HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Greenpeace: "The Hype?" (E. Liverpool Incinerator)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 23:32:50 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> True: the (East Liverpool Incinerator) will dump an inexusable
> amount of emmissons into the air, but why not address the
> emmissions issue? (i.e. lets build a cleaner plant)

=+= Greenpeace has addressed the emissions issue.  In particular,
there was a trial burn at a cement kiln in Fairborn, Ohio, which
Greenpeace researchers analyzed and presented a critique on.

=+= You say you've been contributing $50 to them for the last
five years, so you should have been receiving their magazine.
Their March/April 1991 issue has an article about risk assess-
ment that presents part of this critique.  In September 1991
they provided a press release with many details from this crit-
ique, which I reposted in this forum.

=+= And their October/November/December 1991 issue contains this
information:

	_Playing_With_Fire_    $10.00
	In theory, properly designed incinerators get
	rid of toxic waste.  In reality, they create
	more pollution and health problems.  This 63-
	page book is a must for any activist fighting
	a hazardous waste incinerator and for any
	person living downwind from one.

	Order books from Greenpeace Information Services,
	1436 U Street NW, Washington, DC  20009.
	202/319-2444
 
> Before you rush out trying to stop every chemical incinerator
> from being built, let's figure out another solution to get rid
> of the waste first.

=+= I don't think it's acceptable to transfer hazardous waste
from dumps to the atmosphere.  As a former resident of Lowell,
Massachusetts, I am well aware of the damage that the former
do, but that doesn't mean the latter is any better.

=+= Greenpeace has devoted considerable effort to dealing with
this toxic waste by obviating the need for it to be created in
the first place.  Amongst Greenpeace's research publications
are compiled lists of alternatives to toxic-waste-producing
technologies.

=+= Another thing:  Greenpeace is not the originator of the
effort to stop this incinerator, nor are they its architects.
Other national groups are also involved (e.g., Environmental
Action and SEAC), but by and large the effort is a local,
grassroots campaign.  If you don't like how the effort is going,
why not address that campaign, rather than bash Greenpeace?
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:41:23 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec18105203@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Perhaps there is little left to argue about here.  Greenpeace has a
>perfect right to put out a collection of essays by scientists that
>happen to support Greenpeace's proposals for dealing with an alleged
>problem, global warming in this case.  This doesn't constitute doing
>science.

True, but as long as they accurately represent the results of those
who "do" the science, they are contributing positively to policy
discussions.

I might add, as an aside, that the Greenpeace catalog I have has no
reports about nuclear power, though it has quite a few about military
nuclear issues.  Maybe the press release people and the research
people are very separate.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: HELP! ENVIRONMENTAL JUNK MAIL BLITZ!!!
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:40:20 GMT

In article <1gnbmqINNrlj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:
>
>Mr. Spitzer,
>Thank you for your support, you mean there is a way to control
>Junk mail? I was beginning to wonder!
> 
>Another question I should have posed was: Can't these groups 
>send less bulk?
>ex: I get this thing from some charity that wats to save forests
>about 4 times a year, it comes in a 1.5 oz. bundle complete with
>stickers and those lick & paste seals you but on the back of 
>envelopes. no offense, savin forests they ain't!
> 
>How about a postcard? I can send for more info if i want?
>-another thing, Leave out the return envelope, any serious
> environmentalist will be glad to use his own and pay the
> own postage so that more of his donation goes to the cause
> and not  to mailing. (I know, you're probably wondering
>what planet I'm from...) at least that's how i see it.
> 
>When I'm getting more mail from environmental groups than
>from credit card people i start to wonder. each one of my credit
>cards sends me about 8 pieces of excess mail a year. One card
>I had sent me so much that i cut up the card and sent it back.
>if more people did this, i wonder if these clowns would get the
>message?
> 
>Anyone have any Ideas?
>here are some of the groups i get solicited from:
>EDF
>Greenpeace
>cousteau society <-- these guys are not TOO bad
>wilderness society
>wildlife defense fund
>the national park/forest whatever   
>Audobon Society
>rainforest people (can't think of the name off hand,)                 
>Nature Conservancy                                 
>there are a couple more i can't remember because all of
>the stuff is at home. but you get the drift. I have given
>to Greenpeace, Cousteau, and 1 or two others in the past.
>when I'm ready I'll give again. the more they bug me the more       
>P.O. ed i get and the longer i'll wait probably.
> 
>ayone else have any suggestions? please post!
> 
>N. D'Amato

As an environmentalist who believes that the majority of the big groups
have become compromised by the lobby/money/press game, I would suggest
that you find the one group that you like and focus whatever resources
you wish to contribute to that one (or two) group(s).  Any decent
group will give you the opportunity to not have your name distributed.
If they don't, then that's a good warning sign, IMO.
-- 
==============================================================================

	"A calculator is no better than the equation it solves" - me

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: HELP! ENVIRONMENTAL JUNK MAIL BLITZ!!!
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:58:22 GMT


In article <1gg7e2INN72j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:
>
>Hello folks, anyone out there have my problem?
>ENVIRONMENTAL JUNK MAIL!
>My #1 Junk mail problem is environmental groups sending me crap
>and begging for donation...

Mr. Damato has brought up a sensitive issue for env. non-profits.  I've
resigned from Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resourse Defense Council
over their inappropriate use of mass mail, both excessive mailing and
list-sharing against my wishes.  Perhaps a current member could let us know
if EDF and NRDC are cleaning up their junk mail acts these days.

Greenpeace and some other groups maintain preference information much more
carefully than they did even a year ago.  If you last asked them more than a
year ago to stop mailing you, it might work if you tried again.  At least
Greenpeace now seems to realize they have a problem and is taking steps.  I'm
not receiving mail from Greenpeace's list-sharing any more.

Another aspect of Greenpeace's, EDF's, et al's junk mail act that's gotten
real sloppy is the content labeling.  EDF's mailings still bear the
virtually meaningless legend "Printed on Recycled Paper," as advocated by
the American Paper Institute, which doesn't want people to get more
specific info such as bleach type and postconsumer content.
Greenpeace can't seem to get its more specific legends to match the actual
paper type they are printed on.  I receive blazing white "unbleached"
"recycled paper" from Greenpeace every couple of months.   Greenpeace has
tried to be helpful on the phone but simply isn't equipped to discuss these
matters with their members.


But the env. orgs. are nothing compared to the blizzard of junk mail you'll
get if you support the women's movement!  Wow!  Join any of NOW, NARAL,
Fund for the Feminist Majority, etc. and you will get stuff from all the
rest within six months.  (They will NOT ask you if you want your name
shared, as Greenpeace will, and they will ignore you if you write.)  It's 
almost always on "recycled paper" with unspecified, that is to say minimum
allowed, postconsumer content.  And one of them will sell you to Families USA
or People for the American Way and your mailbox is history!  All of the orgs
I've mentioned in this paragraph were secretive and evasive when I tried
to talk to them about their junk mail habits.


We should keep advocacy junk mail in perspective against the vastly larger
volume of commercial junk mail.  These days, you can control the commercial
volume you receive pretty well.  (I will repost my junk mail control
procedure if there's interest.)  Damato's hit the bullseye in pointing out
that the non-profits have been much less responsive to consumer demand
than the hucksters have.


Cameron in the burbs of San Jose
cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: They're not just for propaganda anymore...
Date: 18 Dec 92 12:42:54 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Dec17.142038@aifh.ed.ac.uk>, jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James
Hammerton) writes:
# In article <1992Dec16.055121.1779@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
# constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
# # Why even seek out their literature when their press releases claim:
# (Their literature will give the basis on which they make these claims,see
# below).
# # 1. One speck/nanogram/whatever of Plutonium will kill you...
# 
# It could cause cancer... maybe they put the point too strongly, but the
point
# does hold.Perhaps it should be rephrased as one speck of plutonium COULD
kill
# you. Thing is I haven't personally seen the exact claim made(ie in terms of
# the amount they are talking about in grams, milligrams or whatever). What I
# do know is that plutonium is a highly radioactive element, so the
possibility
# of a small amount causing cancer is plausible.However I'll need to dig out 
# some research on this.

Now I have dug out some research: According to "Nuclear Power and the
environment
" by Sir Brian Flowers, in the Sixth Report to the Royal Commission on
Environmental
Pollution, HMSO, September 1976:

 "An individual dose of only a few milligrams is sufficient, if inhaled, to
cause
massive fibrosis of the lungs and death within a few years.Much smaller
quantities
can cause lung cancer after a latent period of perhaps 20 years"

So it seems that they should have said that one speck of plutonium WILL kill
you
if inhaled. 

James

-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Date: 17 Dec 1992 02:37:35 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <JMC.92Dec14162758@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John
McCarthy) writes:
|> Let's do the arithmetic.  500 million tons of waste per year in the
|> U.S. assuming a density of 1.0 comes to 500 million cubic meters.
|> Suppose it is piled 25  meters high.  This comes to 20 million
|> square meters per year, or 20 square kilometers.  The area of the
|> U.S. is 3 million square miles or 23 million square kilometers.
|> It will take a million years to cover the country with trash.
|> 
|> If we do nothing special for 100 years, we will use up 1/10,000 th of
|> the country.  100 years from now our descendants will be as much more
|> technologically capable than we are, as we are compared to the people
|> of 100 years ago.
|> --
|> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|> *
|> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Actually, EPA's official estimate of U.S. Municipal Solid Waste
production is 180 million tons/year (1990 I think; 1988 at the
earliest).  Of course, we generate lots more of other kinds of waste,
but much of that is the by-product of material consumption, so
producing less MSW would tend to reduce the rest.  In any case,
I believe I also saw a figure of 800 lbs/ton for MSW in landfills
(on average, given current composition).  This varies considerably
by material type.

So, John has seemingly overestimated one factor by 2.8 and underestimated
another by 2.5, so is nearly right on track.  On the other hand, I don't
know what they typical depth of new landfills is, but 25 m sounds plausible.

John is absolutely correct that we don't face a shortage of landfill
capacity (though we do face a shortage of _cheap_ landfill capacity
when compared with the ridiculously cheap capacity of the past).
The reason to pay attention to solid waste (aside from hazardous wastes
in it) is to affect the materials production system, which I assure
you would require doing something "special" to last a million years,
and likely even 100.

Getting hung up on landfills is a distraction to paying attention
to the more important issues involved.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:05:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Sorry i can't include text from previous messages, but the
mainframe i call from uses block mode teminals which can't handle
the full screen editors here on internet.
 
a previous message an individual states : One nanogram of          
plutonium could kill you, to which another reader responds:
"one Ciggarette could kill you, one glass of milk..etc.)
" 
that's not quite a fair criticism.
 
Plutonium is perhaps the most toxic substance known,
one single atom can cause lung cancer and will a lot
more often than one atom from a puff on a cigarette.
 
Plutonium is bad news, plain and simple, and shouldn't
be talked down or shrugged off.
ned.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us? (Greenpeace and Research)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 19 Dec 92 17:25:52

I believe the book advertised as follows was given as an example of
Greenpeace research.

=+= And their October/November/December 1991 issue contains this
information:

	_Playing_With_Fire_    $10.00
	In theory, properly designed incinerators get
	rid of toxic waste.  In reality, they create
	more pollution and health problems.  This 63-
	page book is a must for any activist fighting
	a hazardous waste incinerator and for any
	person living downwind from one.


If a book is going to be advertised such a way, you can be very sure
that no essay will be included that casts the slightest doubt on the
total virtue of the Greenpeace position.  There will be no maybes in
it.  It will have, however, a collection of remarks that can be lifted
and spouted verbatim at hearings or copied onto posters or banners.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:10:11 GMT

In article <Bz7EDH.1EC@ccu.umanitoba.ca> naldret@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dana L. Naldrett) writes:
>In <15900004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
>>What's the deal with recycling???
>
>The real problem with landfills is that nearly EVERYTHING we throw into them
>could be used or put somewhere else. The question simply becomes, how much
>money are you willing to spend to protect or environment? Obviously not much..
>The Europeans were way ahead of us on this problem because of their large 
>population and lack of space. They also have an economy which is used to 
>paying more for everyday things. The result? Good waste management and things
>get reused, recycled and simply not thrown away needlessly.
>
>Have you ever hear of a waste audit?  Take one weeks trash, and keep track of
>*exactly* what you throw out. Then, study it to see what could be diverted 
>from landfill. I bet you will find that nearly 90% of what you throw out 
>could be going somewhere else. This is true with most municipal waste in 
>North America. The problem is getting people to think this way. Hence, the
>browbeating you talk about. There is a good reason for it- we are mostly
>too lazy or unthinking to change our ways. 

I have a question:
Since recycling is often not cost-efficient for communities, why isn't    
incineration a viable option? With it, the landfill growth can be checked
while electricity can be generated. 

Besides having the environmentalists up in arms (as usual), what's the
problem?

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Run! I think the Power Plant's Gonna Blow!!
Date: 13 Dec 92 11:50:15 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec12.233303.16224@news.nd.edu> gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu (george smith) writes:

>"Invented" global warming?  Have you done any reading on the subject at  
>all?  I have only done a little and what I've seen is that there has been  
>an enormous amount of research done on the subject. A lot of it suggests  
>that we may be undergoing a long term climate change due to the increased  
>emissions of anthropogenically produced "greenhouse gases."  Of course,  
>not all researchers agree (researchers hardly ever do).  

If there's been so much research (good reasearch, that is) done, why doesn't
Greenpeace share some data with us?   A recent lecture was given at 
Purdue about the recent report from The Marshall Institute in Washington.
Using satellite data to measure temperature (providing worldwide and not
just isolated data points), it has been found that in the past 15 years,
there has been NO significant GLOBAL warming.  Also, the projected "warming"
of the next 100 years will be as low as 0.5 C.

This is due to the fact that many of the "Global Warming" research has
only included land data, and ignored 2/3 of the earth--the oceans.

However, there is ample proof that land mass temperatures have increased,
but these are mainly due to the expansion of cities (metropolitan areas
are higher than surrounding countryside).  The problem you are talking 
about is LOCAL warming.

I've also seen arguments FOR the addition of more CO2 to the atmosphere,
but I'm sure you'll find that in your reading.

>With  
>nuclear plants, you have to worry about them blowing up and where you're  
>going to put the radioactive waste.  

1. They don't blow up. I suggest you reverse that lobotomy before the
scars heal.

2. The waste "problem" has been scientifically solved.  

George, how are we going to provide large amounts of clean, baseload power?
I think you should mull this over before making a fool of yourself again.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:50:38

I would conjecture that our great grandparents also had some plutonium
in their bodies, although we all have more because of the atmospheric
bomb tests.  Consider that random dirt has several parts per million
of U-238.  Consider that a neutron from cosmic rays absorbed by an
atom of U-238 will make it U-239, which will rather promptly undergo
two beta decays to become Pu-239, the very stuff that bombs are made
of.

Can anyone do the relevant calculations to get an estimate of the
amount of Pu-239 our grandparents all contained?

The point is that 6 x 10^(23), the number of molecules in a mole,
is a very large number, so everybody is likely to contain at least
a few atoms of every element.  The classical junior high school way
of putting it is to say that every breath you take contains on the
average six molecules that were in the dying breath of Julius Caesar.

I have decided that I have recently been too impatient with
ill-informed, new people in this newsgroup.  One just has to
face the fact that the same misinformation will recur time
and again.

However, I wonder if Nicholas E. Damato would inform us of his sources
for the information that plutonium is the most toxic substance known.
If there are several sources I'd like to know about all of them.  I
notice that many of the U.P. stories on the Japanese ship contain
this misinformation in an explanatory clause.

Newswriters are often very badly informed.  I remember that A.P. stories
used to say that the Soviets entered Afghanistan to help the government
fight the rebels, apparently based on an analogy with the American
presence in Vietnam.  When I protested that A.P. itself had reported
that the Soviets entered by surprise, killed the Prime Minister, and
replaced him by someone they brought with them (Babrak Karmal), I
got a nice letter saying they would fix it.  Indeed for more than
a year the explanatory phrase about the Soviets having entered to
help the government was replaced by a slightly longer phrase about
how the Soviets had replaced one Afghan government by another.  Later
they went back to the original phrase, and I didn't bother to write
another letter.

Anyway explanatory phrases about the background of a news story often
contain inaccuracies that are repeated in successive stories
indefinitely.

Anyway, where did Nicholas Damato get the misleading information that
a single atom of plutonium could cause lung cancer.  Actually this is
not excluded, but one atom of plutonium can produce only a tiny
fraction of the radioactive events occurring in a person's lung.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.origins