HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:14:56 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <ajpbart.711966671@adam.adelaide.edu.au> ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter) writes:
[munch]
>
>Once a city has become dispersed it is very difficult for transit to be
>effective, so it decays...services are cut..there are screams about any
>subsidies...you all know the story.  Walking is also now out of the question
>since nowhere that anyone wants to go is within walking distance anymore.
>Riding bicycles is now dangerous and unpleasant because of the traffic -
>and again everything is now far away.
>
>So planning too much for cars actually cuts off evryone's other options.

I think it's fair to say that no large US city was *planned*. Instead,
it just grew. That's true in large part in Europe and Asia too. The
critical difference is that most of those cities grew at a time when
the automobile was not an option while nearly all US cities have experienced
the bulk of their growth after the auto became an option for individuals.
Many, not all, US cities are surrounded by lots of cheap land that was
not developed until the city grew. In Europe and Asia, cities grew up
in the center of intensely used land as the result of the need for a
central trading area. Thus those cities tend to be inward looking while
US cities tend to be outward looking when undergoing the pressures of
growth.

>It is easy to see the past choices and the effect they had on US cities
>versus different choices on European cities. The next question might be
>how can a US style city try to regain some of the qualities of transit
>based cities?  Not easy..but I think it has to be done.

On the other side, I think it should not be done. Instead, the city should
take it's evolution to the logical conclusion and dispense with city centers
completely. The revolutions in communications, manufacturing, distribution,
and sales no longer require a central hub. Any attempt to impose one will 
fail because the usage patterns have permanently changed. There is no longer 
a need to attempt to cram everyone into a small central core every morning. 
It's still being done to a large extent, but that's inertia from a previous 
way of organizing commerce where face to face interaction was critical to
commercial success. Urban areas should evolve toward the requirements of 
the future instead to trying to emulate obsolete patterns of the past. The 
downtown is a dinosaur that hasn't got the message that it is dead yet.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9813 sci.physics:11417 sci.energy:3550
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: The Younger Dryas? (was Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts)
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:05:40 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul22.183704.10219@cs.tulane.edu> makrisna@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Krishna Achuta Rao) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.154529.2614@midway.uchicago.edu> rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

::As for Younger-Dryas, I pose the question:  What would have happened
::if this was initiated in an atmosphere already "primed" by 
::anthropogenic warming?  Would the event have been aborted ("atmosphere
::warm enough already, don't need a younger-dryas just now.") or
::would the YD warming be added in addition to the anthropogenic
::warming.  Do we know enough about climate to rule out the
::second possibility?

:      The Younger Dryas was a cold period during the last deglaciation (a 
:return to near glacial conditions) and not a warming..... wasn't it?

	And what is the time resolution on Younger Dryas data, anyway?
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul23.230804.1294@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <Bs13Bu.tJ@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:42:46

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.


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

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dens@flammulated.rice.edu (dens)
Subject: Re: Question about MPG
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1992Jul26.220531.20516@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:41:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.220531.20516@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

   >	compacts get better).  My 1978 VW Rabbit gets 30mpg
   >	but has no catalytic converter.  I keep it tuned
   >	up, and mostly drive it on the freeway.

   It's not even close.  You are evil polluting scum.  Your 1978 car is
   several times as polluting as a modern car.  (The exception, of

So I'm supposed to waste my money buying a new car as soon as I've
paid off the old one? Forget it. That's buying into the auto
manufacturer's line that a car is a disposable item. I refuse to be
constantly in debt.

I'll drive my 1979 Ford Courier until I can't get any more cheap parts
from the junkyard. My greed is more powerful than my social
consciousness.

Later,
den

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:09:47 GMT

In article <28508@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>
>Free Market Forces.  Honestly. 

    [stuff deleted]

>The strange thing is that the same folks who see the 'Unseen Hand'
>as being God's gift to America often see nothing wrong with paying $100B
>or so for a B2 bomber prototype and untold more for an S&L bailout ...
>Or bailouts for Lockheed, or Chrysler, or ...

     One of the government's primary jobs is national defense.  This
     is *not* subject to free market determination.  You may quibble
     about the amount necessary or the direction taken, but the free
     market should never decide what is necessary for our national security;
     our defense requirements should. 

     As far as bailouts are concerned, I am against them, except where
     necessary for national security (Lockheed).  Initially, Chrylser 
     was probably a mistake. However, since the taxpayers made a profit
     on the deal, I do not see how one could complain to much.

     As far as the S&L bailout is concerned, it is the result of pure
     socialist hypocracy.  It is the idea that somewhere in this world
     there is a completely 'safe' investment to be had without paying
     a price for the safety.  If one wants a 'safe' investment, one
     should have to pay a premium for the safety.  In other words, 
     no bank should be able to pay higher rates on accounts than the
     appropriate US government instrument (i.e. the Fed discount rate
     for non-fixed accounts) does without the account-holder suffering some
     risk.  At one point my brother got a 25% bond for a 24 month period
     completely insured by the US government.  This is economic 
     insanity.

     I'd like to see insurance reduced or eliminated entirely.  However,
     I think that you'd hear an outcry to protect the 'little people'
     from the efficiency of the free market.

     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'.

                                    dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: whit@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:56:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.102954.20522@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:

	[regarding the usage 'eco-terrorist']

>This is a misuse of language in the grand Alice in Wonderland tradition (words
>mean exactly what **I** define them to mean, nothing more, nothing less).

>The word terrorist as it is generally accepted in this country has to do
>with the imposition of physical terror by the use of guns, bombs, etc.  It
>is also a word loaded with negative connotations.  

	No, attempting to communicate an unfavorable impression by
choice of words is NOT a misuse of language; it is standard
rhetorical practice.  My Funk & Wagnalls has four definitions
for 'terrorist', of which one is "An alarmist; a scaremonger."
If one thinks some particular person or group is raising an
unnecessary and irrational alarm relating to ecology issues,
the term 'eco-terrorist' is an appropriate term.  Slanted,
of course, but very expressive.

	I have noted that many people look first at the connotations,
and last at the root meanings of words.  I think that's a mistake.
The connotations, after all, are not always part of the intended
message.

	John Whitmore

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9956 sci.physics:11588
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:16:01 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul24.082656.6584@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.000116.4102@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <JMC.92Jul22091522@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
:::The Interstate system is financed by the gasoline tax, more than 100
:::percent, I believe.  In fact the lawyers want to tap the gasoline
:::tax to finance their public transit boondoggles.
::
::	If one does some VERY clever accounting, then just MAYBE. But
::total costs are:
::
::	1979 US government agencies on highways:
::
::	$71.2 billion total
::
::which breaks down to
::
::	$44.3 billion in "user fees"
::
::and
::
::	$26.9 billion in subsidies.
::
::The "user fees" include vehicle registration fees, fuel taxes, and
::tolls.
::
::The subsidies are all sums whose sources are something other than user
::fees -- income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, bond-issue
::proceeds, etc.
::
::	Thus, highways are 38% subsidized.
:
:Something's not right here...

	[A long attempt to demonstrate that my figures have to be
off]...

	These figures are derived from official publications.

	It might be interesting to look at them more closely, and see
if there was any "creative accounting" going in -- and in what direction.

/Loren
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:27:10 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul28211023@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
#I have driven in L.A. fairly recently and would not describe the
#freeways as parking lots.  I wonder if the perception that they
#are would be dispelled by actual timings or is gloom loving stronger
#than that.
#--
#John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
#*
#He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
#


I live in the LA area. I drive the freeways frequently. Calling
them parking lots stretches the truth a bit. However, if there is an accident
during a well traveled time of day, parking lot is a failry accurate
description. Judging from the TV traffic reports there seems to be at least
one or two accicents during the morning or evening rush hours every day. So
some people are experiencing the parking lot phenomenon every day. 

With out accidents, during busy hours, on may parts of many freeways, 
driving speed is limited by the traffic density to speeds substantially
below normally accepted limits. Busy hours extend over large parts of the
week day and over parts of Saturday and Sunday.

In recent years freeway traffic has been alleviated a bit by the time
limiting of access to the freeway with 1 or 2 car per green light entrances.
These of course trasfer part of the freeway lost time to the entrance.

Quite often I can beat freeway time by finding surface street alternatives.
But then I don't usually drive long distances.

Don't tell me that Los Angeles freeways are great. They used to be for a few
years. But they just encouraged the death and destrution of public
transportation and the creation of long commute distances for most people.

It is a never ending cycle of build more and then fill them up.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:31:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.210910.5092@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.155039.8867@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>     Neither method is likely cost-effective in Virginia for the 
>>     production of large amounts of power.  And the leaf-blowers necessary
>>     for the solar collectors would raise a terrible racket ...
>
>Solar probably will be cost-effective in the east.  It isn't yet, but
>quite a bit of solar energy gets through clouds so it could still work
>in the winter, though it isn't the best testing ground.  Assuming you
>are not joking about the leaves, PV test studies in New England have
>indicated that this is not a significant problem.

      'Probably' is an interesting position to take when Luz went
      bankrupt under nearly ideal conditions for solar thermal.  The problems
      with load balancing and cloud cover are nontrivial, even if
      you assume that we have an economical way of generating power
      from solar, which we don't.

      About the leafblowers, a joke, son, just a joke.

                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9972 sci.physics:11593 sci.energy:3658
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:08:15 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <JMC.92Jul24153929@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Imagine that after World War II, the Government had gotten out of
>the nuclear business entirely.  My guess is that private industry
>would have plunged in and built power reactors.  They would not
>have had the safety standards of present Western reactors.  Edward
>Teller is responsible for the fact that present reactors have
>containment domes and was much criticized when the committee he
>chaired recommended requiring them.

Would private industry have gotten into nuclear energy without the
Price-Anderson guarantees?
>
>There probably would have been some accidents but probably not
>of the scale of Chernobyl, because that design, optimized so that
>the reactor could produce military plutonium, would not have
>been used.  The CANDU reactor, which doesn't require enriched
>uranium would have been used, because it is easier to produce
>heavy water in quantity than to separate uranium isotopes.

Even an accident on the same order of magnitude as Chernobyl would
likely turn the public against it.  How would these different designs
affect the waste issue?  Is the CANDU design in use today?
>
>The accidents would have led to regulation.  However, the world would
>have much more nuclear power today than we do.
>
>All this assumes away the cold war and even assumes away any
>ambitions of anyone to make nuclear weapons.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:55:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.093756.5392@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	BART car cost? Most of the current fleet is the original fleet
>of about 500 Rohr cars, delivered when BART was first started up 20
>years ago. There are 150 cars acquired in the mid 1980's, also. This
>gives an average age of 16 years. Furthermore, most of the BART cars
>appear to be in good running order, and can expect to have at least
>10-20 years ahead, almost certainly with some rebuilding on the way.
>Each one cost about $1.5-$2 million, which amounts to $7000 to $10,000
>per rider over 16 years, about $8 to $12/week. This is about the same
>as a low-end private car.

Er, just where did the government get the interest-free financing to buy these
cars?  It seems you've neglected to add interest payments on the financing.

Please remember jmc's sig:
>>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:12:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.072736.12153@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>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.

Whose objection?  This may be true for some people, but not for me.
>
>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.
>
My posts have made the case that efficiency can prevent the need for
new plants now.  As to closing down existing plants that have not reached
their maturity, I doubt any technology would convince utilities to do
this.  The fact that voter may occasionally close nuclear plants but not
coal is inappropriate in my opinion, but doesn't change the fact that
new versions of both are not needed.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
From: carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft)
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Organization: Adaptive Optics Associates
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:59:31 GMT

In article <BrJIr0.F7z@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>> This scheme brings the best of all worlds to the table.  It uses nuclear
>>> generated electricity for zero environmental impact, uses rail for its
>>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Thats definitely a mistaken claim.  No one can ignore the nuclear waste
>>byproducts that persist for generations.
x
Most of the radiation damage (to environment and/or humans) is due
to military plants and military projects.  In USA, that is.
The problems w/ civilan power plants include shoddy workmanship and
a total failure to include the projected cost of shutdown in the
original bid.
There's a nuke plant in MA which is old and creaky; the estimated cost
to shutdown, dismantle, etc. is something like 20X the fab cost. This
seemed crazy to me-- it would be cheaper to keep it offline and
permanently manned, guarded, etc.  So it goes.


-- 
Bobby Newmark, aka  Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
aoa!carl@bbn.com  carl@aoa.utc.com
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
**Just say NO to HMOs**
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:11:02 GMT

>: >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 seem to remember that people were a bit leery about microwave
ovens in the early 70's.  I've heard plenty of horror stories about
the first generation of commercial microwaves,  but those might just
be more urban legends.

	So far as actual risks are concerned,  microwave ovens are fairly
well shielded.  Microwaves produce a high energy flux by creating a high-Q
resonant cavity...  Which is why you don't want to operate one without
food in it,  without the damping produced by the food,  you get really
high E-fields that can cause sparkover and damage to the magnetron.  If
one were able to disable the interlocks (which isn't all that difficult
for a clever person who has basic tools,  but would be difficult for
a small child;  just a little bit harder than opening an elevator shaft
door when the elevator is on another floor),  the cavity would cease to
be resonant and the flux would drop.  This doesn't mean that you couldn't
hurt yourself bad.  A few hundred watts of heat deposition in the wrong
place can easily injure or kill.

	So far as other threats produced by microwaves,  if we assume
that the bioelectromagnetics people are on to some kinds of deleterious
effects produced by ELF radiation,  microwaves probably aren't any more
dangerous than the other electric appliances in the house.


-- 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10284 sci.energy:3788 sci.physics:12024
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:01:29 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Jul28.020407.15968@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.191203.1702@aoa.aoa.utc.com> carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:
>>In any case, it would seem
>>that nuke plants are the only type which are actively, rather than
>>passively, dangerous when shut down.  That is, any building can 
>>collapse on you, but only a nuke is full of bad stuff.
>
>Havn't been to any asbestos mines lately, eh?  :-)  There are many many
>old industrial sites chock full of chmical nasties that are 'actively'
>dangerous...
>

Here in Ottawa, the municipality has constructed a rapid transit system
based on buses and specially built reserved roads. After the construction
of one of the stations in the system, it was discovered that the
Rideau river was polluted with a large slick of coal tar.

It was determined that this slick was seeping into the river from
the area of the transit station. It seems that the construction of the
transit station had disturbed the remains of a factory which had
previously existed on the site. The transit station excavation filled
with coal tar. The solution selected by the municipality was to cover
the coal tar with fill and not tell anybody.


-- 
i.sinature