HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Bar-coded cars
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:47:58 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Oct2.094900.4497@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	"New Scientist" reported that Singapore, to fight huge downtown
>traffic problems and encourage the use of mass transit, bar-coded every car.
>If a car parked downtown, the bar code was read by a bar-code readerperson!
>The car was charged for the use of the road for the distance from the home
>to the downtown area.  Central core traffic dropped 50% and public 
>transportation use went up 90%, because they made it more economical
>to use public transportation than the car.

This reminds me of a few (mostly futile) efforts by various governments in
Greece to control pollution...

In version one, they declared that every weekend only cars with 
[odd|even] licence plates could be driven. A few exceptions were made
for doctors and emergency personnel. This resulted in everyone immediately
buying a SECOND car despite the tremendous cost, and resulted in little
pollution reduction.

In version two they instituted a 'ring' around the center. Only certain
types of vehicles could enter the ring. Predictably it did not last long.

In version three they switched from odd-even to [01234 and 56789] to try
to force people NOT to use cars. Then they went from weekend to DAILY
restrictions. and so on and so on and so on.

Now there are TWO rings. I have no idea who is eligible to drive when 
and where.

Surprisingly, taxi cabs are also affected by the restrictions. The main
source of pollution, buses used for mass transit are still as lethal as
ever. Due to big price differences between diesel and gasoline, diesel
cars are illegal there, though many diesel cars can be found. Most taxicabs
have converted long ago (many thru questionable kits) to natural gas/
propane. Once in a while some literally explode :-)... 

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:37:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.193053.24104@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>In article <STEINLY.92Oct6115823@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>   such food, and encourage others to do the same. Here in the PNW, I can
>>   grow or buy salad crops locally all year around. I humbly suggest that
>>   those living in regions where this is not so easy either alter their
>>   diets and/or seek methods of year-round farming that will work for the
>>   foods they'd like to eat.
>>
>>Might I humbly suggest that Alaskans, many Canadians and others
>>in climates inimical to farming for more than a fraction of the
>>year move ASAP to PNW or California that they may enjoy the benefits
>>of locally grown fresh produce year round - especially if they have
>>problems with diets high in animal fats, salt or nitroamines - unless
>>you're willing to bet on significant warming in the immediate future

Areas that have extreme climates such as you mention tend to also have
more limited populations willing to deal with those extremes.  That
means that the range of _activities_ which are sustainable is
increased.  
>
>Even in relatively mild areas of the United States, where agriculture
>is a major factor in the economy, the statements of the original poster
>are not allways applicable.
>
>In Indiana, the major crops are pork meat (yea!), corn (ouch!), and 
>soybeans (bleech!). Could someone come up with a plan that accomodates
>these, is nutritionally correct, and does not require out-of-area-code
>vegetables and fruits?

[Whats wrong with corn?]
Were food consumption to based on locally sustainable agriculture as
Paul suggests, then these areas would have a more diversified 
production.  A more diversified production would be healthier for
the soil, also.  I have travelled in some areas in 3rd world countries
that have difficult growing conditions.  They still import some
food from nearby areas with different climates, but the imports are
not the basic foodstuffs.
>
>:-)
>
>Spiros
>
>-- 
>Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
>Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
>GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: donnelly@nosc.mil (Thomas F. Donnelly)
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:21:59 GMT

In article <6429@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.130332.20889@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>>	Do you mean to tell me that if you felt your intellectual abilities ... 
>>... that you'd still just go out and accept the 
>>odds of getting your brains blown out or your leg blown off?  Vietnam was
>>not a clear-cut case of good vs. evil (aka Hitler).  I don't know how 
>>I would have acted then... but I feel now that I would have taken steps to
>>avoid active service in that war.  So that what I contributed to my 
>>country would be MORE than a puddle of blood and intestines in a rice paddy.
>>
>Well, I have never felt that full of myself, but can imagine that Charming
>Billy did.
>The options were not lying or dying.  They were:
>   a.  Serving
>   b.  Being up front and honest.  Go to jail as an evader, try to be a
>       conscientious objector, go to Canada, etc.
>   c.  Lying and deceiving. (Bill's way....)
> 

What is this non-issue doing on sci.environment?  Please don't answer.
			    T. Donnelly
			    donnelly@cod.nosc.mil
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:05:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 18721@techbook.com, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>I'll agree govn't played a big role in starting nuclear, but hydro
>was privately developed for nearly 50 years (100's of years if we
>count non-electric hydro) before govn't butted in.  The first dam on
>the Columbia was private, and still provides the cheapest electricity
>in the world.  After the govn't took over the dam efficiency didn't
>fare so well, although by its nature the Columbia dams still produce 
>much cheaper than any other method of generation.
>

It's a matter of scale. Without government authority to "acquire" land,
guarantee liability, and raise funding the number of damns in operation
would be much fewer than now and we might still have some fish in the
rivers. Nuclear of course would have never been born. If you want to argue
if the government or private sector is more efficient then the answer
is obvious.
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: Env. Satellites Shutdown in Dec. 1992
Keywords: satellites, budget cuts
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:56:06 GMT

We at Langley Research Center received news on Thursday, October 2,
1992 that NASA intends to shutdown the following satellites in
December to save about $15M:

     NUMBUS-7

     ERBS

     NOAA-9

     NOAA-10

Some of the experiments that will not be operational while
the satellites are shutdown are:

     Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement II  (SAM II)

     Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBS) (3)

     Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II)

There was no word about whether the satellites would ever
be turned back on.

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
From: gregj@pico.qpsx.oz.au (Greg Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Wind assistance for shipping
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:43:49 GMT
Organization: QPSX Communications LTD, Perth, Western Australia.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4



With incresing pressure on the users of heavy fossil fuels to reduce
greenhouse gas emmissions any method of fuel reduction needs to be
looked at seriously.  It is possible to substantially reduce the fuel
usage of ships by the use of wind assistance.  Trials have, in the past,
shown fuel savings of greater than 20% are acheivable.  Complexity,
weight, and operational compromises have deterred wide deployment of
wind assistance on commercial ships.  Nautical Systems Pty Ltd, of Perth
Western Australia, has developed a Variable Geometry Wing Sail (VGWS)
that we believe overcomes the shortcomings of other wind assistance
systems. 

 With this system it is possible to vary the thichkness and
camber of the foil (including the ability to swap asymmetry from side to
side).  This is achieved by the means of a very light and simple system.
We have had prototypes operating on small racing yachts (18' Skiff,
Hobie 18, Sonata 8m keel boat, windsurfers) and subjected them to
rigourous use.  The simplicity and flexibility of the system means that
a efficient aerodynamic lifting surface can be achieved on both port and
starboard tacks and through a wide range of incident wind angles, all
with a sail that can be reefed and stowed.  It is possible to construct
the system from a wide range of materials (for both sails and spars).
We have used carbon fibre,kevlar and balsa wood for spar construction,
as well as aluminium.  Steel construction for commercial shipping
applications would be the most likely choice.  Sail used to date have
been dacron, mylar/kelar, or mylar/dacron.  The design would allow the
use of much more rigid sail panels and we have considered the use of
Fibreglass or other rigid materials.

I have posted this item to this newsgroup because there may be someone
out there who is interested in this technology.  We are looking for
industry support in commercialising this project.  We have a close
affiliation with Curtin University of Technology (Centre for Marine
Science and Technology (CMST)) and further research and development
would most likely be carried out with their assistance.  If you are
interested or you know of someone that may be, or you can offer
assistance in any other way, please contact me.

Greg Johnston
Nautical Systems Pty Ltd
Phone +61 9 450 4803 (Fax also)
Email gregj@QPSX.oz.au
From: Michael.Friedman@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Spotted Owl (Re: The Human Niche
Date: 24 Sep 92 22:25:35 CST

Organization: Oracle Corporation

In article <1992Sep23.161836.12902@watson.ibm.com> andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.032026.8027@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp
>(Michael Friedman) writes:
>>Let's create a measure of the contribution a species makes to biodiversity
>>based on the overlap between its genetic material and that of other extant
>>species and value based on that, perhaps with a jigger factor for unusual
>>phenotypes like "one of the largest flying birds".  Then let's apply our
>>limited funds in such a way as to maximize the resulting biodiversity.

>I already mentioned this in a previous (probably incoherent) post. Let me
>try again. Such metrics have been proposed. They map a species to
>a value indicating its "uniqueness". For example, such a scheme might yield:

>       Platypus           -> 150
>       California Condor  ->  30
>       Seychelles Kestrel ->   4

>Subspecies could be fitted smoothly into such metrics which is attractive.
>Many conservationists (me included) would basically agree with the importance
>such metrics assign to particular species.

>However the schemes aren't useful because most conservation decisions have to
>be ecosystem based (read Jim Hurst's posting). Inadequate ecosystem
>conservation accounts for the majority of endangered species. The expensive
>recovery program for these species will only be useful if the ecosystem
>is restored.

Your counterargument is obviously flawed.  If the most costeffective
way of maximizing our biodiversity measure is to protect an ecosystem
then that's what you do.  Where's the problem?




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:38 PDT
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466601764:cdp:1466601781:000:165
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep 26 18:38:00 1992


<responding to Carl Lydick>

Sorry, Carl, I don't understand your point.  What in the material
quoted leads you to conclude that solar is not cost-competitive?

Tom

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Sep27102611@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <54020@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:19:47

In article <54020@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Sep27102611@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Any technology that requires government promotion on the scale
   >that solar water heating does is a priori dubious.

   Funny, that's what I think about AI.
   yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

I have no objection to the Government funding research on solar
heating, and I would have objection to the Government subsidizing
people's use of AI in preference to some other technology for doing
the same job, except perhaps as a temporary experiment.  Even
temporary experiments of subsidizing actual use, whether solar heating
or AI, are dubious, because the beneficiaries of the subsidy often
succeed in prolonging it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Recyle your paper - burn it!
Date: 1 Oct 1992 14:49:48 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <92268.213742HAINES@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <HAINES@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>I live in a pasive solar, superinsulated house.  I have no central heat -
>a wood stove is it.  I save all my paper (within reason) and burn it in

This sounds like a great arrangement for the construction of a home.

>my stove in the winter.  I burn an average of one cord of wood and a year's
>supply of paper for all my heating needs.  The ash goes in my vegetable garden
>and in my wood lot.  Incidently, the stove is the latest model with catalytic
>converter.  Inasmuch as trees are a renewable resource, and we have more
>trees than oil in Maine, I can't think of a better way to dispose of used
>paper.

My only questions are; do you burn all types of paper (e.g. plastic coated)?
How does the catalytic converter assist in the smoke plume? 

My biggest concerns are about the types of chemicals that may be present
in certain types of paper.  There are papers today that are starting to
use less-toxic ink sources.  My knowledge of paper chemistry is fairly
limited and so I am just not sure what we are getting ourselves into
in terms of air pollution from paper residues.


 ___________________________________________________________ 
| Stephen Hauskins                                          |
| University of California, Santa Cruz                      |
| Departments of Biology and Chemistry                      |
| Santa Cruz, CA  95064                                     |
|                                                           |
| internet: (1) hauskins@biology.ucsc.edu                   |
|           (2) hauskins@chemistry.ucsc.edu                 |
|___________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:54:54 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <54037@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.004433.12863@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>cover up the results of a
>>>Chernobyl style graphite reactor fire

>>You are right.  That's totally unreasonable.  If nothing else, the
>>radiation measured by neighboring countries would let the cat out of
>>the bag ASAP.  The only people stupid enough to try something like

>You're right, it's not reasonable. Why don't you look it up. The
>Windscale fire has been covered in the media, and I already gave you
>a reference.

First I'll let you be a little more explicit...

>>that were the Soviets.  Of course, a graphite reactor fire that wasn't
>>Chernobyl style is a different matter, but the nuclear Chicken Littles
>>don't seem to be able to conceive of a nuclear accident that isn't
>>like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

>It wasn't like Three mile island, but it was quite similar to Chernobyl.
>Look it up.

How similar is quite similar?  For example, Chernobyl released enough
radiation to kill most of the firefighting crew.  How many
firefighters died at Windscale?  

>>>vent Cesium directly into
>>>the atmosphere

>>Again, perfectly reasonable as long as there isn't too much.

>>>and put 1/2 million curies of Pu241 into the Irish Sea.

>>What't wrong with that?  Isn't the important thing how much people are
>>exposed to?

>That's the point of the GP press release: it's washing up on the
>beaches.

So what?  The important questio is whether enough is washing up on
beaches to hurt people.  So far we have received absolutely no
evidence that this is the case.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:08:36 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Sep29150109@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>What tighter controls on research and by whom does Yodaiken advocate?

I'm not advocating anything. What I am doing is
noting an apparent contradiction between your objections to public
funding of solar and your advocacy of public funding of computer
science research without oversight. If you find it an invasion of your
liberty to be forced to pay for development of solar power, how can you
support tax funded development of A.I. systems? And how can you so
vociferously object to the notion that the those getting public
funding for C.S. research should have to justify their research
to taxpayers as well as each other? 

(Prof. McCarthy is currently organizing an electronic petition drive
against a proposed reorganization of C.S. funding )





-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Newsgroups: sci.environment

 |yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
 |>That's the point of the GP press release: it's washing up on the
 |>beaches.
 |
 |mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman):
 |So what?  The important questio is whether enough is washing up on
 |beaches to hurt people.  So far we have received absolutely no
 |evidence that this is the case.
 |-- 

That is *an* important question, but it isn't the only important question.
Are actinides or fission products concentrating in shellfish or marine
plants? How low on the food chain? What are the economic consequences
to fisheries? To tourism?

These are some other important questions. Questions about the credibility
of the plant (and program) operators also come to mind.

Bo "Enquiring minds want to know" Curry
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Sep28151947@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <54109@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:01:09

What tighter controls on research and by whom does Yodaiken advocate?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Risk Assessment and the linear model (was official science vs. science)
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:27:43 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <53666@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep19.163629.23301@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep18.173327.4862@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>One problem is that most toxins have not been studied in detail, and
>>>there are so many conceivably dangerous materials.  Many have not
>>>been studied at all.  While an in depth study of each one would be
>>>the most appropriate course of action, it probably isn't practical
>>>for financial reasons.  Given that different models may best
>>>match the effects for different toxins and that most toxins haven't
>>>been, and may never be, studied closely, a generic model is needed.
>>>Is there a better generic model than the linear one?
>>
>>A model that gives wrong answers is worse than no model at all.
>>Especially if you don't know the answers you are getting are
>>wrong. I'd be very conservative about using any model that
>>hadn't been rigorously tested for making regulatory decisions.
>>Set limits at the lowest level you can *prove* causes substantial
>>harm.
>
>What's conservative in this case? Is it "conservative" to hope that the
>effects of a toxic chemical will be benign? 

What's conservative is to avoid government regulation unless compelling
evidence arises to show that it is mandatory in a particular case. Right
now there is a firestorm going on about FDA attempts to reclassify, regulate,
or ban certain nutritional supplements under the claim that they aren't
proven beyond doubt to be *effective*. Note that they don't have to be
just *harmless*, they also have to be effective. This attitude suppresses
the use of new medicines and drugs until exhaustive clinical trials have
been completed. While that prevents the occasional thalidomide from 
slipping on the market, it also lets people die when new treatments are
available. This Big Brotherism is a too *liberal* use of government
power.

As for your second question, if a chemical is *known* to be toxic,
then it can't be benign. That's a strawman argument. The conservative
position is not to act until toxcity has been proven *and* potential
damage outweighs potential benefits. A case in point would be aspirn.
About 1 in 10 people have an allergic reaction to it. About 240 Americans
*die* from Reyes Syndrome, amaphylactic shock, or preforated ulcers
caused by asprin *each* year. Under current liberal activist FDA
regulations, asprin would never be approved. Then the pain relieving
ability, the inflamation reducing ability, and the protection from
heart attacks that asprin offers would not be available to the American
people, and people would die unnecessarily and be crippled by arthritis
unnecessarily.

Gary