HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 6500axel@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Axel Boldt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:37:30 GMT
Reply-To: 6500axel@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Organization: Univ of California, Santa Barbara, Dept of Mathematics


Concerning the ongoing fight for/against cars under this subject:

Why not ban all advertising for cars? We heard repeatedly that it's
almost impossible for certain people to live without a car. So they
would go by themselves to a car seller. All the others, who are now
persuaded to buy a car by means of suggestions of some 'freedom'
coming along with it, would be better of without car-ads and without
cars.

We should take the case of smoking as a guiding example. Nowadays,
people hardly dare to mention in public that they are smokers: smoking
is 'out'.  Would be great, if in a few years also car driving were
'out', wouldn't it? Only those silly enough to always carry 1000 kg
along with them would still use cars.

Axel.


P.S. Please don't waste your time writing down the 'jobs in the car
industry' argument. If it is most important to you that everyone has
a job, no matter how damaging or useless this job be, then look at the
former GDR: 0% unemployment.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 05:08:54 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan4.205955.10722@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com writes:

 >  For myself, I believe that history teaches us that improved
 > living standards are the cause, and that reduced population growth is the
 > effect.  Yes, we need to educate and combat poverty first.  However, I
 > think that history shows us that improving the quality of life RAISES
 > per capita consumption rates.  Look at the United States.  Imagine the
 > trouble we would have if the First World grew at Third World rates! 
 > Therefore, population control IS a necessary precursor of an improved
 > environment.

Frankly, looking at the United States rather distorts the view. There
are plenty of countries from which data supporting a far more reliable
analysis of normative trends can be gleaned, instead of just comparing
on a simplistic polar dimension one extreme case with another.

The US for its part is burdened with the corruption and decay of far
too much power underwritten by armed might, complicated by internal
stresses generated by unresolved racial and social conflict, a burden
I am sure Europe was finally very willing indeed to hand over so they
would be free to get themselves sorted out.

There is simply not one chicken hatching from or laying one egg to
puzzle over. There are billions of them, each grouped into vastly
different circumstances which bear close examination, yes?

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: rstenson@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Ronald Ernest Stenson)
Subject: Nuclear waste management INFO?
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:33:57 GMT

I am currently reviewing both the policy and physical science of nuclear
waste disposal.  This includes both low level and high level waste.  If
anyone has any suggestions on key summaries of historic information please
e-mail them to me or post.  I would be interested in bibliographies from
recent papers or information pointing to an archive site with information.

I will post a summary of any information I receive.

Thank you in advance.

rstenson@spartan.ac.brocku.ca
department of geography
university of waterloo
waterloo ON N2L 3G1
From: dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman)
Subject: Re: Environmental Cost Assignment (was Re: Save the Planet and ...)
Organization: Bank of America, Capital Products, RMTG #5906
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 02:13:41 GMT

Anybody have Al Gore's internet address?


-- 
 Daniel Brockman             tel 415-953-0406, fax 415-622-2892
 Bank of America, Dept 5906, 555 Calif St
 San Francisco 94104 USA    email uunet!odinba!dan dan@bofa.com
From: rodger@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Shetland Oil Spill
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:27:23 GMT
Organization: The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

John McCarthy says:

As disasters go, tankers running aground have been minor compared to
earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, city-wide fires, big forest fires,
outbreaks of cholera, munition ship explosions and big socker riots.


Mr. McCarthy in his eagernss to trivialize the devastation of an
ecosystem has apparently forsaken his roots and philisophically joined his
archenemy, the media, is completely ignoring the fact that there are human beings
on the Shetland Islands whose entire way of life may have been completely
destroyed by this trifling shipwreak.  It is repulsive to imagine that the
impact of criminal stupidity must be measured only by its cost in HUMAN life 
or dollars and cents. 

Rodger Madison

He who does only arithmetic is inhumane and doomed to madness.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: objective environment? (was Save the Planet)
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 05:59:00 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan05.060119.12601@watson.ibm.com> andrewt@watson.ibm.com writes:

 > A species placement in the Linnaean taxonomy should be consistent with
 > its evolutionary ancestry. If it is placed in a taxon then it should be more
 > closely related to all members of this taxon than it is to any member of
 > another taxon at the same rank.  Taxa at each rank are chosen to comply with
 > this restriction and to reflect a certain degree of similarity, depending
 > on the rank, between the members. 
 >  
 > Placing pig-farmers and pigs together in a low level taxon would not only
 > be inconsistent with their evolutionary ancestry, it would conflict with
 > the intention of taxa containing similar species.

My enquiry was rather concerned with how this conflict, given that the
species will experience a concurrent spacial interdependence usually
lacking any knowledge or awareness of their respective evolutionary
anscestry, might be resolved. Perhaps the Linnaean system is useful
as an ancillary tool, and some other system brought to bear doing some
justice to that interdependence.

After all, the conflict referred to is rather artificially invoked by
Linnaean taxonomists themselves, isn't it?

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

The question is quite clearly phrased as "is the answer to make", *not*
"is it getting". Yes?

 > >Or perhaps finally abandon it in favour of more practical and reliable models
 > >of reality which inform us in not too technical jargon about what is actually
 > >happening in a particular local environment?
 >  
 > Linnaean taxonomy does not yield information about ecosystems, for that
 > you want ecology.

OK, fine. Now, what contribution might biology play in the further
development of ecology, given that a biologist might have a stated
interest in the inter-relationship between pig farmers and pigs, for
example, or perhaps farmers and kangaroos. How might we cooperate in
sorting these sorts of dispute out among us?

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

It is museums still holding the remains, actually, deriving from their
earlier drive for exhibits. The issue was entered here as a bracketed
aside if you recall.

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

Perhaps you would also be interested in

        Strauss A.  1978
        Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order
        San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

   and we can pursue it further at a later date.

Thanks for your interest.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: plutonium arrives in Japan
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:31:18 GMT

Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:

: For the umpteenth time.  The plutonium in question is not suitable for
: making bombs.
: Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

	I think the other countries believe Japan possesses the
technological capability to reprocess the large amounts they are importing
into weapons-grade plutonium.


============================================================
|  James G. Acker                       Occasional Genius  |
|  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov        Regular Swimmer    |
|                                                          |
|  "Animal-based research in this field ignores the fact   |
|  that in humans much sexual behavior has little to do    |
|  with reproduction both psychologically and physio-      |
|  logically..."                                           |
============================================================
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:40:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.193353.6234@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.182038.26674@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>While it is not theoretically impossible to do both, they both cost
>>money and such money does not grow on trees.  Further, you ignore 
>>the part of the thread that discusses opportunity cost of
>>investing in nuclear power.  It is an inefficient use of money if
>>the goal is to lessen CO2 emissions.  The phrase above about
>>"quite independent" means that the savings can be had without a
>>switch to nuclear (or solar, etc.).  In that sense, while it does
>>not directly support the idea that a switch away from fossil fuels 
>>and an efficiency strategy are mutually exclusive, it does not
>>contradict it.  We can keep using fossil
>>fuels  and get the efficiency savings.  A central point is that
>>most studies of efficiency assume that money saved by not building
>>new generating capacity will be used to fund the efficiency
>>improvements.  We may also want to move away from fossil fuels, but
>>unless we can cough up the money for both, the most effective CO2
>>mitigation strategy is to focus on efficiency for the immediate future.
>
>While it should be obvious that we should take all the "cheap"
>efficiency steps we can, economic growth, and the coupling it
>has with energy consumption, can't be ignored. Energy usage and
>the GDP track quite well. We can argue which causes which, I think
>some of both, but we can't argue that they don't go hand in hand. A 
>modest 1% a year demand growth swallows any feasible efficiency gains. 
>And, we must replace existing capacity as the plants wear out. These 
>costs *must* be included in any analysis. By 2050, *every* current 
>plant must be replaced. We can choose to do that with dirty fossil, 
>or clean nuclear, but we must do it. "Conservation" energy doesn't
>negate the need for primary generation capacity.
>
>Gary
>
>-- 
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu

There is plenty of evidence that economic growth and the growth in
energy consumption need not be coupled as thet are now.  Countries in
Europe have done it, and the U.S. has even done it for short
periods.  I will try to post this evidence soon.

-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14330 sci.energy:6696
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:58:17 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <l2srmnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>>> First capital cost: If we postulate a scenario where the US
>>> commits to an  all-out conversion to nuclear energy, it must
>>> also be postulated that things that need to be done to
>>> streamline the process will be done. 

>I quoted myself above again to reiterate my basis which should be 
>the basis used in the study. 
...
>Sure a plant of 50s vintage design 
>built under even "streamlined" regulations would cost at least $1300/kw.  
>I would hope that in the almost 50 years of experience, the industry could 
>come up with a more cost-effective design.  Since several have already
>been proposed in the literature, I'm sure they can.  
...
>Back to the study.  That the author used old, stale values on the nuclear
>side while advocating radical social changes on the other shows the 
>bogosity of the "study".  'Bout what I'd expect from RMI.  If the author
>claims the right to postulate on the basis of radical conservation
>and soft energy, I have an equal right to demand that nuclear figures
>embrace at least the same level of radical change.

OK, what would you propose in the way of radical change?  

Some time back I asked 'what would your dream design be' and you were
one of the few who had a vision for the future.  You proposed a LMFBR
and a standardized mid-size HTGR that could be connected on a modular
basis to construct many different sized installations.  (Hope that is
a valid synopisis).  What would you propose in terms of systems to
review designs and construction that would be both streamlined/efficient,
and assure public safety/comfort?

Postulated that we will have to build nuclear plant (either due to 
rapid growth of electrical demand or due to the need to reduce CO2
and other junk from coal), what would you propose in terms of a plan
outline for getting your dream plants built on a schedule that would
be appropriate for the world?

Would you have Westinghouse/GE/et.al. provide a standard design for
one-time review and sign-off?  Would you have a 10 year proof of concept
testing phase?  How would we get from 'here' to 'there'?  (You get to
define where 'there' is ... 50% nuke?  80% ?)


-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

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

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: plutonium arrives in Japan
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:10:47

I have to agree that the news is there along with the bias.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: kbushe@unix1.tcd.ie (Kevin Bushe)
Subject: Imformation Technology and the Environment
Keywords: I.T. and the Environment
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:30:07 GMT

	Information Technology and the Environment

	Hello, I have a project to do on Information Technology and the
environment  and  I  was  wondering  if  anyone  had  any  interesting
information, references, ideas, jokes etc. that would be any way useful 
for a 25 minute talk and/or a audio tape 20/30 mins. Any help would be
greatly appreciated.
             
				Yours Gratefully,

					Kevin Bushe.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace
X-Xxdate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 13: 08:41 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: tnb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:04:35 GMT

In article <1hr11tINNilk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Patricia Dedula,
ad376@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>My neighbor has a woodburning fireplace which he burns from 
>morning to night.  It is polluting the air around my house to the
>point where I 
>can hardly breathe when I am outside and it is getting into m
>my house.  Could anyone tell me what could be causing this 
>pollution.  Could he be burning the wrong kind of wood?  What 
>could my neighbor do to eliminate or cut down the strong smell
>that his coming from his fireplace and surrounding my house.

Wood fires smell worst if they are burning poorly.  Wet or rotten wood
does not burn well, so that is a good first guess.  Some types of wood
just seem to stink.  A poor stove also produces inefficient fires.  I
find that a hot "fire" (generally no flames) with the catalytic converter
engaged produced no detectable smoke or smell outside the house.

The posts about wood smoke polluting are certainly right.  Even a clean
burning stove is no match for natural gas, and for places like Cleveland
and Los Altos it makes no sense as a heat source.  I find it useful in a
community of 16 winter residents, and with a steady supply of downed wood
on my own property.  Those are pretty unusual conditions.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Education and the Environment by Gregory A. Smith
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<726211292snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au>
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:11:31

Gil says:

     Under the Western European tradition derived from Mosaic
     Christianity and explicitly intended to engender loyalty to
     the status quo. The etymology of the word "education" arises
     from "to the Duke".

Not quite.  Webster says,

ed.u.cate \'ej-<e>-,k<a^->t\ vb -cat.ed; -cat.ing (15c)
 [ME educaten to rear, fr. L educatus, pp. of educare to rear, educate,
fr. educere to lead forth -- more at EDUCE] vt

educe \i-'d(y)<u:>s\ vt educed; educ.ing (1603)
 [L educere to draw out, fr. e- + ducere to lead -- more at TOW]

duke \'d(y)<u:>k\ n (12c)
 [ME, fr. OF duc, fr. L duc-, dux, fr. ducere to lead -- more at TOW]

 tow \'t<o^->\ vb (bef. 12c)
 [ME towen, fr. OE togian; akin to OE t<e^->on to draw, pull, OHG ziohan
to draw, pull, L ducere to draw, lead] vt

They have similar Latin roots, but neither is a descendant of the other.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: rajesh@ivy (Rajesh Raman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Help wanted
Date: 7 Jan 1993 09:28:04 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivy.wpi.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]



--

Rajesh Raman

--
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: "Sub-Species" (was: Mt. Graham: UPitt Protest)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:47:29 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<Ligon-071292073145@3.1.100.11>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> For an explanation of what "sub-species" means in language
> that lawyers might possibly be able to understand . . .

=+= I can put it in even simpler language:  a "sub-species"
is a race.

> Sorry to break your bubble guys, but just because Jersey
> cows or poodle dogs go extinct does not mean that cows or
> dogs go extinct.

=+= Hitler's plans to exterminate Jews wouldn't have caused
humankind to go extinct, but is that the point?  (Those who
find the comparison extreme should realize that there are
human "sub-species" being destroyed in rainforests around
the world.)
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.geology,sci.research,sci.comp-aided
From: tamirp@meiko.co.uk (General esp user)
Subject: Test(1)
Reply-To: tamir@meiko.co.uk
Organization: Meiko Ltd
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:51:28 GMT

test message
---
================================================================

Meiko	
650 Aztec West	
Bristol	
BS12 4SD
England	

Tel: +44 (0)454 616171
Fax: +44 (0)454 618188

email: tamir@meiko.co.uk or tamir@meiko.com


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Shetland Oil Spill
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:03:10

As disasters go, tankers running aground have been minor compared to
earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, city-wide fires, big forest fires,
outbreaks of cholera, munition ship explosions and big socker riots.

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: erl@cray.com (Eric Lund)
Subject: Household Scale Waste Treatment
Originator: erl@cypress36
Keywords: sewage, septic, water
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:03:08 CST


I don't generally read this news group so if you have any information
on the following please e-mail your response (if this starts a
discussion on this newsgroup let me know, I would like to follow it).

A friend of mine has a serious problem with caused by an outdated
septic system that exists on a lot far too small to provide an
alternative site for a newer system.  He has been told that he cannot
possibly build a new system that would meet code, and the current
system (along with the systems for every other house on his street) is
contaminating a nearby river.   Faced with the prospect of putting in
a better, but still non-conforming system or leaving the system he has
in place, with its attendant environmental damage, he is trying to find
a solution that will not bankrupt him, force him from his home, or continue
polluting the river.

I am aware of composting toilet systems, that would provide a partial
solutution, but they fall short of solving the problem in two areas (as
far as I know):

	- They are not especially good at handling the amount of liquid
	  waste generated by a household, and

	- The ones I have seen would require major remodeling to install
	  in an existing home.

In addition, my father mentioned that he worked on a project many years
ago to develop aerobic digesters that were suited for treating sewage at
the scale of an industrial plant.  Unfortunately, my friend does not have
the space or the financial resources available to those who run industrial
plants.

Has anyone out there heard of a system that might be able to solve this
problem?

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy