HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glowboy@robot.nuceng.ufl.edu (Louis Iselin)
Subject: Re: Where does he get these ideas? (part 2)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Nuclear Engineering Sciences - Univ. of Florida
Date: 22 Jan 1993 13:14 EST  

In article <C14t6v.2Io@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes...
>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> 
>>I have a question (and not a rhetorical one).  How close is uranium ore
>>to the surface in general?  How much of the typical background radiation
>>is due to ore used for reactors?  Is this ore at all related to the
>>radon exposure we here so much about?
>

This part is pretty sad since Dean is big on taking shots at nuclear power
and yet is just now making the connection between U and Rn.  He feels free
to make claims about radioactive waste as if he had done some research before
on the subject...

>According to National Geographic, 55% of the radiation exposure Americans
>receive is due to radon.  However, the radon exposure we receive is from
>radon seeping into basements from the rocks below.  Radon in outside
>air is very low.                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It does not have to be low and it is not ALWAYS low.  It is lower on
average due to dilution and dispersion. :)  On the UFla. campus, there
are places outside certain buildings where the Rn levels in the outside
air are high enough to prevent zero-level calibrations of Rn and Rn
progeny detection equipment in the area.

>                 Uranium isn't as rare as most people think it is.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
U averages 5 ppm in most soil/rocks with some spots as high as 15 ppm.
It's there, just not in high enough concentrations to be ore.

>                                                                  Most
>granite contains some.  When this uranium in granite or other
>uranium-bearing rocks decays it produces radon.  Radon is a gas and it can
>escape into basements.
> 
>The National Geographic broke down radiation exposure into natural and
>artificial groupings.  The artificial sources totalled to 18% of the total.
>Nuclear power didn't even show up on the chart, it was part of the 1% "other".
>Medical X-rays was the largest of the artificial sources.
> 
>-Mike

Rn is a big research topic here at UFla. (I'm part-time on this and
my wife is the database manager for the State of Florida Radon Research
Project's radon article database.)

My dissertation topic, however, is a study of a potential mechanism of ionizing
radiation's effect on certain organics common in the human body.

Sorry this followup is so late, our newserver was down and so was I. 

Louis H Iselin, PhD candidate
UFla. Nuclear Engineering Sciences
DOE Health Physics Fellow (1988-1992)
From: ceg@nova3.stanford.edu (Chris Gronbeck)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Help -- leads on PC software for heat loss calculations
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:43:22 GMT
Organization: Int'l. Institute for Energy Conservation
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nova3.stanford.edu
Summary: SolarSoft's SunPas
Keywords: software

In article <bainbridge.8@stpaul.ncr.com> bainbridge@stpaul.ncr.com (Robert Bainbridge) writes:
>I am trying to locate PC based software that will perform heat
>loss calculations for residential and light commercial
>buildings.  Any information would be helpful.
>
>Thanks in advance.

It's been a while, but I have used SunPas by SolarSoft Corp.  It is simple and
has a crude user interface, but lets you define surfaces by type, u-value,
size, orientation, etc., and it uses climate files to perform thermal losses
and solar gains.  If anyone's interested I can dig out the manuals and find
out if they still make it.

Christopher Gronbeck
IIEC, Wash., DC
202-842-3388
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:07:53 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores of the Pacific, California

It seems like an incredibly stupid question to me, but I've got
to ask it ...

In the descriptions of converting a house to PV/wind/off the grid,
they always seem to describe one of two types of conversion:  Invert
some {12,24,36,48} VDC to make 120 VAC for the whole house or...
Convert some fixtures to take straight 12 VDC and convert all the
involved lighting or appliances to 12 VDC.

Pondering this ...  Why not just use a 120 VDC battery pack and use
120 VDC for a bunch of stuff?  Lightbulbs don't care if they are
AC or DC, nor do electric stoves and ovens or other resistive heat
sources.  Some tools have AC/DC motors.  120 VDC was a common motor
type not too long ago, so I'd expect some motors to be available
for things like house fans.

Yeah, I know, you shouldn't have an electric stove or oven.  But
the house already has one and my wife doesn't want to learn to 
cook on gas.  (though I think it is really 220 ... more batteries...)

Yeah, you should use CF bulbs, not incandecents.  However, many 
of the low usage locations don't pay for a CF.  I also took the 
liberty of looking into the ballast of one of my LOA CF electronic
bulbs.  It has a filter cap accross the line, then runs the AC 
into a full wave bridge...  Ought to work on DC too... 

So why not?  Why not have a 120 VDC battery bank directly running 
the incadecent lights, and any easy to change motors like heaters,
and any suitable electronic ballast CF bulbs?  Then you only need
an inverter for the electronic stuff, some general purpose outlets
in the kitchen and other parts of the house, and maybe the fridge.

Why bother with the 12 VDC junk, and why run everything through
the inverter?

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:02:41 GMT

In article <30539@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
>
>That's what get's me about Libertarians in the USA. They think the world
>owes them a living, and that anybody who gets in their way ought to be
>shot.

No, Libs think that *they* don't owe anyone *else* a free living, and
that those who try to leech off of them anyway should be shot.

>Two things for you to think about
>
>1) Americans pay less tax per head than any of the other G7 Nations

So Americans are getting slightly less screwed that the poor SOBs in
the other G7 nations. This begs the old question asked by mothers
everywhere, "If all your friends jump off a cliff, do you have to
jump too?"

>2) Your infrastructure is knackered

Only in the liberal welfare state Northeast. Down here in Georgia
we have both the lowest taxes *and* the best roads. That's because
we don't let the Legislature get their sticky fingers on the gas
tax money. It's mandated by law to go *directly* to the State DOT
which in our state is essentially a totally autonomous body that
doesn't answer to the Legislature. They are a professional group
of highway engineers, not politicians.

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     |                     |
From: Ad Astra Ltd. <adastra@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 24 Jan 93 11:08 PST
Subject: Energy from space Sustain Future
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300153:000:186
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!adastra    Jan 24 11:08:00 1993


Energy from space Sustainable futures
Using energy from space, satellite power systems, transmitted
to earth via microwaves offers a sustainable, environmentally
benign source of energy

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: ph_yfyau@uxmail.ust.hk (Yau Yat Fai)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace Research
Followup-To: sci.energy,talk.environment
Organization: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:42:18 GMT

Jym Dyer (jym@mica.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: =o= It is folly to believe that *any* research is going to be
: free from bias, especially from the bias of the funders of that
: research.  All research should be looked at with a critical eye,
: and compared with similar research.


Yes!  Then the main point is, towards which side lies the bias?
I would say that Greenpeace releases bias on political reforms.
Scientists usually strive on finding out solutions to problems; 
but the Greenpeace usually strive to tell YOU how the problems
are solved.  So, with a second thought, have we ignored the
processes of decision making in national context or even in global
context?  On another side of a coin, scientists usually strive on
finding out the causes of phenomena; but the Greenpeace usually 
strive to tell YOU "what" phenomena we are to expect.  Again, have
we ignored other possibilities?

Above are suggestions, not criticisms.  If Greenpeace releases
include "second thought on decision making in national context"
and/or "possible alternatives rather than plain FATE", readers
will feel more comfortable with the to-be-bright-to-believe bias.


: =o= We know that R. J. Reynolds studies are wrong because their
: conclusions can't be reproduced by other researchers, not just
: because it's conducted by R. J. Reynolds.

: =o= Likewise, it cannot be assumed that Greenpeace studies are
: wrong because they're conducted by Greenpeace.  Such a thing
: would need to be shown by comparing their studies with those
: of other researchers.


Yes!  Greenpeace releases are seldom technically wrong.  The major
problem reading Greenpeace releases is one of eliminating those
exaggerations.  (Say, 20 odd mpg diesel engine cars can develop
into 100 mpg cars in 20 yrs! Astounding, isn't it.  I think fossil
fuels will no longer be used to drive engines 20 years later.)
My impression is that the Greenpeace releases are always ever
exaggerating.  So, every time I read a Greenpeace release (or
report), I will tell myself: there is something wrong.  You now
see what is WRONG with Greenpeace!  And what is WRONG with R. J.
Reynolds.


: {{ The rest deleted }}


Think about it, Jym.  Sometimes I feel quite impressed by the work
of the Greenpeace and its collaborators.  Usually, they find ways
to make the world more beautiful, more lovely, more comfortable;
but they forget to make their work beautiful, lovely and 
comfortable for readers!

Regards

Yau Yat Fai
Department of Physics
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Xref: sparky sci.energy:7220 talk.environment:5719
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Distributed Power
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:29:04 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1993Jan20.185622.5446@vexcel.com>
	<Jym.25Jan1993.0328@naughty-peahen>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> In article <1993Jan20.185622.5446@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com
> (Dean Alaska) writes:

=/= Sorry, I messed up the attribution on that one.
    <_Jym_>
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:25:21 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1k04snINNrkq@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <59076@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>Victor, like the jackass he's demonstrated himself to be, brays:
>
>>In other words, you invented contents for a report you didn't read. High
>>standards of scientific reasoning indeed.
>
>Now, Victor, are you trying to tell us that you don't understand the difference
>between a television commercial (which this thread is about) and a scientific
>report?  Or are you once again trying to excuse the perfidies of GreenHype by
>feigning stupidity?
>

It must be a relief not to have to feign. The subject of the GP press
release was the report.

>Jeremy Whitlock described TELEVISION COMMERCIAL from GreenHype.  I pointed out
>the shortcomings of that commercial, as described by Jeremy.  You take me to
>task for not reading the "report."  Well, shit-for-brains, the subject under

No. I take you to task for assuming that the report did not offer any
time frame, and then, on the basis of this completely unfounded assumption,
complaining about the lack of scientific rigor in the report. 
I'm also constantly amazed by your apparent belief that calling someone
"shit-for-brains" is verifies anything more than your intellectual
limitations.

>objecting to your willful stupidity, your intellectual dishonesty, or your
>naiveti, whichever one's applicable (though my impression is that it's your
>overwhelming intellectual dishonesty, tovarisch, which causes you to bray as
>you do).

Now we are getting snippy: "tovarisch" indeed.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: HELP - Energy
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:17:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

DS>I need to know the energy sources(in %) used to generate electricity
DS>in California.
DS>Does anybody can help me with that?
DS>Thank you very much!

The Palo Alto phone book list the

State of California Energy Commission
1516 9th, Sacramento, CA
General Information (916)654-4287
Public Advisor      (800)822-6228

Howard Smith

American Hydrogen Association BBS (415)494-3116
1200-14,400 baud (V.32bis V.42bis)  8N1  24 hrs
Hydrogen Energy -  Prosperity without Pollution

---
 . SLMR 2.1a . --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
                     
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7118 talk.environment:5634
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:10:31 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

I really don't know why anyone would consider Greenpeace press
releases and research to be any less biased than R. J. Reynolds
studies that show cigarettes are safe.  Greenpeace is a political
group that has made up its mind about the lifestyle all of us are to
follow.  It then commissions studies and research to prove its
conclusions.  I consider Greenpeace "research " to be on the same
level as "research" conducted by General Motors to show cars don't
cause pollution.  I take "research" done by any political special
interest group like Greenpeace with a big grain of salt.


Rod Anderson        rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO                             rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu
Boulder, CO                                     packet N0NZO @ W0LJF
A life consisting exclusively of things that are Good For You is bad for you.
                                                          Kelvin Throop
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Efficiency of electric distribution
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:47:22 GMT

In article <na#sm-c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

 > likely got his numbers from EPRI.  As a national average which includes
 > the ancient transmission equipment in the Rust belt, that figure is 
 > probably about right.  Modern equipment probably cuts that by a few
 > percentage points.  The figure we used in TVA was around 6%.


A quick look at the Statistical Abstract of the United States reveals
that in 1989, the US generated some 2.779 trillion kWh, and consumers
bought 2.634 billion kWh, for a loss of 5.2%.  I don't know if these
figures include cogeneration or electricity imports/exports.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Real vs Govt Energy costs (Re: Roads and Taxes)
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

In article <90634@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan24.132908@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>
>|over the last decade. They've all but massacred our coal industry,
>|manufacturing industry, steel etc... Unemployment went through the roof in
>|the early eighties and never quite recovered, and indeed is on it's way up
>|again. We are in the deepest and longest recession since the thirties 
>|depression and homelessness seems to be a permanent feature of our cities.
>|All this after thirteen years of Thatcher/Reagan style conservatism.
>
>Thatcher removed the subsidies that the coal and steel industries had
>become addicted to and they collapsed.

Yes, removing the subsidies was probably right, maybe these industries
did need to be scaled down, but the way in which it was done certainly
wasn't the right way. Many communities devastated by the loss of the
main industries whihc employed their workers, there was no attempt to
try and mitigate the effects of this, and in fact it could be argued
that the government went all out to destroy these industries.

>It is not the removing of subsidies that is at fault, but the laxy
>incompetent management that had grown dependent on those subsidies.

True, but it could have been dealt with far better. Also nationalisation 
isn't the only form of public ownership. I suspect that part of the
problems of these industries was that they were monopolies that were
molly coddled by government. Now apart from coal, they are private
monopolies so they have nothing with which to compete, and noone can go
elsewhere in the case of dissatisfaction.

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.   *
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7211 talk.environment:5712
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: N-Plants in Eastern Europe
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:04:58 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

=o= I've just reposted a Greenpeace press release concerning
a Czech nuclear power plant.  A few months ago I posted a
Greenpeace press release concerning German involvement in
a Slovakian plant, which included this statement from the
German Environment Minister:

    "It can be said that in general a further operation
    of most of the Eastern European reactors would not be
    possible according to German standards."

This Minister nonetheless was approving German involvement
in fueling and backfitting the Slovakian reactor.

=o= That press release prompted harsh criticism of Greenpeace
from somebody whose messages tend to be thoughtful, and I took
the criticism seriously.  I investigated.  Not a lot of infor-
mation is available, though.

=o= The critic's main point (and I apologize if I summarize this
wrong -- please correct me if I do) was that things are so bad
in Eastern Europe that it's not unreasonable to run them a bit,
so that people won't die from lack of energy, especially during
the winter, and that it's actually charitable to do so.

=o= From my perspective, nuclear energy isn't just a fixed
number of megawatts being added to a society.  The West's
experience with the technology leads me to be immediately
concerned about two non-environmental problems that Eastern
Europe would have to contend with.

=o= The first is that nuclear power is very costly, and that
the money spent on it could more effectively be used for
alternate energy strategies.  It seems to me that the World
Bank's analysis (referred to this latest press release) adds
support to this argument.

=o= (Another part of this first problem involves the type of
power involved.  Is electric heat common in Eastern Europe?
Are electric heating devices readily available?  I haven't
been able to find answers to these questions.)

=o= The second problem is that nuclear energy concentrates
political power in the hands of a central authority.  Surely
the Eastern European nations are suffering from having had
too much of that already!

=o= An acquaintance of mine is working on a real charitable
effort to help people in Eastern Europe suffering from a
shortfall of energy.  Several major foundations are involved.
Some of what he's got to report is very disturbing.

=o= While this latest press release mentions political problems
with Czech exports of energy, there are currently other Eastern
European countries *have* gone into the business of exporting
energy.  Even as their own people suffer from the lack of it.

=o= And so it would seem that a major argument against nuclear
power in the West applies just as well in Eastern Europe:  the
more centralized a power source is, the less control people have
over their own lives.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:24:05 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:


>What's rather telling is that in defense of your flame of a Greenpeace
>report that you never read, on grounds of an error that you merely supposed
>was in the report, you have no more rational argument than to resort to
>personal insult that is as clumsy as your explanation of probability
>theory.

Not to divert attention from the fact that you missed a glaring error
in his first post.  I'd have expected it of you, yack.  After all,
armchair scientists such as yourself rarely know the actual math.

Oh, and thanks for the laugh.  Your citing Lovins as scholarly just made
my day.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 20 Jan 93 18:06:29 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <30539@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:

|That's what get's me about Libertarians in the USA. They think the world
|owes them a living, and that anybody who gets in their way ought to be
|shot.

There is a big difference between the world owes me a living and the world
does not have a right to take my living away from me.

If you do not see the difference, that may explain why you have trouble
understanding what John is talking about.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy