HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Who ignores science?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:17:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.184619.38434@watson.ibm.com> andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.173620.28293@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>	.... 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.
>
>This press release has been confused. All the species mentioned have extensive
>ranges in North America outside the Tongass.  Six of the eight have very
>extensive ranges outside North America as well.
>
>Andrew Taylor

That did seem curious to me.  I assumed they were actually referring to
subspecies.  
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14016 talk.politics.misc:65605 alt.activism:19894
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.001438.984@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
|> 
|> >	Some of us cannot ride bikes for a lot of reasons and homes near
|> >mass transit are not in good neighborhoods.  It is hard to go the the Price
|> >Club and bring home a months bulk food in a buss.
|>  
|> So ask them to deliver it.

How would that help? Do you really expect a cheap low-frills volume
distributor to deliver? And if they do, do you expect them to make a separate
delivery to each customer by bicycle? Or what? Where is the environmental
advantage in delivery?

I agree with Mr. Vandeman that overreliance on cars is destructive in
many ways, not least in its effects on community and aesthetics. And I
agree that car users do not bear the full costs of their impact. But some 
of his proposals make not the remotest hint of sense as far as I can see.

mt
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Education and the Environment by Gregory A. Smith
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 07:51:27 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <2934908985.1.p00004@psilink.com> p00004@psilink.com writes:

 > *Of course* people who are trying to change values will try to get 
 > theirs into the schools, and the people who like the old ones will try 
 > to keep them out. There just isn't any Archimedean point outside the 
 > struggle from which one can decide, in a value-free way, what's 
 > legitimate value transmission and what's indoctrination. My values are 
 > going to seem like indoctrination to John McCarthy, if they ever work 
 > their way into his kids' curriculum, as his would to me -- or rather, I 
 > should say, as his *did* to me, when I was in high school a few decades 
 > ago in a small Southern town.

Something to be said for respecting *all* points of view, yes?

The benefit of being exposed to "the bad" is that it gives some real
texture and substance to "the good", perhaps finally enabling you to
*think* about what is really good and bad out there in the big world.
I mean, being exposed to "his curriculum" gave you a valid perspective
on life, didn't it?

This taking sides is a cul-de-sac born losers find themselves in.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: cost of nuclear energy
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:58:08


	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- Philadelphia Electric Co. said Monday its
customers will see their electric bills a little lighter in the new
year.
	The utility is coming to the end of a rate increase imposed to
recover the costs of the Limerick 2 nuclear plant and will cut rates 4.6
percent on New Year's day.
	That should mean the customer using 500 kilowatt-hours of electricity
will see his bill drop to $70.42 from $73.87.
	PE Chairman Joseph Paquette Jr. said a 2 percent rate decrease is
expected in April 1993, because of energy cost rate adjustments
reflecting the use of more efficient nuclear fuel.
	He said that will bring PE's total rate reduction over a 12-month
period to 10 percent.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec30.082757.18046@netcom.com>
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:14:57

I find John Ladasky's post very reasonable, but I disagree with two
of its premises - one stated and one unstated.

1. The stated premise is that the whole world cannot consume resources
at the rate of the U.S.  I agree that it can't consume oil at the rate
of the U.S., but it can and will consume energy (nuclear) at that rate.
Etc.,etc.

2. The unstated premise is that it makes sense to plan for the world
as a whole disregarding the effects of national sovereignty.  When
national sovereignty is taken into account, we see that some countries
have population problems, but others don't.  There is no political
mechanism in sight that can merge Australia and China.  [The Confucians
lost China's chance at Australia during the Ming dynasty when they
isolated the country.]
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 25 Dec 92 13:25:05 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Dec24.161708.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>Problem with what you are saying about land in trust and all that stuff, is
>that is either fedalism in the old Norman model or god I hate to say it
>Socialism.. Problme is we are supposed to be a democracy based on free person

Is it your opinion that National parks are unconstitutional?  There's no
incompatibility between democracy and public ownership of some property.


>and the ability to make wealth. Why would I go to the Welfare office? Im not a
>brain dead pan handler from some parts of the US.. I work for my bread.

You're asking for a handout. You want the general public to give you our
property for your private benefit. Why the hell should we? There are
millions of acres of privately held land in Alaska. Earn some money and
buy some instead of trying to grab our public land.

>You must have me mistaken with some who lives back east.. As far as I know most
Nah. I've run into plenty of people both in the East and the West who
think that they deserve a big fat income courtesy of the public.



No. I mean that National Parks are for the benefit of all americans and 
public property should not be given away. 

>When the founding fathers started our nation is was becuase of economic
>reasons, they were all land owners.. Do you think they would liek it that they
>did not own the land, but were only borrowing it.. Read up what feudalism is
>and you find what Im talking about..

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:20:55 GMT

>: I am not talking about "awareness", but actions. I agree that a lot of
>: HYPOCRITICAL pseudoenvironmentalists may live in the suburbs. Or maybe
>: "ignorant", if you prefer. Suburban lifestyles are extremely damaging, in
>: spite of recycling & conserving toothpaste.
>
>	I'd be curious to know how much of the budget for The Nature
>Conservancy or the Sierra Club (as examples) comes from hypocritical
>pseudoenvironmentalists living in the suburbs.  Of course, they'd have
 
Probably a lot, which is why those organizations are so afraid to tell
the truth.
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Japan Corp Working Together.
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:47:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan1.174742.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In Japan many of the corps worrk with each other.. The old term was Zaibatsu,
there is a new term.. 

Basically a Zaibatsu is a bunch of little or middle sized companies being
controlled in the background by one large corps, namely a large family owned
corp..  I know thngs have changed since c.1950...

==
==
Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 28 Dec 92 10:02:25

In article <901.38.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) writes:

   TO: mfriedma@uucp

   MF>>but Japan supposedly has a 100-year enviro-industry
     >>plan.

   MF>I keep hearing this kind of bullshit.  Does anyone out there really
     >believe it?  After all, can you imagine the hundred year plan that a
     >business or company would have come up with in 1893?

   Think about the hundred year plan Japan might have had in 1938 - they
   have encountered a few technical difficulties, but seem to be getting it
   back on track.
   ---
    . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA

I would imagine that Japan's 1938 100 year plan would have been based
on the use of Manchukuo (their name for Manchuria or Liaoning) and
probably on further conquests in China and maybe in the Soviet Far
East.  Not much salvageable from that plan.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 03:49:56 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec24.205457.7560@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM writes:

 > You are forgetting one little fact: your method is FAR TOO SLOW for what
 > is needed. According to the U.N., we need to reduce traffic by 50% to avoid
 > the greenhouse effect. Your don't-offend-any-old-ladies method can't begin
 > to do that.

Yes, we are all quite aware of the fact that your primary agenda is to
invoke panic so you can rush your policy proposals through. Sorry, but
in a democracy you must consult with other people (especially the old
ladies who have already earned such respect and consideration), which
takes time.

Your operating model appears to offer but two choices, accept either
the risk of dying from the "greenhouse effect", or the risk of mass
destructiveness in the civil unrest you wish to stir up in the pursuit
of your campaign to fast track policies before the planet "overheats".

Well, we have had plenty of experience with the latter and know the
risks intimately. The former remains entirely hypothetical.

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Consulting Ethnologist                              Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:06:20 GMT

In <1992Dec23.160922.8381@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:

>---:      The answer is simple. We already know that the automobile and
>---: its relatives and accoutrements (e.g. roads, CFC-containing air
>---: conditioners, used tires, etc.) constitute the world's greatest
>---: threat to our environment and quality of life. We also know that
>---: the rich own and operate motor vehicles more than the poor. 
>---
>---	In the discussion of the gas tax, it was noted that it's
>---not an equitable tax because the poor- and middle-class are more
>---constrained to use their cars than the upper class.   
>-
>--Not if you read the census reports. The poor have fewer cars
>--available, & use them less. Isn't that obvious?
>-
>-Not only is it un-obvious, it's untrue.  There are many more poor
>-and middle class people than there are rich people, so despite a
>-lower per capita car ownership among the poor, the number of cars
>-owned and driven by poor people is larger than the number of cars
>-owned and driven by rich people.  A tax on cars will take more
>-money from the poor, as a class, than from the rich, as a class,
>-even if the per capita cost is smaller for poor people.
> 
>Nonsense. Read the Census. You obviously haven't. A greater
>proportion of rich drive than poor. It's obvious.

Correct.  As I noted above, the per-capita driving rate is higher
among the rich than among the poor.  This is undisputed.  

It also fails to address the question, since it ignores the
numbers of rich and poor people in this country.  If you take the
trouble to read the Census yourself, you'll see that most people
are not, by any reasonable definition, rich.  If you want to take
more money from the rich, as a class, than from the poor, as a
class, you'll have to tax something other than driving, or else
demonstrate that:

(no. of rich people)*(driving rate)>(no. of poor people)*(driving rate)

Meanwhile, it would help your credibility to avoid unfounded
personal accusations in civilized debates.  It's far from
"obvious" that I have not read the Census, since in fact I have
read it and used its information in rebutting your arguments.
Perhaps you need to read more of the Census than you have,
specifically the numbers of people in each classification, so
that per-capita rates will be in appropriate contexts.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:15:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.165855.22315@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>Most of these figures were taken from the literature of organizations
>promoting nuclear power and match the best history from France.  The
>only exception is the 65% figure.  I am not sure what its source is
>but increasing it to %80 or %90 will not change capital costs at all
>nor will it drastically change operational costs.  There is no

A online rate of 90 percent versus 65% represents a 38.5% increase
in the *revenue* stream generated by the plant. That's significant.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Who ignores science?
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:46:19 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Dec29.173620.28293@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>	.... 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.

This press release has been confused. All the species mentioned have extensive
ranges in North America outside the Tongass.  Six of the eight have very
extensive ranges outside North America as well.

Andrew Taylor
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:04:03 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 <louis.725573968@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>, louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
=jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
=
=
=>I would imagine that Japan's 1938 100 year plan would have been based
=>on the use of Manchukuo (their name for Manchuria or Liaoning) and
=>probably on further conquests in China and maybe in the Soviet Far
=>East.  Not much salvageable from that plan.
=
=Excuse the use of bandwith on sci.environment, but I have a rejoinder:
=
=In 1857, when the competition between Japan and the United States began,
=the shogun's adviser, Masayoshi Hotta, observed:
=
=	I am therefore convinced that our policy should be to stake
=	everything on the present opportunity, to conclude friendly
=	alliances, to send ships to foreign countries everywhere and
=	conduct trade, to copy the foreigners where they are at their
=	best and so repair our own shortcomings, to foster our national
=	strength and complete our armaments, and so gradually subject
=	the foreigners to our influence until in the end all the
=	countries of the world know the blessings of perfect tranquility
=	and our hegemony is acknowledged throughout the world.
=
=This is quoted on page 113 in "Trading Places,"  by Clyde Prestowitz, a
=must read for anyone interested in the US -- Japan trade deficit, and
=the resulting colonizing of America by the Japanese.  

You call *THAT* a *PLAN*?  It certainly qualifies as a rule of thumb, but to
call it a plan is stretching things pretty far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:00:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.234057.13139@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>Before we get into this, Dr. Vandeman, I want you to realize that
>>in essence I favor your position.  However, not everyone has the
>>personal freedom or the inclination to make proximity to work their
>>top priority.  A lot goes into a choice of "where to live", including:
>>	1)  ability to afford a home;
>>	2)  size of the home for a family;
>>	3)  proximity to quality education;
>>	4)  proximity to quality health care;
>>	5)  safety (includes fire protection, police, crime rate);
>>and 	6)  convenience (shopping, groceries, recreational activities, etc.).
> 
>You didn't mention the environment....

Of course he didn't mention *the environment* because there is no such
thing. There are enviroment*s* and he mentions six factors that impact
his personal environments.

[the rest of your religous ravings mercifully deleted because they
all revolve around the same mistaken beliefs]

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 24 Dec 92 04:08:43 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <4099@master.CNA.TEK.COM: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
:>The reactor accident at Three Mile Island cannot be shown
:>to have harmed any person in any way whatsoever.  Fact.
:Not yet!
:Let's wait another 30-odd years before passing judgment.

I love this.  If there are no indicators of harm people say it takes longer to
happen and to wait longer.  If there are signs of immediate harm, people say
its proof.  Just like the Universal Conspircay Theory: if it proves your case
its proof of the conspircay.  If it doesn't, its proof of the conspiracy.  At
least in terms of genetic damage, if Heroshoma and Navasaki could not cause
increases in genetic effects of children conceived after the blast, I don't
think TMI could even make a difference.  Cancers, maybe.  But the current data
from other incidates none.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987 ~BHOSVWZ#097)
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:48:37 GMT

jberlin@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil wrote:
: In article <JMC.92Dec30061125@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
: > Not just any wood for David Hinz's stove - old growth hardwood no less.
: > 
: > Split atoms, not wood.
: > --
: > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
: > *
: > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
: > 

I missed the reply about this, but found it included in another reply.

Anyway, I don't know if you can classify the stuff I'm burning as old growth
hardwood, most of this part of wisconsin has been cut several times already.
I have 20(?) acres of (as far as I can tell) virgin timberland, and obviously
I don't cut down the big trees.  You see, you burn the stuff that's dead,
because it ages quicker.

A properly managed woodlot is a better way to go than burning petrochemicals,
in my opinion.

Besides, it's a good way to get exercise, and makes me more independant of
the whims of OPEC or whoever my fuel oil would come from.  Also, my fireplace
(actually more like a sealed woodstove unit) is more efficient than my furnace,
by far, so why should I buy oil?

Someone mentions that wood smoke is highly toxic.  What is it, exactly, that
makes it so?  Which type of wood?  Seasoned, dry, or green?  Details, sources?

Flame wood....not networkers.

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
Ask me if I have an opinion on this! \ Don't blame me; I voted for Perot!
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.     \       Pherrets are Phun!!!
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy