HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:15:18 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

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 
>and gifts, your scientific talents, your artistic capabilities were at such
>a level that you could contribute substantially to the advancement and 
>improvement of humankind 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....)


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: abennett@athena.mit.edu (Andrew A. Bennett)
Subject: Looking for New England Groups
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:19:17 GMT

I'm looking for environmental organizations in the New England area; can anyone
tell me where I can get such a list?  I'm primarily interested in power plant
effects (dams, acid rain, etc) and was wondering what organizations concerned
themselves with that kind of thing.

Many thanks,

-Drew

--
Andrew Bennett                 MIT AUV Lab             abennett@athena.mit.edu
MIT Room E38-312                                 abennett%athena@mitvma.bitnet
77 Massachusetts Ave.                                    Phone: (617) 253-0653
Cambridge, MA  02139                              <Standard disclaimers apply>
                           All subs sink,
                                  Ours think!
Xref: sparky sci.environment:11739 talk.environment:4083 talk.politics.misc:49777
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:58:23
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Sep30.120521.16948@news.acns.nwu.edu> <donb.718313663@crash>
	<1992Oct5.222329.15554@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: pauld@cs.washington.edu's message of Mon, 5 Oct 92 22:23:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.222329.15554@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:


   In article <donb.718313663@crash> donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen) writes:
   >In <1992Sep30.120521.16948@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
   >	Fresh produce delivered by truck is speeded to your local salad
   >bar over those roads you do not want to pay for.

   Absolutely correct. If I wanted to subsidize long-distance farming,
   I'd rather find a better way. As is, I *deliberately* avoid buying
   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
;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Spotted Owl (Re: The Human Niche
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:13:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <19qg0bINNs3@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>That is true. But then those of us that do give a damn are being forced
>to support things that you want. Or perhaps is there absolutely nothing
>that you want from the various levels of govenment?

Another near libertarian.  All I expect from the government is police,
courts and defense.  Everything else can be handled better in other ways.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Recyle your paper - burn it!
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:36:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsisrv.1992Oct1.133651.4043
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


 (stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU) wrote:

: Yes I have thought about all of the energy in use and therefore 
: pollutes produced by the act of recycling.  There is only one area
: that I see having the edge in benefits, and that is aluminum container
: recycling- this elimanates the mining processes a least.  But I
: also feel that the company involved with aluminum containers are 
: the one's winning out... since they do not have to buy as many
: 'new' produced aluminum products.

	Production of aluminum from bauxite or other ores also requires
prodigious amounts of electricity.  Since aluminum is easy to melt and 
re-refine, the recycling process is very environmentally sound.  Wish
it were that way for other products!

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Anti-Gore article
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:32:35 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents
Reply-To: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au


In article <1992Sep23.032220.23791@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu writes:

    [Balanced & informed discussion above not included]

 > Sigh.
 > 
 > mt
 > --
 > from memory, an approximation of a Grook by Piet Hein:
 > 
 > I know in certain circles it's argued with avidity
 > That cleverness is the opposite of stupidity.
 > 
 > To this I will respond with urgent rapidity
 > That stupidity's true opposite is the opposite stupidity.
 >

Our version here in the Great South Land goes something like this:

Qu. What is the difference between a fool and an idiot?

Ans. The fool is the one who jumped from the Sydney Harbour Bridge
     holding a lighted candle aloft, and singing "A Star Fell from
     Heaven . . ."
     The idiot is the one who jumped after, trying to blow the candle
     out . . .

Sigh also

Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:12:40 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep28.195454.1105@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>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...

It's easier than going to the library, I'm sure.

>
>>>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?  

Not sure. The British government has not made these figures available.
They estimate several hundred excess thyroid cancer deaths alone in the last
30 years. Occupational safety records for Windscale workers were "lost"
several years ago. 

>>>>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.

The point is simple. You do not have the knowledge required to denounce the
GP press release on rational grounds.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:18:34 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

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.

>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.


>>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.

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


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:11575 talk.environment:3930 alt.activism:16770 fl.general:108 sci.engr.civil:457 alt.hurricane.andrew:124
From: grohol@novavax.UUCP (John Grohol)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism,fl.general,sci.engr.civil,alt.hurricane.andrew
Subject: Re: Hurricane damage to Turkey Point nuclear reactors
Date: 26 Sep 92 14:41:53 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

>Point reactors," said Martin Gelfand, research director at the Safe
>Energy Communication Council. "Turkey Point had a poor performance
>record before the hurricane. FP&L should use its insurance funds to
>exploit the vast energy supplies available through efficiency and
>renewable sources."

What a bunch of propaganda! First they claim the plant suffered
extensive damage, and they re talking about operating Unit 3 by
the end of the month. Obviously the damage wasn't *that* extensive.

And please, pray tell, show me these so-called "energy supplies
available through efficiency and renewable sources." Coal doesn't
fit that bill (unless you claim a million years "renewable").
Oil is the same way. Both pollute our atmosphere exhorbitantly.

If the American public weren't so damned paranoid about letting
the national radioactive waste site be built, we wouldn't be so
stalled on nuclear technology. A plant built and desgined today
can re-use 90% of its own waste to produce additional energy.
The eventual waste that does come from these new-generation
plants is greatly less radioactive than those of yesteryear.

If Turkey Point is to be rebuilt, it should be done as an
all-nuclear facility.

-John

-- 
  John M. Grohol, M.S.    grohol@novavax.nova.edu     Nova University
--::--::--::--::--::--::--  the indigo girls:  --::--::--::--::--::--::--
   "Dark and dangerous like a secret that gets whispered in a hush,
    When I wake the things I dreamt about you last night make me blush." 	
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:52:11 GMT

In <1992Oct3.012039.19567@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.180310.8796@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <JMC.92Sep29150251@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>>I think the interstate system is paid for out of user fees, but the
>>>local streets come out of local general taxes.  Is that right?
>>
>>	That is only _partially_ correct.
>>
>>	General funds go into roads, also.

>Petrich "forgets" that many auto-specific taxes also go directly into
>the general fund.

>If there really was an auto subsidy from the general fund, if the mass
>transit advocates were really interested in diverting it to their
>boondoggle, said advocates would go after said subsidy and try to get
>it spent on their preferred transportation means.  Yet, they don't.
>They go after auto-specific taxes.

>Why?  Because they're not really interested in economically efficient
>transportation; they just hate cars.

>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

	The federal highway trust fund has something around $24B in it now
but it is in the form of IOUs.  The Bush administration spent the money to
make the deficet look better.  Same as with Social Security.


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Oct6115823@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Oct6.193053.24104@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com>
	<1992Oct6.223753.13743@vexcel.com>
	<STEINLY.92Oct6171001@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:56:39

When I lived for two months in Akademgorodok, near Novosibirsk in the
USSR in November and December.  It was a city of 50,000 near a city
of 1.5 million in Western Siberia.  I also spend some time in Barrow,
Alaska, a town of 2,500 on the North Slope.  The variety in the general
store in Barrow was much greater than the variety in the "supermarket"
in Akademgorodok, thanks to modern commerce and air transportation.
The Russians in Akademgorodok, presumably used to the lack of variety,
complained about it a lot, and brought back food whenever they flew
to Moscow.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gregj@pico.qpsx.oz.au (Greg Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Wind assistance for shipping
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:36:40 GMT
Organization: QPSX Communications LTD, Perth, Western Australia.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:00:24 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 <1992Oct1.071048.5426@sinix.UUCP> egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.004433.12863@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <53997@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>>>build a pipline into the
>>>sea to pour in "low activity" wastes

>>What's unreasonable about that?  Doesn't it all depend on how "low
>>activity" the wastes are?  And why the quotes?

>And what is with all the plants and animals in the human foot chain?
>Even if it does not cause the death of sea life, the waste will all
>come back on our dish. 

Please don't be ridiculous.  You know as well as I do that the vast
majority of it will not come back to us via the food chain.

Some almost certianly will.  How much?  That's the question.  How much
would it have to be concentrated in order to cause problems?  If
levels in seawater are a million times lower than the danger level I'm
not going to worry.  If they are ten times lower then this is a
reasonable worry.

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

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

>That's the question, what isn't too much?

Not enough to hurt people.  What do you think too much is?  Or are you
one of the fanatics who thinks one atom is 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?

>Only people? See comment above.

And see respons
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism,fl.general,sci.engr.civil,alt.hurricane.andrew
From: jackb@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jack Brindle)
Subject: Re: Hurricane damage to Turkey Point nuclear reactors
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:55:43 GMT

In article <4129@novavax.UUCP> grohol@novavax.UUCP (John Grohol) writes:
>Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>
>>Point reactors," said Martin Gelfand, research director at the Safe
>>Energy Communication Council. "Turkey Point had a poor performance
>>record before the hurricane. FP&L should use its insurance funds to
>>exploit the vast energy supplies available through efficiency and
>>renewable sources."
>
>What a bunch of propaganda! First they claim the plant suffered
>extensive damage, and they re talking about operating Unit 3 by
>the end of the month. Obviously the damage wasn't *that* extensive.
>
>And please, pray tell, show me these so-called "energy supplies
>available through efficiency and renewable sources." Coal doesn't
>fit that bill (unless you claim a million years "renewable").
>Oil is the same way. Both pollute our atmosphere exhorbitantly.
>
>If the American public weren't so damned paranoid about letting
>the national radioactive waste site be built, we wouldn't be so
>stalled on nuclear technology. A plant built and desgined today
>can re-use 90% of its own waste to produce additional energy.
>The eventual waste that does come from these new-generation
>plants is greatly less radioactive than those of yesteryear.
>
>If Turkey Point is to be rebuilt, it should be done as an
>all-nuclear facility.

I have to fully agree on this point, but let me add another
point of reference. The pacific northwest gets its electricity
mostly from hydroelectric plants, with a few of conventional
plants. Ten years ago the cheapest power to be found was here.
Today I am shocked to find that electricity in Florida is less
expensive. This comes with great thanks to the Bonneville Power
Administration and the Federal Government. By the way, for all
this expense we have more blackouts than anywhere I've ever
lived, including South Florida (which receives daily thunderstorms
in the summer). I'll take FP&L any day...

-- 
==========================================================
Jack Brindle
ham radio: wa4fib
internet: jackb@mdd.comm.mot.com
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Summary: Another Vet for Clinton/Gore
Keywords: ethics complexity
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:19:30 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California


  jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
> 
> 	(Are there any people out there who avoided the Vietnam draft,
> for whatever reason and by whatever means, who care to comment on this?)

Well, I worked against the war from about 1968 on, both from outside and
from within what we then called "the system"  -- organized, demonstrated,
helped publish a little alternative newspaper, went to the Iowa Republican
Convention as an official "youth delegate", got tear-gassed in a
demonstration/riot that turned into a confrontation with the State
Police, held candles in vigils ...

then I got my draft notice.  Well, I'm not really a concientious objector:
I don't think armed force is wrong in the face of agression -- I just 
thought that VietNam was an idiotic war -- and I couldn't really see
claiming an exemption as a matter of principal, and lying about it ...
and my folks didn't have world-class suck like Dan Quayle's ...
besides, I had some strange ideas about the duties of a citizen in
a republic ...  anyway, I went.  Was inducted.

And I have no anger about the choices that Clinton made.
As Molly Ivins points out in her column today, the VietNam
war imposed complicated, ethically ambiguous choices on all
of us, on the entire nation.  Some of my friends went to the
Reserves, some to the National Guard, one of them spent nearly
two years building a (false) case that he was a contientious
objector, got CO status, and then got a lottery number like
352 or something.  One guy I knew spent nearly seven years on
the run within the US after having failed to report for induction --
a bad life.

And of course, some of us got drafted and lived, and some of us
got drafted and are dead.

I'm voting for Clinton.

... and if Mr. Rovero didn't himself face being drafted for VietNam,
his opinion of the way Clinton handled the draft is of little moment.
That was a shitty war, and the services were sick organizations with
the rottenness of it, and there were no simple ethical choices.

Note that Al Gore _did_ go to 'Nam, and he doesn't seem to have
any problem stomaching Clinton.

---
Joel Hanes