HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:57:50 GMT
Organization: St. Mary's College of Maryland
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A6D656A9DB0201D2@williams.smcm.edu>
X-XXDate: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:59:05 GMT

In article <1893@grivel.une.edu.au> JOHN HUNTER,
jhunter5@metz.une.edu.au writes:
 >         While in most cases native peoples appear to have blended
in well 
>with their environments, I don't believe this has always been the
case.

I believe I've heard it suggested that the disappearance of most large
mammals in the western hemisphere coincided with the arrival of humans
there.  The speculation, of course, is that the "Indians" wiped out the
Wooly Mammoth, the saber-toothed tiger, etc.
___________________________________ 
William E. Williams,
bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu Divison of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
St. Mary's College of Maryland St. Mary's City, MD 20686
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Bicycle-Generated Electricity
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:02:39 GMT
	<JMC.92Sep5125824@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<JYM.92Sep9164719@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: jym@mica.berkeley.edu's message of 9 Sep 92 16:47:19

In article <JYM.92Sep9164719@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

 this bit due to jmccarthy I believe:
   > All those people who operate stationary bicycles for exercise
   > could be generating electricity and feeding it into the
   > network.

   =o= I've often thought that would be a fine arrangement for
   powering a television set.  Or a home terminal & modem set up
   for writing Usenet news . . .

Any clue what the power consumption of a TV set is?
Still, might have a socially redeeming value, radically
altering the ratio of time exercising/time wathcing telly...

   =o= I don't imagine one could add much to The Grid with such
   a setup, but there are plenty of home energy systems that could
   contribute to it.

Why don't you figure it out? It's a 30 sec task...


- for those arithmetically challenged: the human body produces
about 100W - you might get a couple of hundred watts of power
for a couple of hours out of a fit marathon runner (easy way is
to figure food intake per day) - call it a very generous 100W of
usable electric power for 2 hours. A 25" tube TV requires several hundred
watts to operate, a small TV might last long enough for us all
to watch Murphy Brown :-) but not, alas, the season premier,
unless you save up for a few days - or use one of those
dinky watchmen thingies. 
	Now, a laptop and News feed might just be doable...
easy if solar augmented ;-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:24:43 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <53191@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>B) we are, of course, not talking about radiation in the abstract, but
>   about plutonium wastes from reprocressing. What leads you to believe
>   that the dangers of dispersed plutunium in the sea and in beach sand
>   are less than the dangers of eating?

Perhaps it's the *fact* that more people die each year from choking
on chicken bones than from radiation poisoning.

Gary
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:03:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncratl.9143
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <6238@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>The parameterizations of sub-grid scale phenomena (like cumulus cloudiness)
>have everything to do with the feedback mechanisms and net radiative balance.
>There are a range of feedbacks (depending on method) that can be positive
>or negative.

I have never read one way or the other, so I do not know.  (Which is why
I am asking.)  Do any of these models take thunderstorms into account.
(Small scale vertical mixing. ;^))  From the point of purely personal
observation.  Here in the south, whenever the temperature gets into the
low 90's F., afternoon thunderstorms are a given.  Unless we happen to
be sitting under a high pressure region.  Much warm humid are is carried
high into the atmosphere where the water condenses releasing even more
heat.  It is my thought that this heat would be able to escape to space
more easily than heat nearer the surface.  Also thunderstorm clouds
(cumulus?) are very efficient at reflecting visible light.

My thought is that any global warming would increase the likelyhood of
such storms.  This would be a strong negative feedback.

>  The conclusion is: 1) clouds MAY have a strong
>  influence in climate change, but 2) we are far from knowing the
>  maginitude, and even the sign, of this influence.

I believe I have read that the early data from the satellite NASA sent
up to study clouds, (I do not remember the name.)  indicated that
clouds, taken as a whole (whole earth integrated?) were a weak net
negative feedback.  The data was very preliminary and I haven't
anything further.

>Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Summary: CO_2 doubling? 
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:53:49 GMT


Postings by Tobis, Halliwell and others have clarified the point about
possible and likely responses of the equilibrium climate to a doubling
of atmospheric CO_2 levels.   Perhaps someone ought to also discuss the
reasons for being conerned that such a doubling (or something comparable
in magnitude) is likely to take place in the near future.  I was under
the impression that the theoretical expectation that CO_2 levels
should rise with increased burning of fossil fuels has in fact been
verified by observational data.  I also seem to remember that the
levels have not risen as fast as might be expected so that the sinks
are not entirely understood.  However, I thought that plausible models
suggest that without stabilization of the use of fossil fuels, there
will be something like a doubling of CO_2 levels within about 50
years.  Certainly, there are other possibilities, but as in discussion
of climate models, those suggesting CO_2 levels will not rise
substantially make rather optimistic assumptions about feedback
mechanisms and other assumptions without serious justification.

Would someone please comment on this issue?
I know that this has all been discussed before in this news group,
but we seem bent on recycling the same arguments, and I hope some
understanding improves in each cycle.


Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:03:40 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Sep14130359@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.184658.12764@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>
>   In article <STEINLY.92Sep9111058@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>   I think the endagered species act is a clumsy tool, but I think we should
>   accord every species the right to an environment in which it has some
          ^^^^^^?
>I would disagree. I don't think a smallpox virus or polio has any right
>to the environment it needs, in fact I even object to mosquitoes feeding
>off me. You have to be careful making proclamations of priciple.

Fair enough. I don't imagine the Endangered Species Act extends to viruses,
though. (As for mosquitos, if they had the vote then Wisconsin would get
more political leverage, and assuming they didn't exercise their right to
vote, the effect would probably be salutary :-)

I was trying to express a principle that protected environmental niches
without actually demanding the entire power of the state be dedicated to
saving every single species in danger of extinction, which leads to some of 
the ridiculous excesses documented in a recent issue of the Atlantic.

>   chance of survival. It doesn't seem reasonable that the survival of the
>   Spotted Owl should be based on whether it is classified as a species or
>   a subspecies. On the other hand, it seems ludicrous to allow the
>   elimination of any habitat capable of supporting it, just to keep a few
>   hundred people busy for a few more years. If in this legalistic age
>   assigning rights to the owl is the best way to accomplish this reasonable
>   goal, then it is perfectly reasonable and consistent to do so, and 
>   responsibilities of the owl are not relevant.

>Maybe. It will be interesting to see...

If you can think of a way of defining habitats to protect them (habitats) in 
such a way as to be specific enough to get past the lawyers, without
actually identifying species as the entity under protection, I for one
would be very interested to hear of it.

mt

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ketil@due.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Bicycle-Generated Electricity
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<JMC.92Sep5125824@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<JYM.92Sep9164719@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<STEINLY.92Sep9170239@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:36:10

In article <STEINLY.92Sep9170239@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

      =o= I don't imagine one could add much to The Grid with such
      a setup, but there are plenty of home energy systems that could
      contribute to it.

   Why don't you figure it out? It's a 30 sec task...

   [...]
   watts to operate, a small TV might last long enough for us all
   to watch Murphy Brown :-) but not, alas, the season premier,
   unless you save up for a few days - or use one of those
   dinky watchmen thingies. 

Well, but people watch too much TV anyway.  And of course, you could
always invite some friends over... ;-)

-ketil

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Diapers (probably a FAQ)
Keywords: diapers,environment,polio
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:08:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep14.072940.20311@gnosys.svle.ma.us> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

>Back in the days when I was a more avid reader of sci.environment than I
>now am, I diligently archived a vast quantity of articles on a variety of
>subjects.  I just checked through what I'd squirreled away on the subject
>of diapers, and came up with the following.
...
>From: sjn@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Scott J. Norton)
>
> I didn't read all of the diaper discussions but I'll try to respond to most
> of the concerns.
>
> Diapers with fecal material have been found to carry polio.  People are not
> contracting diseases from fecal material that has been buried.  The landfill
> operators, men or women who drive the heavy equipment or in some cases who
> pick through the garbage looking for reusables or recyclables have
> contracted polio from the fecal material.

--------------------

I understand that polio is just about extinct in the western
hemisphere, and that it may be the next disease to be erradicated
worldwide (the first was smallpox).

I find it very hard to believe that there are any documented cases
where it was proved that someone got polio from picking through trash
containing disposable diapers.  Hepatitis, I could believe.

On the paper vs. plastic grocery bag debate: plastic bags are much
better for wrapping up used disposable diapers.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: pruss@helix.nih.gov (dmitry pruss)
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:57:46 GMT

In article <15053@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
>
>> Why do you see an opposition between technical development and environmental
>> protection? There is a large difference between developing a new technology
>> and immediately starting large scale use, i.e. builing one car is development
>> while building the 100,000,001 is consumption. I rather see it the other way:
>> if we are going to save the environment we need lots of new technology. Going
>> for a low consumption lifestyle may actually leave more resources for
>> science.
>
>The opposition I saw was a result of messages posted before on this topic.
>There is a frequent call for "nature, not technology".  Most R&D is done with
>the expectation of future profit.  Who would pay the R&D costs for developing
>anti-lock braking systems for cars if only 200 rather than 2,000,000 were going
>to be made and sold?

Yeah, everybody knows that nuclear=evil, chemistry=evil, genetic=evil. They
would say "there's good R&D and bad R&D", but this effectively means "We'd
better go backward"
>
>A perfect zero-population-growth society ("...Imagine no possessions...") could
>possibly support intensive R&D with no expectation of profit, but such a world
>really is hard to imagine.
>
The whole idea of human niche defined as "A human being needs this and
this, and hell takes anything else"... Well, an attractive thought. I hate
*excess luxuries*, too. 
But I should say that the idea is older than any green politics. 
To satisfy people's needs and proceed marginally slow afterwards?
Yes, it has been known as communism.

A bit of commie's practice:
buses were thought to be needed, cars - not.
TV sets were needed, VCRs not.
Alcohol or condoms were sometimes required, sometimes not (seemengly a
random choice of items to need).

Meanwhile some men had different ideas on what they'd rather need.

Hence the society had no other way but to supress their citiziens and to
fight their foreign rivals. Being a surrogate religion, the communism eased
the task. But the results were not quite fine: impeded progress is impeded
progress :(

Now we are offered a new surrogate religion to fit the similar purpose.
Well, the history does make rounds...

	D
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:52:44 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <97snfpj.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <STEINMAN.92Sep9145437@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
>>I think we all agree that radiation is dangerous, although we may
>>disagree on the dose. Then it becomes not a matter of protecting us
>>from nature, but avoiding adding to nature's existing perils.
>
>Sure.  And fire is dangerous.  Water is dangerous.  Crossing the
>street is dangerous.  Driving is *incredibly* dangerous.
>Eating is dangerous.  Going to the bathroom is dangerous.
>
>All of these things are more dangerous than a couple of millirems
>couple of millirems of radiation, even given the very pessimistic
>linear hypothesis.

A) what is the evidence that the linear hypothesis is worst case?
B) we are, of course, not talking about radiation in the abstract, but
   about plutonium wastes from reprocressing. What leads you to believe
   that the dangers of dispersed plutunium in the sea and in beach sand
   are less than the dangers of eating?

>-- 
>Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
>mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
>mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
>                                          Zero risk at last.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: rwmurphr@wildcat.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Neutralizing hurricanes
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:34:50 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

I remember in my air pollution engineering course we discussed the energy
requirements of undoing the inversion over LA california.  The energy 
involved was several 1000 or million megatons (as in H-Bombs) per hour.\
So my understanding is basically weather modification by direct injection
of thermal energy is not possible.  \

If you are going to modify the weather by injection of particulates, 
wouldn't the gulf war fires be a good baseline to consider?  They 
didn't get hight enough into the stratosphere to effect global weather.\
Also, a good volcano injects as much as 1 or several cubic miles
of rock into the atmosphere.  How could this be done without nukes?
Also there is lots of sulfer in the volcanic ash, just water or rock
won't do.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: bergen@milton.u.washington.edu (Scott Bergen)
Subject: Re: Diapers (probably a FAQ)
Keywords: diapers,environment
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:15:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.192825.9065@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> lattanzi@coos.dartmouth.edu (Stephen C. Lattanzi) writes:
>What are people's opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of cloth and
>disposable diapers?  I have heard arguments on either side of this issue
>(from an environmental perspective), but only vaguely.  I'd be interested
>in hearing what people have to say, as it will be an important issue for
>my wife and I sometime around 3/92 :-).
> 
>Sorry if this is a FAQ.
> 
>Steve Lattanzi (lattanzi@coos.dartmouth.edu)

A friend of mine recently did some thorough research on this subject for
the same reason.  He eventually decided to by a front loading washing
machine from Sweden.  Front loaders are very common in Europe.  The simplified
reasoning was:

1. Disposables use plastics, clog landfills, don't degrade, etc. etc.,
2. The local diaper service was as expensive as the new washing machine,
3. Most importantly, U.S. made top-loading, agitating machines just
   don't work well.

It's yet another story of greed and corporate politics. At a crucial point
in the history of washing machine technology the major appliance 
manufacturers did not want to pay for the patents rights or royalties to
the inventor of the front loading design.  They had to come up with a new
design - the top loader - that we find in every U.S. household today.

Front loaders use less water (2-3 gal as opposed to 10-15 per cycle),
use less detergent, and spin dry out over 90% of the water
(at 1000-1500 rpms as opposed to 500ish), thus saving energy on drying,

and they get your clothes cleaner.

Or so I'm told.

Scott Bergen
bergen@u.washington.edu
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 10 Sep 92 06:41:30 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:

> In order to create a balance between short term profit and long time risks a
> ecological "religion" placing an inherent value on nature may actually be of
> great survival value. A rational cost-benefit analysis including the cost of
> unknown risks would of course be better, but our society seems to be
> incapable of that at this point.

Our society is incapable of running decent religions either.  Catholic priests
have been abusing their power by sexually abusing children; Christians have
money-grubbers (otherwise known as "TV evangelists"); other religions probably
have similar flaws.  A "Church of Gaia" might flex its muscles to gain more
power; read about holy wars and the Inquisition.

I'd rather trust an engineer than a priest.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: population load question
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:52 GMT

In article <14868@mindlink.bc.ca> Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
>Considering that we just might have a few more people than our planet can
>support in comfort (as opposed to just existing, but not living), how do people
>truly concerned about this overpopulation feel about feeding people in Somalia?
>Also, would it be possible to say that innoculations and  antibiotics have
>helped bring about this overpopulation?  Similarly, what about the control of
>tropical diseases like malaria?
>
>


Billions have been saved from slow, painful death by antibiotics and
DDT; a few million dying from starvation is a far better outcome.

Here is what I would recommend: send a box of birth-control-pills and 
condoms with every pound of wheat.  Send a birth-control advisor from 
Planned Parenthood for every aid-relief advisor.  

Now, about population policy in general: the fear of genocide is very
real.  We have in our hands a tool of genocide far more powerful  and
subtle than any Hitler every used, and a great moral pressure to use it.  
We must be fully aware of this fact and use birth control with wisdom.
Human cultural and genetic diversity has to come first, population reduction 
second. 

Some specific policies:

* Promote population control only in those countries with greater than 1%/year
population growth.
* Make sure we are aware of all the subcultures in these countries, how 
the birth control is being distributed, and what their fertility rates are.  
We must make it a priority to revitalize, and protect from the general 
pressure to limit populations, those subcultures in stasis or
decline, whether they be the Amzonian tribes in Brazil or Ashkenazi
Jews or Magyars -- or somebody ourselves! -- in the developed world.
* The goal should be temporary lower population growth, not zero population
growth or decline.  When resources open up in the future, such as
the ability to colonize Siberia or Antartica or underground-Earth or
space, we should figure out well ahead of time how to revitalize our
cultures to return to the mode of an expanding civilization.



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: masuda@gpnws.geoph.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (MASUDA Kooiti)
Subject: cmsg cancel <1992Sep5.063320.13699@gpnws.geoph.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
    <1992Sep5.063320.13699@gpnws.geoph.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 06:34:04 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Earth and Planetary Physics, Univ. of Tokyo, Japan
X-Bytes: 0