HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: siskind@eos4.larc.nasa.gov (David Siskind)
Subject: Re: Where's the "F" in CFCs?
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:35:19 GMT

In article <7530035@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
>
>I have a little trouble with this, though.  Has NASA or anyone else EVER
>found any evidence that CFCs are the source for the chlorine in the chlorine
>monoxide?  As far as I know there has never been a reasonable explanation
>for the *lack of fluorine in any form* in the midst of all that chlorine
>monoxide.   It can't just disappear.  And it hasn't been measured.  So why
>pick on CFCs when there are so many sources of chlorine?
>
>
>So who can account for the missing fluorine?
>
>I'm not trying to be flip.  I think it is an important question which has
>NOT been answered, yet.  In fact, I think it is so fundamental, that it must
>be being ignored by those involved in the investigation.
>
>
>David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post

Flourine has NOT been ignored, you just have to read the literature. On the
other hand, the computer models still don't adequately explain the observed
amounts. The reason you get lots of reactive chlorine and not flourine is
because much of the flourine from CFC's ends up as HF which is more stable
than the equivalent chlorine reservoir, HCl. The total amount of HF observed
over a Swiss observing site has increased by over a factor of 2 since 1977.
In a paper by Kaye et al (J. Geophys Res, July 1991) they were only able to
account for 2/3 of the measured amount. The current UARS satellite has
detectors designed to measure HF and HCl simultaneously and this such help
to sort out such discrepancies.

David Siskind

Xref: sparky sci.environment:6002 misc.misc:2406 sci.misc:1039 can.general:2108 tor.general:532
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Where's the "F" in CFCs?
From: valdes@bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes)
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:56:27 GMT
Organization: Crusade to Eliminate Political Correctness

In article <7530035@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
>In rec.nude, jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes:


	[CFC's are the cause of ozone depletion in Antarctica]

>I have a little trouble with this, though.  Has NASA or anyone else EVER
>found any evidence that CFCs are the source for the chlorine in the chlorine
>monoxide?  As far as I know there has never been a reasonable explanation

	If by evidence you mean tracking the specific batch of CFC's
released and observing its reactions over Antartctica the answer is no.
However, it has been observed under laboratory conditions that CFC's
release chlorine atoms upon exposure to UV light and the chlorine atoms
react with ozone to form chlorine monoxide.

>for the *lack of fluorine in any form* in the midst of all that chlorine
>monoxide.   It can't just disappear.  And it hasn't been measured.  So why

	The carbon-fluorine bond is stronger, and more difficult to break,
than the carbon-chlorine bond.  In addition the fluorine atom is smaller
and the rate of recombination (with the other radical produced in the
cleavage) is faster than for chlorine.  

>So who can account for the missing fluorine?

	Photochemistry.


>I'm not trying to be flip.  I think it is an important question which has
>NOT been answered, yet.  In fact, I think it is so fundamental, that it must
>be being ignored by those involved in the investigation.


	I would speculate it is a communication problem.  Those involved
in the investigations probably consider the answer to be obvious.  On the
other you have the hysterical people who don't know what they are
talking about (read the newsgroups for examples) and they will ignore
the question for obvious reasons.



*******************************************************************************

	"Dangerous ideas must be eliminated"

		Anonymous head of state

*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:35:23

Alan McGowen writes:

     Human intelligence is a specific set of biological
     adaptations peculiar to one species. There is noting
     "general" about it -- the belief in the existence of
     "general" intelligence abstractable from the biological
     substrate is a myth of AI. Mind you, I am not saying that
     human intelligence cannot be produced artificially: if you
     can emulate the neurobiology with sufficient detail, you
     will emulate human intelligence. But we are a *very* long
     way from being able to emulate the neurobiology.

Why "myth" and not hypothesis?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: What happens to the F from CFC's?
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:47:57 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


 Addendum to my last post, where I wrote:
> The concentration of HF in the stratosphere has 
> increased by a factor of 4 since 1978. 
> The total HF concentration is compatible with production from CFC's; 
> although there is less HF than HCl (outside the hole - I think the ratio
> is about 15-25%, I don't have the numbers by me, and it increases 
> with altitude) this is to be expected since:
>
> (1) almost as much CFCl3 as CF2Cl2 is released into the atmosphere.
> (2) the former has a shorter lifetime (60 yrs vs. 105), so more of it
> has dissociated.
> (3) There is also a contribution from CCl4, as well as naturally-occurring
>      CHCl3.

 The HF/HCl ratio at 20 km is 22-26%, measured in 1985 and again in 1989.
 It rises to >30% at 30 km.
 Ref: J. Geophys. Res. _95_, 20519 (1990).

Robert
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Short Population Facts
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:55:22 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <1466601312@igc.org>, Eco Systems Inc. <ecosystems@igc.org> writes:
> 
> What we need less of is closed minds. I don't see how listing of 
> facts can be construed as pontification.
> 
> I say less machines and less meat. More with less!

And of course *YOU* want to decide what machines and meat we will
have less of, all the while using some of the highest levels of
technology available to get your message across.  ;-)  Sorry,
I couldn't resist that cheap rhetorical ploy.  Anyway, things
like population control and new beneficial technologies (such as this
one) could have more effect on the world that a change in diet.

If all those extra people survive (and I know it is a horrible thing
to say, but the truth sometimes hurts) *THEY* will breed... And their 
kids will breed... and then we won't have a square foot of the earth 
to stand on.  We don't feed them for *POLITICAL* reasons.  If all
that food were left, NOT ONE MORE PERSON IN THE WORLD WOULD EAT!  
The governments would see to that.  The "Church" doesn't believe in
birth control and the governments don't want all those extra people.
Deadlock.  Less people in the world, less pressure on the land and
other resources.  It's really simple.  

How to accomplish this?  Who knows, but somebody better start doing
something (and goddamit I hope it's not another stupid war!) because there
are probably more people on the planet now than all the people that have 
died on this planet in the history of the mankind (personkind?).

whew, i feel much better now...  the soap box is now available for the
next raving lunatic.

BTW, I'm 38, have been married and have no kids...  No heroics here
I just don't like them.   ;-)

  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives.           

Xref: sparky sci.environment:6089 talk.environment:1457 alt.activism.d:1661
From: newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: UNCED draft declaration
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:35:10 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Apr15.145807.20798@ctr.columbia.edu> mlbohn@mtu.edu (Michael L. Bohn) writes:
>> I hope President Bush will stay away from Rio de Janeiro.
>			     ^^^^^^^^^
>> --

SAY WHAT ??????????   Where did this guy come from? Anybody know him?
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Where's the "F" in CFCs?
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:27:53 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <7530035@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
>I have a little trouble with this, though.  Has NASA or anyone else EVER
>found any evidence that CFCs are the source for the chlorine in the chlorine
>monoxide?  As far as I know there has never been a reasonable explanation
>for the *lack of fluorine in any form* in the midst of all that chlorine
>monoxide.   It can't just disappear.  And it hasn't been measured.  So why
>pick on CFCs when there are so many sources of chlorine?
>
>David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post

1) "why pick on CFC's", and 2) what happened to the flourine:

1) We've been over this many times-- CFC's have a lifetime of many decades
because they have no natural processes to remove them except being 
photodissociated by UV radiation in the stratosphere. All known natural
sources of chlorine have shorter residence times and, except for the most
explosive volcanic eruptions, have no way of getting into the stratosphere,
and as long as it's not in the stratosphere, it can't destroy the ozone.

2) I talked with a friend who studies atmospheric chemistry the last time this
came up, and she did a little bit of preliminary research on it, finding it 
getting too complicated, beyond how much effort she wanted to spend. 
Apparently, when the CFC molecule is broken down, the flourine can do many 
things, some of which result in it's removal from the stratosphere or being 
bound up in other molecules, but in any case reducing the amount of free 
flourine, though I better not say anything too definitive because I won't be 
able to defend it. The point is, not so much is known about the flourine, but 
it doesn't have to be to know that CFC's are a primary source of stratospheric 
chlorine.

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: A Technomaniac Position (was: Worse case scenario)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:56:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.195746.18007@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
(Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.085854@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
                                   [deletions]
> Combining the above two paragraphs, I suspect that the cost of sequencing and
> decoding genetic information will continue to drop at a fairly amazing rate
> for the next several decades.
> 
> Comments, Dan?

   I concur completely with your analysis.  Thing is, the catastophic level of
increased speed/decreased cost you deduce is needed before we can start
designing our ecological repair building blocks.

   I'm more worried (lots more) about figuring out what the sequences mean than
obtaining them.  It's not clear to me that the "decoding" can be speeded up
past a certian modest point by automation.

   The reason is that we will be interested in novel sequences not ones we
already understand from other spiecies.  Thus our automation can tells us
"don't look at this, it's just =blah=, a well known function common to all
vertebrates" but when we hit something novel, I suspect we have a big lab
project to reduce it to status "useful" every time.

   Of course at some point our understanding will "catch fire" and we can
design what we need from chemical feedstocks.  I don't think this will happen
too soon though.

   Bear in mind the whole decades long, gigabucks deep human genome initiative
is only for _getting_ the sequence, not interpreting it.  The current situation
may be a bit deceptive.  You know, "Cystic fibrosis gene discovered".  In
the current stage of gene sequencing we are looking for genes we already know
heaps about, the protiens they do (or don't) produce, a good deal about their
inheritance and hence which markers they're near.  My point is we are now doing
the easy part of the decoding.

   Then, of course, once we know what the sequences do, building new organisms
is going to be tough.  I would say "impossible" except that there is a 
remarkable robustness in living creatures.  Getting the creatures we want, 
though will be a new art and later a new science.  Takes time.

   Finally, except possibly for direct 1:1 replacement, inserting new creatures
into ecosystems will be tricky.  At a minimum I think we should learn to build
isolated ecosystems, like Biosphere II only done right, as test beds.  We
should start doing it _now_ to have the needed expertise in time.

   For perspective I offer the assertion that human immortality, by which I mean
arresting of aging and senecience, requires the same level of technology 
as the designer organisms I'm talking about.

> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer: I _am_ a mathematician.  My molecular biology is at the educated
layman's level.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Soybean Oil Inks
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:44:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr11.204454.15248
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


I produce a local Sierra Club newsletter, and some of our members
have been bugging me to get the printer to use Soybean oil-based
printing ink. Some eniro pubs I get also carry a note that they
use soybean oil ink.  This seems to be a well-established
"accepted wisdom" in some eco circles, but somehow I missed it.
  They say that soybean oil ink is "better for the environment".
Can someone explain? Better than what? And why?
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Re: EMI Book
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:34:02 GMT


Besides, Brodeur got a job as an editor at The New Yorker on the
strength of those books.  They seem to be keeping him busy with
editing rather than writing, because he hasn't found another
"hidden threat" lately.
From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Public % Private Apathy, was Re: AIDS in Africa
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:45:54 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <46348@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
<In article <17938@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
<>In sci.environment, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
<>
<>>AIDS victims are now spreading non-treatable TB through urban areas in the
<>>US. While TB is more infectious for those with weakened immune systems,it
<>>is quite happy living in people without AIDS.
<>
<>    I wouldn't put the blame on AIDS victims.  The non-treatable strains
<>are being breed in homeless/street people and/or addicts.  They get
<>medicine for treatment and stop taking it when they "feel better." Three
<>months later they are back for treatment. Since they tend to go to clinics
<>or emergency rooms few places have the resources to follow up on progress.  
<>It is not an AIDS problem, it's a mental competance problem.
<
<Addicts usually have other things on their minds than protecting the public
<health. But since the public seems to have other things on its mind, the
<locus of the mental incompetance is not clear.
<
	Unfortunately, whether it is a personal sickness, or an epidemic,
the general public tends to act the same way -- take the medicine until the
symptoms abate, then stop.  Why waste money on measle shots if no-one seems
to be getting measles?  Several almost eliminated diseases are coming back
because vaccination rates have fallen.  Henry Mencken was right.

<>    Now that this has reached national awareness expect some action.
<
<Oh sure. Just like on homelessness itself. Don't hold your breath, even
<though breathing itself may be dangerous. 
<
	I would expect much more talk than useful action.

<yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

	Stopping an epidemic is simple, you find out who has the disease,
then you find out who they might have infected, them you cure them.  All
that is required is cooperation and a cure.

	But, cooperation becomes uncertain if there is a social stigma
attached to the disease or there is no cure.  It is also hard to find who
might have been infected if the time span is large, or the memory is clouded.
It doesn't how cooperative you want to be if you can't remember.

	Needless to say, we have a big problem.

								Irv

-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.  They do not tell me what their policy 
is.  They may not have one.		Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>
From: adesai@skat.usc.edu (Axay Desai*)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.jobs.offered
Subject: Environment Info needed
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:21:44 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,talk.environment,sci.environment,misc.jobs.offered
Subject: Info regarding Environmental Companies
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution:California 
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Keywords: 

 Hello! Everyone...
 
 I need the information of all the Environmental Firms particulary those
firms which associated with solid & hazardous waste management and located
in California. The information regarding the companies profile, size of the
firm and most important the services they are providing (if it's a consultancy)
will be highly appreciated.

you can send the mail straight personally to me, 
Thanks in advance...

AXAY DESAI
axaydesa@skat.usc.edu
adesai@alcor.usc.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.jobs.offered
Subject: Environmental Info Needed
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Keywords:
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: [transportation] Alternative transportation ...
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:30:25 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: [transportation] Re: Alternative transportation info sought.
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Keywords: 

     (Cannot send through private mail.  But is something for
the network to think about, too.)

o   Car-pooling
o   Cycle commuting
o   Shuttle buses
o   Telecommuting
o   Laws in LA requiring full-time transportation coordinator for
    companies over a certain size (or is this just an urban myth?)

     People living in the same district should car-pool.  Cycle
(motor-cycle?  bicycle?) not that convenient, because motor-cycles not
very useful otherwise, and you have to own a motorcycle solely for
commuting.  Public transport, that is busses from the city/country
transit are definitely encouraged.

					Daniel Chung
From: Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:35 PDT
Subject: Re: NOT Vegitariansim was: Short Popula
Nf-ID: #R:1992Apr8.192136.22991@icmv:-1712910915:cdp:1466601318:000:1069
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Apr 11 00:35:00 1992


I'm in strong agreement with Les DeGroff's analysis of the newmode
vegetarianism as a form of anthropocentrism. Peter Singer and the
other consistent animal liberationists who advocate vegetarianism
are strongly anthropocentric in two respects: 1) they think that only animals
with neural systems like ours ("organisms with interests") have moral
standing, and they do not see that fitness maximization, shared by all
life, is sufficient ground. And 2) they think that our smarts make us so much
better than, say, wolves, that we ought not eat meat . [Wolves may, because
they are too stupid to know they shouldn't.]

I reject both 1) and 2). However, I agree with Tom Gray that we eat
far too much meat (especially beef) both in terms of our own health
and in terms of its ecosystemic cost. What I do not admit is the
anthropocentric vegetarian premise that humans are so superior to
other predators that it is beneath us to eat meat. 

But if there are going to be 10 billion of us, we had better develop
a taste for algae... (or maybe humans?)

------
Alan McGowen
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: wanted: a digital map of a coastline
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:45:54 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

Look for WDB (World Data Base).  It is available for a number of
computers and is free, having been paid for by the tax dollars of
many Americans.  You should be able to FTP or download it without
too much trouble.  

-- 
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: Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:29 PDT
Subject: Re: computer models of pollution damage
Nf-ID: #R:1992Apr9.041110.18314@usenet.ins:52561154:cdp:1466601320:000:83
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Apr 11 02:29:00 1992



I would also like to see the list of models. Please post it.

------
Alan McGowen

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:43:52 GMT
Subject: Re: UNCED draft declaration
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / mlbohn@mtu.edu (Michael L. Bohn) /  7:58 am  Apr 15, 1992 /
> I hope President Bush will stay away from Rio de Janeiro.
			     ^^^^^^^^^
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

>
>
>Yeah, lets just ignore our problems and maybe they'll all magically disappear...
>
>Michael

I agree with John McCarthy. I hope Bush stays away from Rio. 

It gives the Democratic candidate more ammunition; besides, Bush will
send Baker or somebody to sign for him, so it will make no legal difference
whether he goes personally or not. The ratification and implementation of
the bulk of what gets signed at Rio will be up to Congress in any event. 

But let's see Bush continue to paint himself as a "reform candidate" if he 
doesn't go....

Call 1-800-LEAD-RIO to send a telegram to Bush telling him you want him to
go, and want the US to play a "leadership role" in UNCED (not bloody likely!
the Bush administration has been the main obstacle, particularly to the carbon
emissions treaty) -- unless, like John McCarthy and myself, you would prefer 
him to make a fool of himself and help out the Democrats.

Then, if you *really* want the US to lead in the environment, vote him out
in November.

----------
Alan McGowen
From: hank@netcom.com (Hank Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: NASA predicted arctic ozone loss: has it happened??
Summary: Looking for new info since Feb '92
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:26:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I haven't seen or heard actua measurements of ozone levels or of
ultraviolet measurements since the Feb. 92 aircraft and balloon
flights that led to predictions of ozone loss this spring/

My local system's been dead a lot; can anyone cite info/email me some?