HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:43:52 GMT

In article <53191@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <97snfpj.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
[...]
>>Sure.  And fire is dangerous.  Water is dangerous.  Crossing the
>>street is dangerous.  Driving is *incredibly* dangerous.
>>Eating is dangerous.  Going to the bathroom is dangerous.
>>
>>All of these things are more dangerous than a couple of millirems
>>couple of millirems of radiation, even given the very pessimistic
>>linear hypothesis.
>
>A) what is the evidence that the linear hypothesis is worst case?

What's the concern with the worst case?  The worst case scenario with
respect to driving is that large numbers of people will die in a large
accident.  The worst case scenario with respect to crossing the street
is that you and the people that hit you will be killed.  Similar things
can be said about *huge* numbers of things that we humans do *routinely*.

The worst case is *not* an interesting case.  The *average* case is a much
more interesting case.

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

This is the wrong question, because an answer to it is effectively useless
(so what if the dangers of dispersed plutonium are less, equal, or even
minutely greater than the dangers of eating?).  A better (more useful)
question would be: how much more dangerous is the plutonium dispersed in
the affected beach areas than the other things humans routinely expose
themselves to?

I have found that the questions a person asks is an excellent indicator of
their frame of mind.  An "ecoterrorist", it seems, will tend to ask questions
which are of little practical value but the answers to which will often have
relatively large emotional impact, much like the questions you raised above.

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: population load question
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:23:55 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Considering that we just might have a few more people than our planet can
support in comfort (as opposed to just existing, but not living), how do people
truly concerned about this overpopulation feel about feeding people in Somalia?
Also, would it be possible to say that innoculations and  antibiotics have
helped bring about this overpopulation?  Similarly, what about the control of
tropical diseases like malaria?



Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: --Warming Threat to Economy
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:48:43 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Sep10140417@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1466601760@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>
>   degrees Celsius (C) by the year 2050 will reduce U.S. gross
>   domestic product (GDP) by about one percent, or $60 billion. 
>   However, Cline noted, global warming is cumulative and irreversible
>   and is projected to reach 5.7 degrees C by the year 2100 and 10-18
>   degrees C by 2300.  The impact of the latter figure would be a drop
>   of six to 20 percent of GDP.
>
>Ignoring the ludicrous 10-18 K warming figure (what _did_ they
>do to get that? Do a linear extrapolation of 2.5K/50years and add
>nominal error bars? ) it could be noted that 1% variations in GDP
>are economic noise, and US growth rates are 2-3% per year long term
>average. Anyway, isn't the whole problem excess economic growth
>by the "North"? ;-)

Even more fundamentally, how was that $60 billion derived?  Loss of 
seacoast real estate?  Was the increased productivity of forestry and
agriculture from the CO2 fertilization effect taken into account?


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:16:27 GMT

rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>The extra 4 watts per m**2 of radiative flux will be incorporated by
>climate modelers in sub-grid scale processes which are parameterized,
>not directly calculated.  Climate modelers generally use coarser time
>and space resolutions than operational models because they run for
>years (or decades) vice the normal 96-120 hour global numerical weather
>prediction models.  The coarser resolution makes the sub-grid scale
>parameterizations even more important than in NWP.

    Michale and I have had some email about the radiative changes caused by
increasing CO2, and one point that I think is significant (but Michael may
differ on) is that doubling CO2 will lead to a 4 W/sq.m reduction in the
radiative loss to space (a different point from Michael's stipulation that
the radiative change at the top of the troposphere is 4 W/sq.m).

   As a result of this reduction in radiative emissions to space, the
global system will no longer be at radiative equilibrium, since the
absorbed solar radiation will not change (yet, since we haven't allowed
climate to change yet in our theoretical approach).

   Now the question to be asked is "How will the earth-atmosphere system
adjust to re-establish radiative equilibrium with space?" The generally-
accepted answer is that the mean atmospheric temperature profile will
change, with the surface warming by 2-4C, no change at the tropopause,
and cooling of several C in the upper stratosphere. This answer is based
on the results of GCMs and radiative-convective models. I would be interested
in hearing other peoples' opinions on any alternate hypothesis on how the
earth can return to equilibrium.

>Take a look at where some of the parameterizations come from.  Like
>cumulus production, precip, etc.  There are many variations, many
>possibilities for positive and negative feedback.  So choice of
>parameterization can have a big effect on the model predictions.

   ...but a number of generally independent (although similar) models give
the same results: warming of 2-4C. And radiative-convective models do not
contain the sub-grid-scale parameterizations in the same sense that GCMs
do. (RCMs do have their "convective adjustment".) None of the models indicate
cooling or no change. The feedbacks will alter the amount of change, but not
the direction.

>IMHO, neither the synoptic or climate NWP modelers have sub-grid scale
>processes "just right" yet.  



Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: environmental recycling
Keywords: recycling
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:08:02 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep8.163036.17952@athena.mit.edu> wools@athena.mit.edu (Aaron M Woolsey) writes:

> My home is in the state of Vermont, who's largest city (burlington)
> requires curb-side recycling.  My question is this: in recyling things
> like paper and plastic, what are the environmental effects of the
> chemicals used to process the used materials and create new
> products?..in other words, is the "expense" to the environment caused
> by reprocessing materials greater than the "expense" to the
> environment through `normal' disposal and production?


Vermont is requiring curb-side separation of wastes, not curb-side
recycling.  Actual recycling means the separated wastes must then be
processed back into useful products.  I understand that much of the
colored glass, paper and plastic being separated today is either being
stockpiled, or is being dumped back into landfills, because the
recent garbage separation fad has glutted the market.

Metals are being recycled effectively, however, with generally
favorable results.  The aluminum story is well-known; perhaps not
so well known is the situation in the steel industry.

Small, nimble, non-union US steel makers using electric arc furnaces
to recycle scrap steel have made major inroads into the big steel
corporation's markets.  The minimills have driven the major steel
companies completely out of the market for things like rebar and
I-beams.  More recently, with new technology the Nucor corporation has
been able to make hot band steel (the kind of sheet steel used to make
appliances and cars; previously it could only be made in large,
billion $ steel mills) with .67 man-hours of labor per ton, vs. 4
man-hours/ton for Japanese integrated steel mills.  Nucor sells its
steel for $.14/ton, well below the breakeven point of the larger steel
companies, yet makes enough profit to be able to finance internally
the construction of a new steel mill each year for the rest of the
decade (shades of Andrew Carnegie).  Some Wall Street analysts predict
Nucor will be the largest US steel company by the end of the decade.

I understand that some 75% of the steel used in the US is eventually
recycled, although the cycle time is quite long.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:10:58 GMT
	<1992Sep9.083951.10806@kth.se>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: tpalm@nada.kth.se's message of 9 Sep 92 08:39:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.083951.10806@kth.se> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:

 ...deleted...

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

The question is whether the long-term risk of such a "religion" are
greater than introducing it - history would suggest so; religions have
a tendency to become either rationalisations for action that would
otherwise be opposed, or to become blind to their original intent
with re-examination of means and ends denounced as heresy. A
religion of modern pseudo-ecology ossified in orthodoxy would
do far more actual harm than any good, IMHO - this group being
a prime example of how such behaviour could develop. 

   To avoid some flames (and probably get some other) I must add that I believe 
   that the ethical argument of supporting nature for its own sake is valid. As
   our wealth have increased the trend has been to include larger groups in those
   with an inherent value, i.e. racism and sexism isn't very popular these days while
   slavery is completely out. This is merely a continuation of that trend.

I'm continually mystified by this assertion, if this new guiding moral
principle of extended rights is real then why the gradualist approach?
Is it not inherently unethical to continue denying these rights to
groups identified as potential future rights-groups? Do it all now.
Rights for Rocks! Liberate the H-atom! Free the confined quarks ;-)

Personally I feel that with rights must come responsibilities. Most
rocks I find are incredibly callous.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu 		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Ya know... you penguin types offend me. ...			*
*  My Gosh... Life is offensive!!   				*
*  Offensensitivity.		- BB 1984			*
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject:  Neutralizing hurricanes
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 10:31:12 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 724       


	New to this newsgroup:

	A talk on detecting volcanic eruptions from space using 
geostationary weather satellites noted that Mt. Pinatubo erupted into the
teeth of a typhoon.  According to the speaker, "the force of the eruption
tore the heart out of the storm, turning it into a group of heavy 
thunderstorms."  Any more info?

	Also, the novel "Hungry as the Sea" by Wilbur Smith has a finale
in which the explosion of 500,000 barrels of oil on board a supertanker
in the Gulf of Mexico rips apart a hurricane.  Interesting idea -- I doubt
that it's possible to make all 500,000 barrels explode at once.

	I'll be back, presenting my controversial mass transportation 
ideas.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --Warming Threat to Economy
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:04:17
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: tgray@igc.apc.org's message of 10 Sep 92 00:41:00 GMT

In article <1466601760@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:


   According to IIE's William Cline, global warming by a predicted 2.5
   degrees Celsius (C) by the year 2050 will reduce U.S. gross
   domestic product (GDP) by about one percent, or $60 billion. 
   However, Cline noted, global warming is cumulative and irreversible
   and is projected to reach 5.7 degrees C by the year 2100 and 10-18
   degrees C by 2300.  The impact of the latter figure would be a drop
   of six to 20 percent of GDP.

Ignoring the ludicrous 10-18 K warming figure (what _did_ they
do to get that? Do a linear extrapolation of 2.5K/50years and add
nominal error bars? ) it could be noted that 1% variations in GDP
are economic noise, and US growth rates are 2-3% per year long term
average. Anyway, isn't the whole problem excess economic growth
by the "North"? ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm)
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:07:53 GMT

In article <15010@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
|> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
|> 
|> > After all can anyone give a rational argument showing the value of music or
|> > art or for that matter working eight hours a day to afford it when one could
|> > work much less and still survive quite well?
|> 
|> Yes, I expect that there have been studies which can place a dollar figure on
|> the value of music and art for the general population.  Perhaps the studies
|> show that people who spend x hours a week appreciating art are y % more
|> productive and are z % healthier.

As long as you go for imaginary references you can "prove" anything, and what about
more risky interests such as mountain climbing or boxing? Do you really believe 
they are profitable too? Besides it is fairly irrelevant as long as the profit is
used for even more of the same luxuries. In the end I guess it all boils down to
the question about the meaning of life, but that may be making the discussion a bit
to deep.

|> 
|> > It would replace one luxury: large consumption of non-essential items with
|> > another: a cleaner environment. While this may seem arbitrary I tried to
|> > point out that it probably would increase our chance of survival.
|> 
|> Actually, it may be that exploiting the environment even more than at present
|> would increase the chances of survival for the human race.  Sucking oil and
|> other minerals and chewing up the forests, with no thought to minimizing
|> environmental damage could support large scale space development, the riches
|> from which would then pay for turning the damaged Earth into an even better
|> paradise.  Saving the environment at the cost of technological advancement
|> could destroy the human race, since someone is likely to go for the technology,
|> and then control the others.  You can't make technological possibilities go
|> away.  Genetic engineering and nuclear energy are possibilities, and someone
|> may apply them, under control or not.
|> 
|> --
|> 
|> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca

Yes environmental destruction could be a good way, see my signature however. I think
the odds are really bad for succeding that way. You could try tearing down your 
house too. Perhaps someone has hidden a treasure there somewhere :-)

Why do you see an opposition between technical development and environmental
protection? There is a large difference between developing a new technology and 
immediately starting large scale use, i.e. builing one car is development while
building the 100,000,001 is consumption. I rather see it the other way: if we are
going to save the environment we need lots of new technology. Going for a low
consumption lifestyle may actually leave more resources for science.

-- 
"Goood planets are hard to find."    Thomas Palm
				     Department of Microwave Engineering
				     Royal Institute of Technology
				     S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
				     tpalm@mvt.kth.se
From: charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Solar Fuel Alcohol (Was Re: Mary Jane has a great Biomass)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:09:46 GMT

babb@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com (Scott Babb) writes:

#Charles Van Duren (charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca) wrote:
#: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
#: 
#: [...]
#: 
#: >Actually a similar situation exists with farm produced alcohol.
#: >Only 8 acres of corn or similar crop is sufficient to produce 
#: >enough alcohol to power a car for a year of average use.
#: 
#: Corn culture is very hard on the growing medium, and uses a great
#: deal of energy input. Not to mention distillation. Sort of like
#: building a machine which produces 1 gallon of fuel from an input of
#: 10 gallons.

#Depending on the malting process, the energy input to harvest corn
#for fuel alcohol production may not be as high as you think.  You
#probably don't have to worry about removing the ears from the stalks.
#You may be able to just shred the entire plant and use the whole thing
#as input to your malter.

I wasn't talking about harvesting alone. I'm talking about GROWING
the stuff, and the massive amounts of (oil-based) chemicals required.
Also, corn growing has been compared to topsoil stripmining because
the chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides leave no soil
structure to hold the soil together to prevent erosion, and to
decompose plant matter into humus.

CvD
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Charles van Duren - Senior Systems Analyst - Center for Distance Education |  
|      Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada T0G 0B0              |
*-------------------------------------\/-------------------------------------*
| Now Tom he claims, that a man's true joy, is in the work he likes to do    |
| And if I understand, Tom's a right joyous man...                           |
|                                             Tom Blasingame (Ian Tyson)     |
*-------------------------------------/\-------------------------------------*
From: masgn@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Godfrey Nolan)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Whether or not it is efficient to turn off a flourescent tube?
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:39:35 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK



Can someone tell me whether or not it is energy efficient to turn off a
flourescent light.  I seem to remember a teacher telling the class that 
it takes far more energy to start a flourescent bulb than to leave it 
on.  If that is so, does anybody know what are the calculations for the 
initial power surge and for normal energy usage.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Recyle your paper - burn it!
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:49:52 GMT

I feel iconoclastically curmudgeonly today.
The title says it all.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:22:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.053947.22838@edsi.plexus.COM> grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing) writes:
>eugene@ksr.com (Eugene Yi-jen Pan) writes:
>
>>In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu> kim@.cs.umass.edu writes:
>>> An FAQ?
>>> 
>>> Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
>>> 
>>> I'm a novice environmentalist.
>>>                             
>>>    John Kim               Before you slip into unconsciousness 
>>>                           I'd like to have another kiss...
>
Although everyone seems to agree that reusable bags are better, the
argument that plastic is better than paper is based on some assumptions,
that although correct for many people, may not always apply.

Since paper bags can be recycled many times until the fibers are not
reusable, many plastic bags may be thrown out by the time a paper
one is so that a one-to-one comparison is not appropriate if the
bags are recycled.

Also, while there is almost no alternative for plastic bags other than
a landfill, paper bags could be deposited elsewhere so that they may
decompose.  It seems that my compost pile could take a certain amount
of paper.  Anyone know?  Also, one could be a naughty litter-bug.  In
a wet climate, paper will decompose.  Seriously, it seems that some form
of paper decomposer could be developed if the stuff can't go into a
compost pile.

Since these alternatives don't apply to everyone, it may be correct that
people who refuse to buy reusable bags and refuse to recycle paper
bags may be better off using plastic.

One person mentioned that the plastic bags can be used as trash liners.
Ever since I started my compost pile, my trash is much drier and I
have found that I don't need a trash liner (paper bags fit better
anyway).

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:02:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

The extra 4 watts per m**2 of radiative flux will be incorporated by
climate modelers in sub-grid scale processes which are parameterized,
not directly calculated.  Climate modelers generally use coarser time
and space resolutions than operational models because they run for
years (or decades) vice the normal 96-120 hour global numerical weather
prediction models.  The coarser resolution makes the sub-grid scale
parameterizations even more important than in NWP.

Take a look at where some of the parameterizations come from.  Like
cumulus production, precip, etc.  There are many variations, many
possibilities for positive and negative feedback.  So choice of
parameterization can have a big effect on the model predictions.

IMHO, neither the synoptic or climate NWP modelers have sub-grid scale
processes "just right" yet.  

-- 
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   |
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA