HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:16:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1678600067@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:


|I would be happy to provide more details about the mining and dumping
|of radioactive fuels on native lands, if you would like.  To the
|person who suggested that I just got pamphlet with no basis in fact,
|I would humbly suggest you check _your_ facts first.

In most courses on debate they tell you that it is the responsibility
of the person making the claim to prove it, not the responsibility
of the challenger to disprove it.
| 
|The question of whether I just oppose radioactive mining or all mining,
|I would answer that I oppose poisoning people and the environment.

Good for you, so do I.

|Mining of non-radioactive materials in ecologically sensitive ways
|that do not harm miners would probably be acceptable, if it were
|done in moderation.

Good for you, so do I.

|I am not sure if it is possible to achieve
|these criteria by mining radioactive ore.

Mining radioactive ore is no different than mining any other ore.
BTW, do you have any idea, how radioactive such ore is?
I don't have any books handy, but the amount is minute.
Of course breathing particles of the stuff is not recomended, but
then black lung isn't pretty either.
| 
|Dale
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:30:54 GMT

In article <1678600051@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>Granted, I know you will claim that all these evils are caused by
>the government.  But, I still must ask:  "Why do the capitalists
>and the government always seem to be in collusion with each other?"

That's a silly question (and it has a trivial, and true, answer).
Knowing why doesn't help you stop the bad effects of that collusion;
the effects are the problem, not the collusion.

If you don't want that collusion to have bad effects, you have to take
away govt's power.  You have to reject the (illogical) "govt can do
much good if it has the power to do <x>" and realize that giving govt
the power to do bad pretty much means that it will.  If you don't like
the bad, don't give govt the power to do it.

-andy
--
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:58:59 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1678600052@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
>
>> Here are some actual statistics taken from _The Statistical Abstract
>> of the United States_ 1986 edition, p. 833.
>>
>>World production of agricultural commodities
>>		1970		1978		1984
>>corn		278		390		449
>>rice		316		385		470
>>wheat		318		449		522
>
>The problem, as these many articles point out, is that this is not
>sustainable growth, that it hasn't kept up with population growth,
>that it is not being distributed equitably, and that it is very
>costly in terms of resources (topsoil, oil, chemicals, water, etc.)
>to maintain.
>
>Dale

Thats right.  In the early days of the Green Revolution, yields did keep
up with population growth, barely, in the third world.  Now they are
falling behind badly because these counties can't afford the expensive
environmental fixes, or even new chemicals that might permit them to
continue the high yields for a little while.  In the mean time, they
have lost the ability to feed themselves because they switched to
export crops so some are in worse shape then before the Green
Revolution.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: geoffg@sco.COM (Geoff Galitz)
Subject: Computer Resources
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:02:12 GMT





	How are other Green Groups around the world using their
computer resources?  Databases?  Communications?  Political tracking?

	Here in Santa Cruz, we are keeping computerized records of our
membership (which are not distributed outside of the party), keeping a
E-mail list for local issues and Green News, and are looking into an
archive site/electronic library.

	What are others doing?

	What kind of resources do other groups have?

	We have several Mac's, one 386, and internet access.  Almost
all of this is actually done through the graciousness of our members
as the Green Party of Santa Cruz, itself, has no computer resources.


Geoff Galitz
Computer Services Coordinator
Green Party of Santa Cruz County 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	(Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely,)
	power attracts the corruptable.		      Frank Herbert
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
         Geoff Galitz ** geoffg@sco.com ** or ** galitz@igc.org
                Santa Cruz, Central Coast California, US 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: angelab@vcd.hp.com (Angela Byington)
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:00:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Hello!

I am Angela Byington, a computer programmer at Hewlett-Packard
in Vancouver, Washington.  This is my first post to this group,
(although certainly not my first post...) and I am reading avidly
everything I can about the Greens.  I've been bouncing around
the net for the last 5 years or so, almost two from here, and 
the rest from Oregon State University.  I first heard about the
Greens about a year or so ago on talk.environment, and my first
thought was how closely the platform matched the fictional
Survivalist Party described in Ernest Callenbach's boks.  I have 
been looking for more information ever since.

In the meantime, I'm vegetarian, envrionmentalist, and all of
those other happy things.  I'm waiting for the day when I can
say goodbye corporate lifestyle and do something a little
more meaningful to me.  

Two of the things that I am probably most interested in are
the conditions of the coral reefs and other marine environments,
and the notion that anybody who doesn't like what's happening
to them can change it.  Unfortunately I don't know how to explain
that very clearly without being verbose, so if anyone wants to
hear what I mean, let me know, and I'd be happy to post something,
or email something.

Peace,

-Angela
angelab@vcd.hp.com
From: aw@math.uni-sb.de (Arne Wichmann)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 10 Jan 1993 16:03:19 GMT
Organization: Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: vieta.math.uni-sb.de

In article <1ig863INN1rv@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
>In article <JMC.93Jan5203830@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
[deletions...]
>Who said anything about burning the wood?  In case you haven't been
>awake during the past year, current estimates are that what's left of
>the tropical rainforests are providing ~60% of the world's oxygen
Hmmm... I thought, the plankton (ok, we're destroying this ecosystem, too...)
provides the biggest part of the worlds O2 (I think it was something about
80%). But cutting down the rainforests would wreck our climate, nevertheless...

>supply.  We inhale O2, exhale CO2.  Green plants convert CO2 to O2,
>and 60% of that is happening in the rainforests.
-- 
Na duw na feistr - o unrhyw fath na chr^ed
Arne Wichmann (wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: beast@netcom.com (J. Kintscher)
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:20:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.125817.14283@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>How do you justify the very expensive cost of generating electricity
>>by using nuclear reactors as opposed to conventional methods?
>
>To be fair, the cost is so high because of the cost of litigation which
>always surrounds these new installations.  And I suspect that because of
>this, their insurance costs are rather high as well.

Maybe, but the plants would be a lot cheaper to build if a standardized
design were used (like in France), rather than every plant being unique. 
Also, eliminating stupid mistakes like printing some of the blue prints
backwards and not noticing until well under construction (Diablo Canyon).

>>Don't you think the government's real purpose for promoting nuclear
>>energy to convince us that there is a peaceful use for the nuclear bomb?
>
>The two are unrelated.

Are they?  It seems to me that was one of the purposes of the now
(thankfully) defunct Atomic Energy Commission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Kintscher	 | "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only
beast@netcom.com     	 |  queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can
			 |  suppose. . . . I suspect that there are more things
"No matter where you go, |  in heaven and earth than are dreamed of,  in any
 there you are."	 |  philosophy."
			 |				J. B. S.  Haldane
	Buckaroo Banzai	 |				Possible Worlds
From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:58:17 GMT
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia

In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>> In order to get the energy required by all these people [the supposed 
>> carrying capacity of the earth -- 30 Billion people], we would
>> have to use nuclear breeder reactors.
> 
>Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?

Breeder reactors don't produce waste, they consume it.  There is one
small side effect though:  unlike normal reactors which can only
meltdown, breeder reactors can blow up like a bomb.  Read _We Almost
Lost Detroit_ for more details on the near fatal runaway reaction at the
Enrico Fermi reactor.

> 
>How do you justify poisoning Native Americans by mining the toxic
>radioactive ore from their lands?

Very true.

> 
>How do ensure there will be no more Chernobyls or Three Mile Islands?

You can't.

> 
>Are you concerned that the radioactivity will create mutant life forms?

Not really.

> 
>How do you justify the very expensive cost of generating electricity
>by using nuclear reactors as opposed to conventional methods?

To be fair, the cost is so high because of the cost of litigation which
always surrounds these new installations.  And I suspect that because of
this, their insurance costs are rather high as well.

> 
>Don't you think the government's real purpose for promoting nuclear
>energy to convince us that there is a peaceful use for the nuclear bomb?

The two are unrelated.

> 
>Dale
>

	-Phil
-- 
(--)======================================================================(--)
 ||                                                                        ||
 ||  As evey cell in Chile will tell / The cries of the tortured men       ||
 ||  Remember Allende in the days before / Before the army came            ||
 ||  Please remember Victor Jara / In the Santiago Stadium / Es verdad     ||
 ||              Those Washington Bullets Again!      --The Clash          ||
 ||                                                                        ||
(--)== prs9k@virginia.edu === Phil Scarr === Department of Neurosurgery ==(--)
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:07 PST
Subject: Re: local control
Nf-ID: #R:1illau$dkq@agate.berkeley.edu:-1815494394:cdp:1678600083:000:2941
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 10 01:07:00 1993


Jim,
 
You bring up a very important concern about local control and global
responsibility.  There has been a detailed discussion of this very
problem on the econet conference utne.salon.  Joel and Genevieve have
been having a very thoughtful discussion exploring some solutions.
Joel has been working on this issue outside of computer networking
as well.  I believe he is currently working up a paper to submit to
a U.N. agency on the problems of self determination and the role of
an international agency which has the authority, or at least the ability,
to intervene.  He sees that many of the trouble spots in the world are
being caused by ethnic groups who feel they must resort to violence in
order to keep from being forced to loose their ethnicity.  He points to
the concerns of the Bosnian Serbs.
 
I hate to rehash all of the discussion over here, but one of the 
solutions which I have found particularly interesting is to move
away from the concept of military intervention, to that of a police
force, and ultimately to teams of people who are experts in non-violent
conflict resolution.  Military intervention is a dead-end for peace-
keeping because the soldier on the field has no role but to kill on
command or be killed.  (I believe there is plenty of historical
support for the slogan of the peace activists: "There is no way
to peace, peace is the way.  The benefit of violent solutions is
only temporary, but the harm will last forever.")
 
Police, on the other hand, do not necessarily have to shoot.  They are
empowered, in fact encouraged, to engage the suspect in peaceful
conversation.  They have the authority and the responsibility to find
out what's wrong, and only to shoot if their life or the life of someone
else is in danger.
 
The ultimate goal would be to send teams of non-violent conflict
resolution experts.  Some would say that this is only wishful thinking,
but imagine what might have happened in former Yugoslavia if teams
(thousands) of conflict resolution experts were sent in a year and
half ago, before the first shot was fired.  Furthermore, wars these
days are not settled by the aggressor killing all the losers and
occupying their lands, but rather through cease-fire negotiations
with, you guessed it, conflict resolution experts.  Wouldn't it
make a lot more sense to use them in the first place?
 
I don't want to give the impression that this the best or even a
workable solution.  The entire world has difficulty dealing with
non-violent conflict resolution.  (In fact, how many in the world
are even aware that there are solutions other than war and
killing?)  As Joel points out, we all need to think very hard
about solutions.
 
If you would like to participate in this discussion check out
utne.salon (if you have access to it) or contact Joel at
jsax@igc.apc.org.
 
Dale
 
P.S. I am not sure if Joel reads these discussions, so please
address specific questions to him personally.
From: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Population (was Re: Greens vs. Property
Summary: watch the vibes!
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:52:49 GMT
Reply-To: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
Followup-To: alt.config


In article 1713@naughty-peahen, jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=+= Please remember that there are both sci.environment and
>talk.environment newsgroups for discussion of environmental
>issues such as population, and several forums in which to
>discuss the credibility of the Heritage Foundation and other
>right-wing "think tanks."
>
>=+= This newsgroup was created to discuss Green movements,
>not to serve as yet another talk.environment.
>    <_Jym_>


Jym makes a vital point.  To amplify, there are also a couple of
newsgroups and a mailing list for discussing libertarian ideologies.
There's a newsgroup for technical discussion of energy technologies.
There's a newsgroup for flames and personal insults.
There's a newsgroup for orienting new users, where *wisdom* may be
found concerning the level of politeness and cooperation needed to
keep the Usenet working.  There'r even a couple of newsgroups for
discussing the charters of newsgroups!
(The groups I refer to are, in order:  alt.individualism,
alt.politics.libertarian, LIBERNET, sci.energy, alt.flame (use it!),
news.announce.newusers, news.groups, alt.config)

One of the 10 Key Values is "respect for diversity" and IMHO that
includes respect for diverse opinions.  However, continuing discussion
which is completely unrelated to the known charter of a group AND which
is more appropriate to another newsgroup, by people who know better,
is IMHO not just rudeness, it's *vandalism*.  Let's not vandalize
alt.politics.greens, please, and let's try to respect one another's
diversity.  No insults!


Cameron in San Jose CA, not your Vibes Watcher

ps. If you don't know what a Vibes Watcher is, then *please* come to
your next local Green Party meeting and find out!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:59:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1678600048@igc.apc.org> dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:


|Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?

This is a political problem, not a technological one.  Most of the
highly radioactive stuff has half lives from a few hours to a few months.
Most of the remaining stuff is useful.  Uranium and plutonium should be
recycled, not thrown away.
| 
|How do you justify poisoning Native Americans by mining the toxic
|radioactive ore from their lands?

Dale, when you write stuff like this, it makes you sound like you are
reading from somebodies pamplet instead of thinking for yourself.
Please specify where and when.  Also, are you opposed to all mining, or
just the "toxic radioactive" stuff.
| 
|How do ensure there will be no more Chernobyls or Three Mile Islands?

Chernobyl was a long string of incredibly stupid moves.  Starting with a
brain dead design, followed by an assinine decision not to build a
containment vessel.  You can get more radiation from a couple of chest
x-rays than was released at Three-Mile Island.

Can we guarentee that there will never be another accident.  No of course
not.  Can we demonstrate, that when the entire life cycle is taken into
account, nuclear power is safer than the alternatives, Yes.
| 
|Are you concerned that the radioactivity will create mutant life forms?

If you are concerned about this, I suggest that you never get any x-rays,
travel by plane, or live near any place that has exposed granite.
The diferences in the level of background radiation between various parts
of the US alone, is several orders of magnitude greater than the
largest allowable release from a nuclear plant.
| 
|Don't you think the government's real purpose for promoting nuclear
|energy to convince us that there is a peaceful use for the nuclear bomb?

I'm sorry Dale, but this question just doesn't make any sense.  What
relationship is their between nuclear weapons and nuclear power?
Do you think there are little bombs going off inside those plants or
something?
-- 
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
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 9 Jan 1993 03:33:32 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org>, Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
] 
] > In order to get the energy required by all these people [the supposed 
] > carrying capacity of the earth -- 30 Billion people], we would
] > have to use nuclear breeder reactors.
]  
] Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?
]  
] How do you justify poisoning Native Americans by mining the toxic
] radioactive ore from their lands?
]  
] How do ensure there will be no more Chernobyls or Three Mile Islands?

Or hell, how about the *really* big one:  Chelyabinsk?

...What, you haven't *heard* of Chelyabinsk?

The Chelyabinsk 40 nuclear waste storage facility made like a little
volcano in 1956.  The Soviets didn't publicly admit it until 1978.  For
months, every hospital around an area roughly 100 miles wide by 300 miles
long, stretching eastward from Chelyabinsk (on the eastern edge of the
Urals) was full of people dying of radiation sickness.  The scientific
literature contains many papers written by Soviet scientists who studied
the effects upon the life in lakes containing radioisotopes in quantities
measured in curies per liter.  (Think about *that* for a moment.)  They
still don't route commercial flights over the area.


-- 
      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
    ......................................................................
    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Are Breeder Reactors Heterophobic?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 01:57:48 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <1irul7INNbpd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
[1-line article deleted]
] -- 
] Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
]             looks promising.... |-)

To which one might quote a commonly seen fannish shirt/button:

"Beam me up, Scotty; there is no intelligent life on this planet."


-- 
      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
    ......................................................................
    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:36:02 GMT
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers

In article <1678600051@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>The
>Green vision of community based economics is very similar to what
>thousands of indigenous peoples have practiced for thousands of
>years.

I feel it incumbent to ask Dale just why he believes that such an
economic system will not "evolve" into something like the one we have
today. Does he believe that there is something so fundamentally
different about the Green economic model that it could never have
evolved into today's system ?

I would suggest that the emergence of agriculture was the key event in
shaping western economics; most economies in the world today have all
the essential ingredients of the US model, other than those still
dominated by hunter/gatherer modes of living.

Making a deliberate move to "community based" economics will change
things for the better, but if the current system derives from (1) the
existence of a (food) surplus and (2) various philosophical or
religious beliefs that have informed human societies since the dawn of
agriculture, how will this change be long-lived ?

-- paul



-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either