HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jskean@unlinfo.unl.edu (jonathan skean)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Date: 27 Dec 1992 09:58:46 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: all
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:

>There is a really interesting article in the December 1992 issue of 
>Discover about a proposed "personal" mass transit system.  It is called
>"Mass Transit for One", pg 38.

>The system is like a rail-based road system, much like our current street 
>system for automobiles.  Computers will determine which path for cars to
>take to reduce congestion.  The cars will actually move off of the main
>roadway when picking-up/dropping-off passengers to reduce traffic problems.

Sounds like the ill-fated system inflicted on Morgantown, W.Va. a while
back.  Could someone from WVU with access to the relevant figures remind
us of what this "good idea" ended up costing the Federal deficit in the end?
--
Jonathan Skean                     usenet: JSKEAN@UNL.EDU
502 Hamilton Hall                  bitnet: JSKEAN%UNL.EDU@UNLVAX1
University of Nebraska              voice: (402)472-2684
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304   USA          fax: (402)472-9402
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13961 talk.politics.misc:65490 alt.activism:19875
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Date: 29 Dec 92 09:09:47 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

>>Not really.  Most of those older breweries abided by a beer purity act first
>>enforced in the early 1200's I believe.  This purity act was more stringent
>>then than our industry standards are now.  

>I'm sure that M. Pasteur would've found that rather surprising.  After all,
>he's the fellow who discovered that heating something to a high enough
>temperature kills off the bacteria you don't want there.
>
>Was it common practice in the early 1200s to clean vats with live steam between
>batches?

Are you forced to sit all day in uncomfortable chairs at Caltech or what ?

Didn't you at least laugh when you typed in "Was it common practice in
the early 1200s to clean vats with live steam between batches ?"

This is like the world's worst comedy sketch...

Did you know that M. Pasteur had a 200-year business plan ??? <hah>

tom
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Personnel Response versus Fed Response.
Date: 25 Dec 92 05:04:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec24.210446.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Question is if the US does the 100 year plan thing. I posted that same idea on
another subgroup (but for cyberpunk). Question is in what direction will it all
go? And how fast will it be able to change if info comes about that was not
available in the begininng. Also who will decide the 100 year future. After all
Japan is a much smaller nation, and also is more culturrally homogenis, also it
has basically one government.. Maybe what is needed is the Association of State
Governors to do the 100 year plan, instead of making the FED do it.. We the
peopl eof the US have to stop expecting the FED to solve all the problmes and
to let other orhanization do the foot work/control/regulatory stuff and such..
To many let the FED do everything instead of taking the problme in their own
hands and do it them selves.. Such as taking care of their own backyard instead
of messing in other peoples backyards (grin).. If you all want something done,
do it your self and not let some bureaucrat who is over worked or over paid and
under acchieving do it dfor you..

Yes I used to or do work for a governmental organization and I am glad I did
and am also wish I had not.. The Military makes you appreciate your own
personnel freedom.


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:44:40 GMT

>My neighbor has a woodburning fireplace which he burns from 
>morning to night.  It is polluting the air around my house to the
>point where I ca
>can hardly breathe when I am outside and it is getting into m
>my house.  Could anyone tell me what could be causing this 
>pollution.  Could he be burning the wrong kind of wood?  What 
>could my neighbor do to eliminate or cut down the strong smell
>that his coming from his fireplace and surrounding my house.
>I noticed even his chimney is getting black.

Wood burning is naturally polluting. Modern stoves are cleaner,
but wood smoke is still one of the most toxic air pollutants.
The only thing you can do is not use it!
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:06:46 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Don't hold your breath waiting for the transition team to call.....

-- 
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   |
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Japan/China Bashing+
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 10:22:39 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec30.154845.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

 > MAjor problem with confusian philosophy if I remember my eastern civilization
 > class was it has a habit of stagnating a culture into thinking that there is
 > nothing new (remember old dark age thoought by St. Augustine of Hippo: That
 > there is no new info in the world..) in the world. Well gues what happened when
 > the Europeans got there, they pounded the chinese nation into the ground and
 > took what ever they wanted.. Japan had similiar problems, different or almost
 > similiar causes, but similiar outcome, they stagnated, gave away their over
 > seas posessions/colonies.. Yes the chinese and japanese once had over seas 
 > colonies before the west came to them c.1500ad.. 
 >
 > Basically saying that confusion thought and Taoist thought is not all good.
 > Also the chinese kill a small number of girl babies every year or produce
 > more babies to get that "special son"..

From my own view it is not an issue whether the norms and traditions
of other people are good or bad; they simply *are*, and plainly must
be met on that basis.

Cultures and societies are dynamic, and only stagnate to the extent to
which their members allow it to happen unless some foreign power comes
to dominate them, if for no other reason that each new generation by
definition imposes its own energy and ambition on the status quo.

The agricultural, industrial and social systems of South China in
particular are certainly sustainable, and have existed for thousands
of years. But so had their custom of binding the lotus feet of their
women, wearing long queues, and so on, until they decided to change
them of their own volition. The job is to map change against what
remains, and so develop some idea of what social forces are at play
from time to time, yes?

 > Yes saying "BULL SHIT" as a previous poster said is not very nice and violates
 > ediquite (sp), but come now all, can't we be adults and keep our obnoxius
 > comments about the parentage and such to our own private email boxes..

Ah, let them say what they want. If a bloke's a pig he's a pig, and
trying to make him cover it up does not alter the fact.
 >  
 > Michael Adams
 > Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
 > nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
 >  
 > Sorry about this all, point I might want to make, is just becuase soemthnig
 > works or doesn't work in one country, does not mean it will work or not work in
 > another.. We must llok at cultures in full and not in part to get the full
 > feel and reasons for why, and such..

Sure. But there is a good case for making comparisons between systems,
and providing an added perspective and texture to the debate rather
than let it float along within its own enclosed expectations. Or lack
of expectation.

Why don't you log sci.anthropology, and make some comment there?

Gil
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 28 Dec 1992 19:26:57 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <9212281914.AA01253@TIS.COM>, richard@TIS.COM (Richard Clark) writes:
>	I wish I had Carl's faith in the US Govt. :) BWAAAAAAHAHAHAAAA! :)

I'm glad I don't have my head stuck where yours is.

>	Realistic scenario? Easy. What makes you think the US govt is not
>becoming more and more corrupt and incapable of performing its functions?
>What happens when the powers-that-be decide that its OK to abuse a reactor
>when they can't find funding to build a new one? Or when they know the
>regulators aren't looking? It costs mega-dollars to shut one of them things
>down, even for a little while for repairs. In a buck-driven society, people
>are meaningless, the greenback is lord. Sorry Carl, but as optimistic as
>I'd like to be, the only reality I can logicaly envision is not pretty.

You seem to have ignored my request that you account for differences in the
design of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States and the design of
the Chernobyl plant.  That leads me to suppose that you really don't know the
difference.

>	Nuclear power safe? Only as long as its governing bodies are stable.
>The collapse that happened in the (former) USSR will eventually and inevitably
>happen here... Oooooo the ugliness... I think I'll stick my head back in the
>sand, butt in the air, and just give up and wait...

Fine.  So what if it does?  Please try to include in your next feeble attempt
at a plausible scenario at least a *LITTE* knowledge of current nuclear reactor
designs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Who ignores science?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 29 Dec 92 10:13:27

In article <1992Dec29.173620.28293@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
   In response to those who only complain about environmentalists ignoring 
   science:

	   WASHINGTON - U.S. Forest Service officials are suppressing a
	   report they had requested of their own wildfile biologists
	   on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska in order to allow
	   timber companies to continue logging the largest and oldest
	   trees.

	   The report, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act,
	   concluded that unless logging operations are scaled back by
	   nearly a fourth, several species of animal, including
	   goshawks, owls, brown bears and wolves, are at risk of
	   disappearing from large parts of the forest.  All are found
	   nowhere else in the world.

	   The biologists, who have worked for the last two years to
	   document the wildlife species that need mature, old-growth
	   forests to survive, say they have been given poor performance
	   reviews, directed to water down their findings and told not
	   to release their report.
   -- 
   ==============================================================================
   A thought for the holidays:
      "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	   - Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com

One possibility is that the report is good science being ignored by
the administration for the benefit of its friends in the lumber
industry.

The other possibility is that the report is biased by the fact that
most Government employees are quite a ways to the left of any
Republican administration.  This phenomenon always generates tension
between the holders of the 6,000 policy jobs that an administration
controls and the rest of the 6,000,000 Federal employees.  The policy
makers control the issuance of reports, but the underlings can always
leak them to sympathetic media or tell their friends what to ask for
using the FOIA.

Is it clear which is true in this case?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Entropy (was Prey and predator biomass)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:08:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.200413.38653@watson.ibm.com>, andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor) writes:
|> [this is a re-post of articles which appear not to have propagated from here]
|> 
|> In article <JMC.92Dec16193832@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
|> >I found _Population, Resources and Environment_ flakey in a number of places.
|> > For example, it says that the second law of thermodynamics requires that
|> >the biomass of a prey species exceed that of a predator.  The conclusion
|> >is usually true though not always and has nothing to do with the second
|> >law of thermodynamics, Ehrlich's venture into physics.  To the
|> >extent that humans are a predator on chickens, it isn't true for us.
|> 
|>  I don't know if the laws of
|> thermodynamics are relevant and it wouldn't surprise me if Erhlich, a
|> biologist, was applying them incorrectly.

While energy conservation is a purely thermodynamic principle, entropy
(as Claude Shannon's work showed) is actually a broader concept in information
theory, and the thermodynamic application is really only a special case.

As both economics and ecology are domains in which exchange of
information is central, it would not surprise me if there turned out to
be meaningful applications of the second law within those domains. I have yet
to see any evidence that it has been successfully applied in either domain,
though. The efforts in that direction I have seen in sci.environment have
all been misguided and muddled, in that they attempt to apply the 
thermodynamic definition of entropy to fields in which it offers very
weak and essentially irrelevant constraints.

Does anyone know of any more sophisticated efforts by real statisticians to 
apply the information theory concept of entropy to economics or ecology?

mt
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: What's Necessary?
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:36:39 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <149180185@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>
>The political mistake is to allow mindless destruction of species to be equated
>with mindful attempts to eradicate disease. It is *not* a mistake to attempt to
>educate people about the importance of diversity, nor the priceless uniqueness
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
>of every species and local population. And ultimately diversity is made up
>of unique species and local populations. You can't protect *it* without 
>protecting *them*.

I think this is the fundamental sticking point. Everything has a price,
nothing is priceless even though it be unique. The price of losing some 
local populations and some species may be very high, but it's always
finite. On the flip side, the price of protecting some species or local
populations may also be very high, though again finite. We should always
try to pay the lesser cost. But being inherently speciescentric, any
cost that includes the diminution of humanity is likely to be considered
too high a cost.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble)
Subject: Re: Concern For Ozone Depletion Clear, Knowledge of CFCs Mostly
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 04:05:17 GMT

In article <72656@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>Since the essential novelty of ghg's invention seems to be the use of
>isobutane to act both as a refrigerant and as a solvent for dissolving
>lubricant oils in HCFC refrigerants, I wonder whether this same technique
>could be used to dissolve similar refrigerating oils in R-134a to get
>around the problem with lubricants compatible with that refrigerant.
>Have you ever tried that, ghg?

R-134a, R-125, and the other "hyperfluorinated" (no chlorine, zero ODF)
refrigerants have ZERO misicibility in mineral oil.  The chlorine was
the key to making this work.  Low ODF "HCFCs", have a hydrogen atom, so
they break up before reaching the ozone, still have chlorine.  This 
chlorine appears to give the refrigerant lubrication properties as well.
It forms a "chloride film" inside the system, allowing the mineral oil
to lubricate very well.  Running a zero chlorine refrigerant (e.g. pure
-134a) may cause some loss in lubrication, even though ample mineral
oil is returned to the compressor.  That is one reason the -134a oils
PAGs and ESTERS have to have MUCH MORE lubricity than did the mineral
oils is to make up for the lack of the chloride-film lubrication
in the compressor.  We will know the answer in a couple of years...
whether or not millions of "new" R-134a systems start failing.

HCFCs, such as R-22 and R-142b have SOME mineral oil miscibility,
at room temp.  They will carry 10% oil at 70-80F, but not at 32F
or lower (evaporator temp).  The isobutane, "helps out" the lower
miscibility at lower temps to make it good enough to return.
-134a has ZERO oil miscibility with mineral oil, at ANY temp, so
it may need LOTS of isobutane, probably 30-40% to get oil return.
That will definately make it flammable.  Another component will be
needed also to make the pressure curve work out correctly, since
isobutane will lower the pressure and performance too much.
Running 8% isobutane in GHG is in the narrow region, where oil 
return works, but yet, we cannot get it to burn.  Took lots
of Bic lighters, and burnt fingers a couple of years back
to figure this out.

-134a is not miscible in its own PAG oil at high temps, such as
the liquid line.  IN the evaporator, when it rapidly cools,
the PAG goes miscible and dissolves the the -134a ok.  However,
a liquid line "sight glass" (charge until the bubbles go away)
will not work on -134a systems.. Since the PAG oil may be or may
not be miscibile in the liquid line, the sight glass will appeary
"milky" if the separation happens (hot days).  If this happens,
mechanics will think the system is "low" on charge, and overcharge it.
For this reason, -134a systems will not have sight glasses.
Hope this helps.

--ghg
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13805 talk.environment:5203
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: "Cannot be Shown to Have Harmed"
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:43:24 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1h3797INNfm0@gap.caltech.edu> <b7PS02gG2ft901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com's message of 21 Dec 92 19:51:37 GMT

>> Who was hurt at three mile island?
> No one.  The reactor accident at Three Mile Island cannot be
> shown to have harmed any person in any way whatsoever.  Fact.

=o= "Cannot be shown to have harmed" is an interesting turn
of phrase.  It might almost be perceived as a celebration of
the industry's notorious lack of accountability.

=o= The head of Pennsylvania's health department found an
increase in infant deaths around the plant, but was forced to
resign rather than cover those up.

=o= GPU-provided figures for the amount of radiation released
were bogus and contradictory.  The harm done by these releases
"cannot be shown," but estimates vary -- one can pick whichever
assessment methodology suits one's prejudices.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:51:01 GMT

In article <58017@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>Tom Paine was not. Ever heard of him? But you should read some works by
>the founding fathers if you want to invoke them. For example, you might want
>to read Jefferson's letters to Monroe on land ownership. He explicitly
>dismisses the theory that ownership of land should entitle the land owner
>to use it up or to do with it whatever he/she pleases. Maybe Jefferson
>was a, god I hate to say it, *socialist*. 
>
>
>-- 
>
>
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
>

Note that the popular phrase "life, liberty and property" was changed by
Jefferson to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  Both
Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin believed that private propert was the
creation of the state and subject to the will of the state.  They
were impressed with the Iroquois concept of land usage.  Of course,
their opinion were not the majority at the time.
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment