HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Run! I think the Power Plant's Gonna Blow!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 25 Dec 92 23:18:15

If I understand the proposal correctly, it involves repeatedly separating
the stable isotopes from unstable isotopes of the same elements.  That's
like separating U-235 from U-238, compounded by the large number
of different elements involved and by the need to repeat the process.
There is also the fact that a very large amount of energy is required
to accelerate many moles of ions to high velocities.
This might be more energy than you got out of the reactor.  No, not
quite.  Each fission gives 200Mev, and produces two atoms of fission
products.  Each of these atoms might require (say) 10Mev from the
accelerator to convert it.  If you didn't convert it to something
stable the first time, you'd have to do it again.  Moreover, you
only get 40 percent or so of that 200Mev as electricity.  Nope, it
won't work.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:39:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Oops, correction warranted, please note the following Errata:
 
I said : Po is 64 times more radioactive than Pu.       
Stein says: Pu has a half life 75,00 times longer than Po
 
Stein is right, i ment 64,000 times as radioactive using the
formula one curie = 3.7 E 10     disintegrations per second.
it was a typo.
ned.
 
any takers on the Po/Se hypothesis?
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: OVERVIEW: "Deadly Deceit, Low-Level Radiation, High-Level Coverup"
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:01:02

The trouble with the theory that low level radiation is more harmful
than the official theory is that no-one has been able to find a
correlation between the natural level of radiation in an area and
the amount of cancer there or the general length of life.  The
anti-nukes have to make a fancy theory that artificial low-level
radiation is worse than natural low-level radiation.  Fairly recent
studies were done following the discovery of large amounts of
natural radon in certain areas of the U.S.

The evidence seems to be that low level radiation is considerably
less harmful than the linear theory, which is used officially,
would predict.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: A White Paper for a Dark Future? (EC Transport Policy)
Keywords: environment press transportation
Date: 29 Dec 92 13:04:26 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <Greenpeace.28Dec1992.1732@naughty-peahen>, jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
|> [Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
|>  
|>         A WHITE PAPER FOR A DARK FUTURE? 
|>  
|> BRUSSELS, December 7, 1992 (GP) Today, Transport Commissioner
|> Karel Van Miert will present the European Commission's white
|> paper "The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy"
|> to the Council of Transport Ministers.  This white paper,
|> meant to be the outline of a Community framework for sustainable
|> mobility, does not solve the basic contradictions in the
|> Community's approach to transport policy, and will therefore be
|> an impediment rather than a means to achieve the Community's
|> goal of stabilizing its CO2 emissions.
|>  

[deleted]

|>  
|> This stands in blatant contrast to the need to reduce CO2
|> emissions by 80% in order to prevent uncontrollable climate
|> change -- as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on
|> Climate Change (IPCC) -- and jeopardizes the Community's
|> declared goal of stabilizing CO2 emissions by the year 2000
|> at 1990 levels.
[rest deleted]


when did the IPCC change their recommendations from 60% to 80% cut?
Cut to 80% of 199? levels? And do you have a reference for the IPCC
report (and is it easy/worth reading)?

Thanks in advance,
Michael
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:10:48 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec23094517@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.164300.22246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>   References: <Jym.22Dec1992.1432@naughty-peahen> <STEINLY.92Dec22145701@topaz.ucsc.edu> <JMC.92Dec22174007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>
>If the Greenhouse warming turns out to be both real and bad, we may
>have to replace the coal plants in a short period.  It can be done,
>although it would be expensive.  If we have to crank out a lot of
>nuclear plants in a hurry, they will get much cheaper, because of
>experience and by amortizing the engineering over more plants.
>At a conference held in 1979 on possible energy emergencies, a
>Westinghouse official told us, in answer to a question, that
>plants could be built in two years - and this without priorities
>like those used in World War II.

A study (which I have referenced in the past) also showed that the
most effective and efficient plan for CO2 mitigation was with
efficiency conversion.  The study used cost figures for nuclear
power provided by advocates and were at least as economical as 
the French experience with nuclear power.


>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: ccn@igc.apc.org (Carrying Capacity Network)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:03:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec29.031403.28382@julian.uw:755940859:cdp:1483100138:000:461
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ccn    Dec 29 07:03:00 1992


Regarding jayson Flick's note on transportation planning,
even if one were able to undermine the culture of avarice
which underlies and undermines planners' attempts to address
urban congestion problems, there is an equally intractible problem:
the U.S. population will probably reach 400 million within 50 years.
--with no real end in sight.  Seems to be we should we working on 
underlying causes rather than symptoms.

Steve Coffee
Carrying Capacity Network
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Plutinium poisoning: Was Re: Greenpeace: they're not just for...
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:23:29 GMT
	<JMC.92Dec20221002@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 20 Dec 92 22:10:02

In article <JMC.92Dec20221002@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

   Is anything known about why polonium is so much more toxic than plutonium,
   or is this entirely empirical?

Higher activity is probably the main cause.
There is definitely some empirical data, don't
know how good the stats are. However, Po is a 
radon daughter, it is probably the largest carcinogenic
component of radon exposure. It may also be a significant
carcinogenic compenent of cigarette smoke (from phosphate
fertilizer). If both are true it may add up to the largest
carcinogenic hazard around.

BTW the equilibrium concentration of Po in uranium ore
is about 100 micrograms per ton, or 10**7 Maximum Permissible
Body Burdens. If the Uranium is bred to Plutonium, it becomes
about a 10**6 grams of Pu or 10**12 MPBBs. However, the Po in
the ore is regenerated in about 10**-5 Pu lifetimes, so
the total time integrated MPBBs are about the same (makes sense,
both have comparable \alpha emissions, and are bioactive but
Po is about 10**5 times as active). However, if the Pu is now
fissioned efficiently the total MPBBs produces goes down almost in
proportion (assuming the short lived fission products are stored for
a couple of half-lifes) - so a crude estimate suggests that breeding
U to Pu and fissioning it to avoid Po in the decay will reduce (one
of, if not largest) carcinogens contributing to human cancer rates...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: wws@roberts.colorado.edu (Wendy Sullivan)
Subject: Conservation/Environmental Biology grad study 
Summary: help 
Organization: NOAA Climate Research Division
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:30:40 GMT

  
    Help!!  I am very interested in pursuing a graduate degree in
Conservation/Environmental Biology, but am not sure what colleges offer these
degrees.  I have some preliminary studies to do before I can apply anywhere
(a year or so), but would like to know of the programs available, and which
may be the best.  I would appreciate any response-   Thank You. :-)


Wendy

  (I already know of the University of Colorado's program, so info on anywhere
   else would be most helpful-  thanks).

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NEWS: UN Convenes Special Meeting on Nuclear Transports
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:50:17 GMT

In article <1981@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:

>>Rather than tell us it is a lie, back up your claim. What do the processing
>>plants do?
>
>Reprocessing plants remove the Plutonium and unused Uranium from the left
>over fuel. Essentially they dissolve the rods in a Nitric acid solution.
>The aqueous solution is mixed with a chemical which has a higher affinity
>for the Pu and U than the aqueous solution. ...


There is considerable interest (including in Japan) in a new
reprocessing technology that is considerably different from this.  The
new process, being worked on at Argonne National Lab, is a
pyro(electro)chemical process.

In this process, oxide fuels are reduced to metals by reaction with
calcium metal (metal fuels are just cut up).  The fragments are
dissolved into a molten chloride eutectic (potassium and lithium
chloride, I think).  Electromigration separates out the uranium (onto
an iron cathode) and a uranium/plutonium(+TRU) mix (into a molten
cadmium cathode).  The U/Pu ratio is controlled by adjusting how much
uranium is removed in the previous stage The lanthanides and other
fission products stay in the electrolyte (or don't dissolve).  After
20 or so cycles, the electrolyte is removed and replaced with a fresh
mixture.

This process does not highly purify the plutonium -- it still contains
appreciable fission products.  Although not enough to be significant
in the operation of a reactor, these products would make the fuel
difficult to divert for clandestine use in nuclear weapons.  It is
also much more compact than the nitric-acid based scheme, and is
intended to be used on-site, rather than at a remote reprocessing
plant.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: small@misty.boeing.com (steve small)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:24:10 GMT
Subject: has anybody heard of this letter?
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane BCS Support
Newsgroups: talk.environment


Fellow Doomsters:

I read a very brief newspaper article a couple of weeks ago describing
an open letter signed by about 200 prominent scientists from around the
world (a number of them Nobel winners) which was soon to be sent to world
political leaders.  Apparently the letter predicts catastrophic consequences
in a few decades at most if fundamental changes in environmental policy are
not made soon.

Does anybody have available the text of this letter or know where it can
be obtained?  Is it worth posting?
 
---				
          Steve Small                                                 
          Manufacturing Research & Development                        
          237-0960	94-26	small@b-mrda.boeing.com  
                                                                     
If we knew what the hell we were doing, then it wouldn't be research.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 21:47:24 EST

In article <7089@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!) writes:
 
>
>|> others is there approach.  The environmental awareness that came about during t
>             *****
I'm highly embarrassed an rightfully so. (their)
 
>oh dear oh dear. do you think all that Greenpeace, FoE etc do is just big
>publicity stunts? wake up - they *are* working with (or maybe even lobbying)
>governments. FoE, for example, are trying to dispel the MYTH that they are all
>doing standard letterheads and group banners which they encourage the local
>groups to use (kinda like corporate image).
>
>
>Michael
 
I'm not refuting the fact that these organizations are working with the
government - at least that's not how I intended it to be taken.  What
I do believe is that because of the environmental awareness campaigns of
the 80's, radical activism that appears to be just a publicity stunt
is no longer successful in achieving reform, but creates bad publicity.
I'm glad to hear that many organizations such as Greenpeace realize this.
Working together is the answer, but not just with the government.  Let me
ask this:  How many animal rights activists could effectively work together
with a national hunters' organization?
                                   -Brad Porter
(I'm glad to see that my message was seen.)
DRPORTER@SUVM                     "Always check your speeling" -BP
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: Jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk (James Goldwater)
Subject: Re: Run! I think the Power Plant's Gonna Blow!!
Reply-To: Jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: Sound & Vision BBS (UK) 0932 252323
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:25:47 +0000

In article <JMC.92Dec20182851@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>[...]
>I don't propose looking ahead more than 1,000 years, because long before
>that our descendants will be far ahead of where we are technologically.
 [...]
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>
>


 I have recently read of a fairly easy way to get rid of radioactive waste 
permanently, which is in sight of today's technology. All you do is put the 
waste in an accelerator ring and bombard it. It will then undergo some sort of 
nuclear reaction - some of it will be turned into more radioactive stuff, but 
some will be kicked into stable isotopes. You then extract the stable stuff 
(how? I don't know - but there's sure to be a way) and put the still-
radioactive stuff back in the accelerator, to kick it again. That way you 
transmute the radioactive stuff gradually into harmless isotopes - and it 
doesn't require any radically new technology.


_______________

            "What's your proposal? To build the just city? I will. 
               I agree. Or is it the suicide pact, the romantic        
                        Death? Very well, I accept, for                       
              I am your choice, your decision. Yes, I am Spain."    

                              - Spain, W.H.Auden

               Mail me! James Goldwater: jimgw@sound.demon.co.uk
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 16:03:12 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: OVERVIEW: "Deadly Deceit, Low-Level Radiation, High-Level Coverup"
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: statistical estimates of excess # of deaths, radioactive pollution

In article <1992Dec23.213037.8938@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:
>
> 
>    This post contains the Overview (beginning 78 lines below) section of 
>    the updated 1991 edition of "Deadly Deceit, Low-Level Radiation, High-
>    Level Coverup," a vitally important book providing the kind of analysis 
>    needed to offset the mind-numbing "Everything's o.k.--there's no 
>    immediate health danger--go back to sleep everyone" sort of mantra 
>    consitently chanted by government and nuclear industry officials 
>    everytime there has been an accident at a nuclear facility.  It is 
>    critical to understand however, that even the routine and "legal" 
>    releases and emissions from all nuclear reactors are followed by 
>    consistent increases in infant mortality and excess deaths for people 
>    living downwind from such sites.  This book helps quantify the growing 
>    body of research and knowledge regarding the absolutely lethal nature 
>    of nuclear technology.  There is no such thing as "the peaceful atom" 
>    where the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear techonology as a whole is 
>    concerned. 
>                                                              -- ratitor
>

Having purchased and read this book, I recommend it without reservation...

 _as a paramount example of the abuse of science_.

If the authors missed an opportunity to molest, torture, or corrupt the
data, I didn't see it.  What is funny (pathetic) is that the authors may
believe some or all of what they wrote, and that some of the readers may
accept it as an approximation of truth.

This rivals R. M. Nixon's explanations of the Watergate affair for
absurdity.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nukes as Stop-Gap
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:57:01 GMT
	<1992Dec20.211510.14050@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au>
	<Jym.22Dec1992.1432@naughty-peahen>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: Jym Dyer's message of 22 Dec 1992 22:33:51 GMT

In article <Jym.22Dec1992.1432@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:

   =\= The capital required to replace America's fossil fuel energy
   plants with nuclear power plants would exceed America's GNP.
   Nuclear power can only -- and has only -- served to supplement,
   not to supplant.

Nonsense. US total grid is about 800 GW, some of which already comes
from nuclear power, some comes from hydro and other non-fossil
sources. To build the 1000 or so nuclear power stations needed would
cost about $2 trillion with current prices, or about 1/3 of one
years GNP. As nuclear power costs within a factor of 2 of any other
power, more or less, depending on your accounting, all this tells you
is that to replace the US grid sources with any current power source
would take 1/4 - 1/2 of one years GNP. Another way to look at it is
that using a military size budget you could replace the grid in
less than a decade.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:36:47 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

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:
>>Seems to me that recycling is a farce.  Guilt-ridden yuppies want to feel
>>better about themselves after spending an exhausting weekend at the mall.
>>The public has been brow beaten with the RECYCLE message lately.  Enter
>>[stuff deleted]
> [calls poster an idiot]
>What are the facts?  North Americans are the most wasteful group of 
>people *IN THE WORLD*. Granted this is partly because we are also the
>most affluent, but it is also because we are the most inconsiderate.

There is a lot of truth to some things said here.  I personally support
recycling, yet I will have to agree that most of the people I know who do
are some of the worst and most wasteful consumers on the planet - call
them yuppies if you'd like.  I don't know if it is a guilt thing or what -
but the facts are that what has made this country the greatest polluter
nation in the world is not our lack of recycling (though I think we should
practice it) but our blatant consumerism.  It is the people who have to have
the house with the 12 rooms, the 4 car garage, buy the latest electronic
breadmaker, etc. -- all the natural resources that go into making that
crap, the production of it, the transportation of it, the packaging of it,
etc.  Let's face it - recycling is nice...but how come no one dares
address the REAL problem with our over-consumption-minded society?

Why? - This is what I think as to why:
The reality seems to be that everybody is fearful of his or her job or
his or her salary - because if no one buys the electronic breadmaker
crap - that is that many jobs that are lost in exploiting natural resources.
Though some Indians may have said "take only what you need from this earth",
our society's message is "bigger, better, more, own, buy, consume until
you die".  Why?  So we have higher wages and incomes so we can afford to
buy electronic breakmakers and crap like that -- kind of self-supporting.
Materialism supports and encourages materialism.  i just wish someone
would dare speak the truth, even if it is what we don't want to hear.
90% of our population is employed by working on things that we want but
don't need - unnecessary things.  Scary thought it is.  To be truly
environmental is to reevaluate our own personal values and priorities in
life.

greg
From: myahgula@questor.org (Michael Yahgulanaas)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Who is watching the Moonies ?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 22:38:59 PST
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670

Is it true that the Unification Church has very close financial links to 
Mr. Ron Arnold ( ex sierra club executive ) and through him to the "Wise 
Use" lobby in the US and again through him to the "Share group" in BC ?
Additionally does anyone know if it is true that MacMillan Bloedel has 
financed in part the efforts of the Share groups (or Pat Armstrong) to 
take public positions supporting industry smash and grab of resources ?
Any information appreciated.


--
  Michael Yahgulanaas (myahgula@questor.org)
    | QUESTOR:  Free Dial-in Public Access to Usenet Health, Medical News |
    | & AIDS forums, and Info on Global Environment at  +1 604  681 0670. |