HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec15105733@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Dec16.140735@aifh.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:02:18

In article <1992Dec16.140735@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
   In article <JMC.92Dec15105733@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John
   McCarthy) writes:
   # Dingo says Greenpeace does some good research.  I'm curious about
   # that.  Do they do any research?  Is there a Greenpeace laboratory
   # somewhere, and are there Greenpeace employees who do scientific
   # research?  I'm sure they do legal research, i.e. looking for
   # information and people tending to support their positions.

   I refer you to the Greenpeace Global Warming Report, which at least draws
   together
   lots of different reasearch areas and scientific reports to back up the cases
   they make
   in it. This report is a collection of essays and reports by top scientists
   from the
   fields of climate research, renewable energy, energy efficiency and many other
   areas.
   It is edited by Jeremy Legget who is the Scientific director of Greenpeace, 
   the fact that they have such a position in their organization does suggest
   that they
   have some interest in the science involved, as does the publishing of this
   report.


   James

Publishing a collection of selected essays, especially if only those
supporting a single point of view are selected, does not constitute
doing research even if some of the essays are by scientists.  It is
not objectionable, but it isn't research.  Giving someone the title of
Scientific Director doesn't necessarily imply more interest in science
than is possessed by the average lawyer or politician trying to win
support for a position determined entirely on non-scientific grounds.

Question: Did any of the essays in the Greenpeace Global Warming Report
support nuclear energy, which does not contribute to global warming?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky talk.environment:5132 alt.activism.d:4345 alt.rush-limbaugh:11951
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Greenpeace: They're not just for propaganda anymore...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:51:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.153620@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>Please give some examples of these errors in scientific fact. I have read some
>of 
>Greenpeace's literature(e.g. The Greenpeace Book of the Nuclear age and The
>Greenpeace
>Global warming report) and have found it to be full of references to
>scientific papers
>to support their case. The press releases and leaflets admittedly don't
>usually contain
>any such evidence, but that is due to them trying to get a clear message
>across, and
>lack of space/time to put these in.

Why even seek out their literature when their press releases claim:

1. One speck/nanogram/whatever of Plutonium will kill you...

2. The possibility of a nuclear plant "exploding" somehow... 

3. The total lack of knowledge in basic nuclear processes...

4. Radwaste burial will kill millions...

5. That renewable energy technology can replace nuclear power plants...

6. Greenpeace is a "non-violent" organization...

Need I give them money for books when they already spew out this crap?

Sorry.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence . . .
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:21:29

In article <Jym.19Dec1992.1429@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
  References: <JMC.92Dec14161516@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
   NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

   John "Doomed to Talk Nonsense" McCarthy purports:

   > It is the strategy of Greenpeace and similar organizations
   > to provoke violence.

   =+= You haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support
   anything you've said about Greenpeace.  Would it be too much to
   expect a single shred of evidence to support this latest claim?

   =+= Your tales about the Police Riots (to use the term that
   Chicago's own investigators used) in Chicago in 1968 don't
   count, as they have absolutely nothing to do with Greenpeace.
   (Also, it might help to keep organizations straight:  The SDS
   was not the YIP.)
       <_Jym_>

Admittedly I am making a generalization from the behavior of thousands
of organizations in the past advancing their causes by making martyrs
on whatever scale suits them.  The practice of provoking violence
is so overwhelmingly common that it is more reasonable to demand
evidence that Greenpeace is not doing it.  As I said before, it's
partly a question of whom you believe, and Greenpeace has such a
record of exaggeration and wild statements that I choose to believe
the Japanese who have no such reputation.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace . . . Ramming of Boats
Date: 19 Dec 1992 23:03:08 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<11DEC199214413820@robot.nuceng.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> Too bad you only believe Greenpeace and no one else ...

=o= Not even remotely true.  There are things that Greenpeace
has done that I do not approve of, and I have said as much in
the past, in this very forum.

> As far as the ramming of Japanese fishing boats, it was
> televised on national TV in the US because my wife and I
> watched it.  The group who shot the video identified
> themselves as Greenpeace and that they were ramming "Japanese
> fishing veesels using drift nets in violation of International
> Law." . . . The clip was shown on some video show like
> "Totally Real Video"???? or something.

=o= I'll inform the folks at Greenpeace about this.  If you
(or anyone else) could provide a little more detail about this
broadcast -- when it was aired, etc. -- I would appreciate it.

=o= I still strongly doubt that Greenpeace was involved, even if
they were identified as such.  The media still tends to confuse
the Sea Shepherd Society with Greenpeace, or presents them as if
they are associated with Greenpeace.

=o= There is also the possibility that another party was trying
to pin the blame on Greenpeace.  At least one party (Clorox) had
plans in the works to portray Greenpeace as "ecoterrorists" --
not because of anything Greenpeace has actually done, but rather
to attempt to contain any bad publicity in the event that they
were to have an industrial mishap with environmentally-damaging
consequences.

=o= (I've posted articles providing more detail about this --
and similar deceptive portrayals of Earth First! -- about a
week ago.  See those articles for more information.)
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:53:31 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec15225956@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>I should imagine that if the arithmetic had turned out to support
>Dingo's prejudice that the U.S. was running out of land for landfill,
>it wouldn't have resulted in his scorn.  It is a bit unfair for
>him to demand a detailed plan in a Newsgroup posting, especially
>a one paragraph posting by someone not specializing in the matter
>under discussion.  However, we can go a little further.

If the arithmetic included other relevant factors, it wouldn't be
scorned.
>
>1. Concerning individual desires.  As to "near their homes and
>parks", it obviously depends on what you call near.  The Palo
>Alto City Dump is not within a mile of homes, but it isn't far
>from the yacht harbor (now abandoned for different reasons),
>a local airport, and a baylands park.  I don't know that there
>was any protest about that.

Okay, there's one.  It is clear, however, that many people are
fighting dumps in their areas.  These areas have a landfill
problem.  The Pacific Northwest is a good example.  Should they
send their wastes to Palo Alto?  Should they pay huge fess for long
distance transport?
>
>2. Part of the problems in locating dumps is that land in which
>dumps were expecting to expand, e.g. swamps, now are called
>wetlands and considered valuable for that purpose.  The seagulls
>feasting off the dump don't count.

"Called wetlands"?  Do you suggest that they are not wetlands?
Do they serve no purpose to humans or hold value for biodiversity?
>
>3. Anyone who flies across the country will see that there is
>plenty of land not being used for anything.  I see that the
>fact that we are factors of many thousands away from using up
>our potential dump space doesn't impress the anti-arithmetic
>faction.  Oh well, probably my son wouldn't be impressed even
>though he is good at arithmetic for a second-grader.

Would dumps in such land affect aquifers?  Would it be economical
to transport waste there?  How about the added pollution from
the trucks (citizen groups frequently complain about large-scale
transportation schemes through their neighborhoods)?  Would the 
drivers actually be willing to work for the minimum wage, as you assume?

Mathematics is a fine tool.  As with all tools, it has its limits.
It cannot be used affectively if the necessary variables are
excluded.  Solving a = b + c is irrelevant if a crucial 'd' term
is ignored.  In elementary school, I believe we referred to "word
problems", which required forming the equations from text.  They
were considered much harder than "math" because we had to evaluate
the text to determine what math to apply.  A calculator is no better
than the equations it solves.  Hey, that sounds like a good .sig!
>--
>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)
From: ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au (Dale Smithyman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: They're not just for propaganda anymore...
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:15:10 GMT
Organization: Telecom Australia, Information Technology Development

In article <1992Dec16.055121.1779@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.153620@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>Please give some examples of these errors in scientific fact. I have read some
>
>Why even seek out their literature when their press releases claim:
>
>1. One speck/nanogram/whatever of Plutonium will kill you...

This is correct isn't it. A tiny amount of plutonium can easily give you
cancer.
>
>2. The possibility of a nuclear plant "exploding" somehow... 

Chernobyl... does more need to be said
>
>3. The total lack of knowledge in basic nuclear processes...
>
I doubt it somehow.

>4. Radwaste burial will kill millions...

If it escapes or gets released some how.

>
>5. That renewable energy technology can replace nuclear power plants...

Not in all cases. Most environmentalists will agree with this. Nuclear
is a stop gap until better technologies come around.

>
>6. Greenpeace is a "non-violent" organization...

That is correct. Greenpeace has never physically attacked anyone. Many times
Greenpeace supporters have been attacked or intimidated or threatened.

>
>Need I give them money for books when they already spew out this crap?

It is only crap from your point of view. If you moderated your view a little
maybe you could see the just what they are trying to save. One of the things
they are trying to save is your life. Is it worth it?

>
>Sorry.
>
>Tino
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Smithyman		ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au
The views expressed here are not necessarily the same as those of my employer
(bless his unbleached cotton socks).
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: amck@maths.tcd.ie (Alastair McKinstry)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:30:47 GMT

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.211208.18586@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


>   In article <Bz55Bq.4y2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>   >In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1257@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>   >
>   >>=\= "The above logic?"  Are you perhaps unaware that the French
>   >>secret service actually did blow up the Rainbow Warrior?  That,
>   >>my friend, is the well-documented reality.
>   >
>   >Indeed, it is true, and they were quite deserving of that kind of treatment
>   >by the French government.  If Greenpeace really wants to declare war on
>   >industrial civilization (and that is what they are up to) then they ought to
>   >expect some resistance.

>   Since Greenpeace has never killed or injured anyone, one could rightly

>But of course not, any individual or organization that might
>kill or injure anyone can be made carefully distinct from
>Greenpeace - a lot can be learned from "plausible deniability"
>and the dorks in the "Committee to re-elect the President"
>who had no more to do with Bush than Sea Shepard has to do
>with Greenpeace - right?

How can you argue with logic like that ? Please _prove_ that Greenpeace,
 somebody _still_in_ Greenpeace, somebody who _publically_subscribes_
to Greenpeaces principle of  non-violence, has been responsible for
the death or injury of someone.

Otherwise, we could just as  easily blame Bush for any damage caused
by Sea Shepard, if the fact that he says he didn't do it and publically
disagrees with such actions is ignored.

>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Some people think they're really clever			*
>*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 

----
					-^-
					 |  Alastair McKinstry
(amck@maths.tcd.ie)
"Liberal: one for whom the means justify the ends" - Ursula Le Guin.

-- 
					-^-
					 |  Alastair McKinstry
(amck@maths.tcd.ie)
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: They're not just for propaganda anymore...
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:09:14 GMT
	<1992Dec18.124254@aifh.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Dec19.025104.13239@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu's message of Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.025104.13239@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:


   In article <1992Dec18.124254@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
   > "An individual dose of only a few milligrams is sufficient, if inhaled, to
   >cause
   >massive fibrosis of the lungs and death within a few years.Much smaller
   >quantities
   >can cause lung cancer after a latent period of perhaps 20 years"
   >So it seems that they should have said that one speck of plutonium WILL kill
   >you
   >if inhaled. 

   Not without specifying the size of the speck.

What's the current exposure limit for asbestos, all types?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:58:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.161732.12310@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>Do you believe that waste incinerators meet the four-9's 
>>>(99.99% incineration) requirement?  If so, why?
>>Coal plants don't. 
>Coal plants don't burn trash.
>>
>>I'm suggesting incinerators could reduce the amount of waste that needs
>>to be buried while providing nominal electrical output.
>Is it better to put the trash in the sky than in the ground?

I'm suggesting that waste incinerators could operate within guidelines
of fossil-fuel power plants to generate electricity, while decreasing the
amount of land needed for refuse.

Coal plants send a lot of nasty shit into the atmosphere, but I don't
see Martin Sheen, et al. chaining themselves to railroad cars of coal.
I suppose it depends on the utility vs. risk factor.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:25:01 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

I apologise for the poor formatting of my last few articles, I didn't
realise that the news reader I'm using(xrn) had used a screen width
greater than 80 chars when doing followups(yet it uses 80 chars when
displaying articles!).

James

>-- 
>*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
>*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
>*                                *  car where steering is done         *
>*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *


--
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Plutonium Poisoning: Flame not lest ye be flamed
Date: 18 Dec 1992 06:50:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hello friends,
    First off let me say that i did not mean to ridicule anyones
post as so many of you have found it necessary to do with regards
to mine.
 
Secondly, I never claim to post anything other than my opinion.
and my opinion was that it was unfair to trivialize the toxicity
of Pu.
(I guess I'll have to start printing a disclaimer at the end
 of my articles.)
 
I will say this once again: Plutonium is VERY toxic. that is my
opinion. I based this OPINION on the TLV/TWA and TLV/STEL values
for plutonium. You will find that OSHA also produces PEL (personal
exposure limits) and REL (relative exposure limits) for Pu.
 
I challenge all of you who came out swinging at my article to
look up and post the TWL/TWA (that's Threshold Limit Value/Time
Weighted Average) and the rest for Plutonium and ANY organic
compound you choose. ("Toxic by any measure of toxicity") means
more than just LD50 values.) If The numbers don't bear out (and
my memory tells me they should) I'll eat crow right here.     
 
Of course Polonium is nasty too probably it is worse than Pu.
i've never looked it up and i didn't consider it when stating
my OPINION on Plutonium toxicity.
 
If you recall, I used the phrase : ' "Perhaps" the most toxic
substance...(should have read Element)...known.
 
I also Used the phrase "One Atom can cause Lung cancer"
 
For those of you who are interested those are phrases I 
remembered from the T.V. show "Cosmos" and its host Carl Segan.
which i watched religiously throughout H.S.
 
Post those values (if I have time I'll look them up myself) you
can find them in EPA Hazmat and OSHA and probably NFPA Hazmat
reference guides as well.
 
let me know.
 
ned.
 
Note: the preceding dissertation was based soley on the opinion
   of the author, may not necessarily be correct, and does not
    necessarily reflect the opinion of the readers of this group.
 
 
p.s. If you read ALL of my posts you would have known that I am
      moderate supporter of Nuclear power.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Greenpeace: Don't Believe the Hype
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 11:32:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.230854.15703@news.nd.edu> gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu (george smith) writes:
>Greenpeace says some things that may stretch the bounds of factualism, but  
>I put more belief in what they say than what the coporations or  
>governments say.  There's first the matter of self interest (not that GP  
>has no interest in keeping a good name for themselves) and greed and  
>there's the record of who has a longer history of lying.

Okay, the corporations and government can't always be trusted. I'll buy that.

The BIG problem that I have with all of Greenpeace's press releases are
the GROTESQUE errors in scientific fact. If it's Greenpeace versus a 
laboratory's results, you know who most rational people are going to 
believe.

As I said in an earlier post, I haven't seen Greenpeace doing a lot of
reasearch or attempting to find viable solutions to many environmental
problems. Banning everything in existence just ain't gonna work...


Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:13:56

Calculations of how much waste the U.S. generates per year show that
there is plenty of room for landfills for many thousands of years.
Picking through the trash costs labor - in almost every case more
labor than the value generated by the separation.  Where the separation
paid off, it was already done before politics and self-righteousness
entered the scene.  Forcing people to do uneconomical recycling
impoverishes the country - not very much perhaps but some.

The claim that recycling is good is properly met with skepticism.

Dana L. Naldrett is the blind fool, not Duane Jacobson.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment