121617@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>: >Kenneth remarks about Greenpeace:
>: >     I'm suprised they have not tried banning microwave ovens
>: >     because they use *RADIATION* to cook the food.
>: > [edit Ralpha Nader trying to ban microwave ovens]
>: I'm pleased to see that you are not only willing to make wild accusations
>: without any evidence, but you are willing to repeat them even after being
>: corrected. If you recall, last time you raised this issue, I posted an
>: excerpt from a medical journal on "microwave burns", apparently a common
>: problem in young children who get scalded by food or milk heated in a
>: microwave oven.
>
>Hm, I must have missed this article, some news site must have eaten it
>upstream of me.  But if the original intent was to ban microwave ovens
>because some people do not use it properly, I cannot agree with it.  If

I have no opinion on microwave ovens, but Prof. McCarthy has attempted to
argue as follows:
      A) Nader attempted to stop the use of microwave ovens
      B) Burns from ordinary ovens are not unusual
      C) No injuries at all are caused by microwave ovens
      -> Nader caused injuries by his activity.

Now even if we accept the hypothesis, the conclusion is rather suspect, but
(A) may or may not be true, (B) is true, and (C) is totally false, thus
we don't have to examine the argument further. I pointed this out to Prof.
McCarthy in a previous post, and provided a reference. Apparently he is 
more than willing to ignore mere reality in the cause of sustaining a
specious argument.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:27:36 GMT

Dean Alaska writes:
>
>     A significant issue here has been the need to build new
>     power plants.  Peak demand is the crucial factor for this.
>     The premise in my thread with C.R. Bass was that neither
>     coal nor nuclear power plant construction is needed in the
>     near future due to efficiency and renewables.
>

But, even though far more coal plants are being built than nuclear
plants, the objection is predominantly against nuclear.

As long as coal plants are being built, there is a strong case
for nuclear. When 'efficiency and renewables' start closing
down coal plants, the case for nuclear will dwindle.
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 23:20:01 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> Claire, you obviously know very little about either chemistry or physics.
> First, the oxygen is not "torn from the atmosphere."  What little is removed
> from the surrounding atmosphere to be burned by the fuel/air bomb diffuses.
> This is a relatively slow process.  The shock wave from the fuel/air bomb
> reaches the person long before any effects from diffusion could be detected.
> Second, any reduction in pressure is compensated for by the combustion
> products.  Let's look at a few hydrocarbon oxidation reactions:
>         Fuel name       Fuel            Oxygen          CO2     H2O
>         Methane:        1CH4    +       2O2     =>      1CO2  + 2H2O
>         Ethane:         2C2H6   +       7O2     =>      4CO2  + 6H2O
>         Benzene         2C6H6   +       15O2    =>      12CO2 + 6H2O
>         Iso-octane:     2C8H18  +       25O2    =>      16CO2 + 18H2O
> In the first reaction, we start with 3 molecules and end with 3 molecules;
> in the second reaction, we start with 9 molecules and end with 10 molecules;
> in the third reaction, we start with 17 molecules and end with 18 molecules;
> in the fourth reaction, we start with 27 molecules and end with 34 molecules;
> In each case, we end up with MORE molecules than we started with.  There
> CANNOT, therefore, be a drop in pressure.  And this doesn't even take into
> account the thermal expansion associated with the explosion.
> Finally, oxygen accounts for 20% of the atmosphere.  If I recall correctly,
> when you're diving, the pressure increases at approximately 1 atmosphere every
> 45 feet.  That means that oxygen has a partial pressure amounting to about 9
> feet of water.  That means that even if the explosion somehow magically removed
> ALL the oxygen from the air, didn't replace it with anything else, and didn't
> heat the air up, it would be equivalent to coming from the bottom to the top of
> a swimming pool.  Hardly enough to rip your lungs out.

In fact, the destructive effects of a general-purpose demolition munition
depend heavily on the partial vacuum following an explosion.
As the air rushes back in, the walls of buildings are pulled down.
I suppose it should not be unexpected that the useful work is done
on the return stroke.  Automobile ignition coils work that way,
the spark being formed during the _collapse_ of the magnetic field
because it yields a bigger spark than the outward-going swing of
the field.

Ny source of information is World Book Encyclopedia, 1955 edition,
vol. 2, pages 873 and 876.  (Entry for "Bomb")
From: prasad@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Sreeram P. Veluchamy)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Paper Recycling Plants - Info. Required
Summary: Univ. Of PA:National Center for Resource Mgmt.
Keywords: Mini-plants; PAPER RECYCLING; mini-plants; sustainable development
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:27:35 GMT
Expires: 20 Aug 92 04:00:00 GMT
Distribution: sci.environment,clari.tw.environment,talk.environment
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Hi: This is a request for information about PAPER RECYCLING plants an urban 
setting.

We are trying to identify appropriate technology and plants that 
can be sited in the inner-cities. 

If anyone can give me leads/contact regarding recyclers, I would be grateful. 

You can mail me at:  "prasad@eniac.seas.upenn.edu"

Thank you.

Prasad
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: ta@itk.unit.no (Trond Andresen)
Subject: Embarassing signature
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology / SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 11:36:33 GMT

I have belatedly discovered that my text editing system has a
tendency to insert bits and pieces of sentences from my posts in some other
places in the same posts, sometimes giving strange results.

One embarassing example is my post <1992Jul16.105604.1508@ugle.unit.no>,
which erroneously ended with the signature

   Trond Andresen
   aggressive

where the adjective of course is unintended. I try to be nice 
to my fellow beings, even if the discussions may become hot sometimes!

I therefore sign again with my intended signature


Trond Andresen  ======================================================
				    | INTERESTS: Economic and social
Lecturer in systems & control theory| systems, transport systems,
Division of Engineering Cybernetics | electric vehicles, local public
Norwegian Institute of Technology,  | service radio broadcasting,
N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY            | media theory & politics.
Newsgroups: sci.environment