HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:20:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.032636.17729@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.230815.6722@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>>affect the waste issue?  Is the CANDU design in use today?
>
>     This is a joke, right?

No its not, though I have already been straightened out by a reader from
Canada.
>
>                               dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:42:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.091911.21202@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.080450.13473@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>>I much prefer the vibrant, social atmosphere of the pedestrian
>>oriented European cities (or some older N.American cities like Quebec
>>City) to the impersonal 6-lane downtown of most American cities
>>(including mine).
>
>Your preference is noted. Now how many trillion dollars are you willing
>to spend of *your* money to convert it. It's easy to say "there ought to
>be a law", but it always winds up costing somebody money. I'm not willing
>to subsidize conversion to your preference. (And I've already dealt with
>the question of whether the auto culture generates sufficient revenue to
>pay for it's modality. 1/4th of the GDP is auto related.)
>
I was only justifying the agreeable quality of life in cities that depend
on transit; I don't recall recommending conversion of any city. On the
other hand I believe you were suggesting the 'evolution' of cities toward
your American ideal. 



Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul25115938@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <50894@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:31:52

Well, I didn't think I would be in agreement with Victor Yodaiken
for very long.  According to what I read in _Nuclear News_, the
French breeder program is not considered by them an abysmal failure,
although it has had many more difficulties than expected.

Anyway, what's the point.  Does Victor Yodaiken think that breeder
reactors cannot be made to work?

Carter made two bad decisions.  The first was to cancel the American
Clinch River Breeder Project, which was obsolete because of the
delays imposed by legal guerrilla warfare.  (The antis found a judge
who said that an environmental impact statement for building the
reactor was inadequate.  Since one thing might lead to another, the
environmental impact statement had to cover a whole economy based
on breeder reactors.)  His other bad decision was to cancel reprocessing
of spent fuel rods to separate the uranium, plutonium, etc. from
the fission products.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:08:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.151155.9104@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.145214.23048@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
::	I think that the name was the _National_ City Lines. The
::GM-led consortium included Firestone Tire and Mack Truck. Firestone
::Tire's excuse is rather obvious :-),

:Really?  I note that the nearest railroad grade crossing to where I live has the
:Firestone name and logo stamped into a number of the metal parts.

	I wasn't aware that Firestone was in the crossing-gate
manufacture business. So Firestone doesn't have any excuse either, if
the company can easily manufacture items other than tires.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul24.213536.7631@s1.gov>
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:59:21

Loren Petrich asks:

	     Are you seriously suggesting that people move to
     Houston and LA just so they can drive their cars around?

Most people have lived, or know people who have lived, in a
variety of places.  I doubt that anyone awards points to all
the features of all the place he has been or knows about and
moves to be place with the most points, but the convenience
of driving around Houston or L.A. and parking when you get
to your destination are factors.  I haven't lived in Houston,
but I have lived in L.A., and I know people who have enough
money to live wherever they please who choose to live in L.A.
But then the richest man in the country chose to live in
Bentonville, Arkansas, so maybe there are many considerations
that appeal to different people.

He further asks:

	     John McCarthy, would you advocate every major city
     in the world shutting down, yes, SHUTTING DOWN, _all_
     mass-transit systems:

	     No more buses, no more trolleys, no more subways, no
     more commuter trains.

	     Yes, cars only, since you seem to believe them the
     only legitimate and civilized means of passenger transport.

I certainly do not advocate shutting down any mode of transport
that pays its costs, and I am actually comfortable with small
subsidies, i.e. less than half the fare, for mass transit systems.

     >Well, maybe everything is in order.  New York is still a
     >powerful magnet for intellectuals, and other people
     >move to
     >Los Angeles and other spread out cities.  Perhaps we're
     >better off with not just one kind of city.

	     John McCarthy, why are you indulging in this
     shameful anti-intellectual bigotry? Especially as you are
     supposedly someone well educated.

I am no sure whether I am being kidded or whether there is a
misunderstanding.  I presume the latter.  The fact that like
people crowd together is neither to their credit or discredit.
I have no objection to some people liking New York City, although
I haven't lived there since I was a child.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:58:44 GMT


 ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter)writes:
 
"USAnian cities have generally chosen to cater to demand for facilities
for automobiles and have progressively built more and more freeways,
parking etc.  This was done in the name of free choice and consumer
sovereignty.  Unfortunately it has ultimately led to cities in which
the basic choice in transport is to drive a car or to stay put!"
 
It was not entirely un-directed. Shortly after the end of World War II,
General Motors Co. and one of the major rubber tire manufacturers
formed a joint company called American City Lines. This company proceeded
 to buy control of street railways in cities throughout the country, 
to 'run them into the ground' with no maintenance, to tear up and sell
the rails (quite profitable), and where profitable routes could be
maintained, to convert the lines to rubber-tired, General Motors-
manufactured busses. Subsequently, most of these lines were taken
over by the city governments under the treat from American City Lines
to close them down.
 
Los Angeles, for example, has had to buy back rights-of-way that were
abandoned and sold off in piece to abutting property-owners by
American City; some of these are extremely expensive to acquire now.
 
One can see that, besides at least breaking even on the business itself
(according to reports at the time), General Motors also had a hand
in eliminating an alternative to cars in cities. 
 
Of course, we surely all agree that door-to-door personal transport
is hard to beat for convenience and comfort.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:40:05 GMT
	<1992Jul26.165306.12370@sugra.uucp> <50926@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu's message of 27 Jul 92 11:27:23 GMT

In article <50926@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   I have no opinion on microwave ovens, but Prof. McCarthy has attempted to
   argue as follows:
	 A) Nader attempted to stop the use of microwave ovens
	 B) Burns from ordinary ovens are not unusual
	 C) No injuries at all are caused by microwave ovens

You exaggerate Victor. The argument boiled down to: there is a known,
finite injury rate for children from conventional ovens. Nader argued
that microwaves have a higher probability of injury, McCarthy
suggested the injury rate was in fact _lower_ - not zero.

	 -> Nader caused injuries by his activity.

Ah, but Nader contends (I understand) that the microwave oven (manufacturers?) are liable
if they increase the injury rate, by that standard of argument, it is
possible to argue that Nader is responsible for excess injury, if in
fact microwaves have a lower injury rate and Nader was actively
responsible for microwaves not being used.

It's a very simple point really. If you hold a company or person
liable for indirect damage through action, or a damage through
inaction, then it is incumbent on you to obey the same standard you
set others, and consider what the indirect damage could be from the
course of action you advocate.

The specific instance used above is at an end due to lack of data
and the particpants lack of inclination to gather the necesary data
(I would, my commercial rate is $125 per hour!). However, the data
used in the argument so far is at least as good as that used by Nader
in the first place, and so should be considered, no?


*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9688 sci.geo.meteorology:2514 sci.skeptic:12998
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:25:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Anyone that has lived on or near a real farm could give you
lots of examples of why modern transportation methods are much
better than the pre-internal combustion alternatives.

Here on San Francisco Bay, perhaps, half of the transportation
traffic was involved in hauling feed for the horses etc. that
powered the cities. (The other half must have been involved
in moving the byproducts out. :-))
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10286 talk.environment:3055 ca.environment:773
From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:55:02 GMT
Reply-To: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: starflight.corp.sun.com

The conclusion of this thread should be the point that I have been
making for some time, that the main threat to the survival of both
human industrial civilization and the natural ecosystem arises from
neither human population size per se nor from levels of consumption per
se, but from the open structure of the human technical life-support
system. Unless and until human economic activities, and therefore most
human beings most of the time, are brought into compact, sealed cities
designed and operated like multigeneration starships, there is no
population size and no level of consumption that is sustainable for
very long. If we do turn to starship-cities, the Earth can sustain
billions of persons for billions of years in civilized comfort. If
we don't, we will return to the stone age and reduce the earth to a
barren desert.

---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: moss@agora.rain.com (Moss Drake)
Subject: Question about MPG
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:29:07 GMT

	I have a question about pollution vs Mileage:

	Is it better to drive an older car with less pollution
	control equipment on it that gets good gas mileage
	than to drive a newer car that gets worse gas mileage?

	I notice that most car manufacturers have an fleet
	average MPG of 27  (which means that most of their
	larger cars have lower than 27, and their sub
	compacts get better).  My 1978 VW Rabbit gets 30mpg
	but has no catalytic converter.  I keep it tuned
	up, and mostly drive it on the freeway.

	I don't care if the world runs out of oil.  In fact
	i'd prefer it.  I just want to get there with the least
	permanent damage possible.


	I realize that this question has a variety of 
	answers based on amount of pollution control and
	gas mileage, but i don't even know where to begin
	to look for the formula.

				moss@agora


Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: rtp1@quads.uchicago.edu (raymond thomas pierrehumbert)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Reply-To: rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:55:28 GMT

 
Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] [Well, no, not
actually; I know I'm going to regret entering this but I just
can't help myself.]

Tobis writes:
  The issue is not the doubling time of total CO2, but the doubling time
   of anthropogenic CO2, which has consistently been about 30 years. His
Stein Sigurdsson comments:
 ??? Surely not? What matters for the radiation budget is total CO2,

I clarify:

Of course, the radiation budget doesn't care where the CO2 comes from.
The issue here is how to extrapolate CO2 into the future.  There,
it is necessary to separate CO2 into a "natural" background (changing
presumably only over time scales of thousands of years or more) and
the anthropological component (known to be growing exponentially,
because we know pretty much how much stuff is being burned). The
CO2 (assuming no policy changes) is a + b exp(t/T).  If you were
to take a time when the second term is only 50% or so of the first,
and estimate the growth time T by pretending the TOTAL CO2 was
growing exponentially, then you would grossly overestimate T.

------------
It is obvious to everybody in the field that climate models are
very imperfect.  Nonetheless, they have a sound basis in physics,
we have a good idea of where the uncertainties come from, and
the models have had some successes.  These models, imperfect as
they are, are the best we have to base policy decisions on.
The policy decisions are based on the model prediction that
there is a definite risk of a major change in the climate 
(and the meaning of "major" can be quantified, though there
is no meaningful way to quantify the risk).  The policy
actions involve sums of money that are FAR LESS THAN THE
SUMS INVOLVED IN POLICY DECISIONS MADE EVERY DAY BY GOVERNMENT
BANKS AND LEGISLATURES IN INSTRUMENTING ECONOMIC POLICY.  THese
economic decisions (like the ones resulting in the present
recession in the US) are largely based on econometric models
that are far far lower in quality than the climate models.

So, speaking purely from a policy standpoint, while hoping
myself for steady improvement in our understanding of climate,
I find it very strange that many opponents of action on 
greenhouse warming abatement are holding climate models to
much higher standards of validation than virtually any other
extrapolation used currently in making economically momentous
decisions in government.



Xref: sparky sci.environment:10124 sci.physics:11762 sci.energy:3721
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:40:23 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <STEINLY.92Jul29154018@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <51084@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>   >I took "Nader's argument" to be one given - it is at some level
>   >irrelevant whether Nader used it or whether he was effective,
>
>   It is? In support of a claim that Nader used "lawyers science" in the
>   cause of a scientifically invalid argument which "killed children", you 
>   claim that "it is at some level irrelevant" whether or not Nader's 
>   case has been presented accurately. This seems to reduce to "I don't
>   like Ralph Nader so it doesn't matter whether I slander him or not."
>   All in a good cause.
>
>Crap. The question is whether Nader is working at the standard he
>sets others, it is clear that he wanted microwave ovens restricted or
>banned because of a possible threat, and that he did not consider
>what potential injuries would be eliminated. Whether he was arguing
>about low level non-ionizing radiation or superheated milk bottles
>is irrelevant.

Sloppy reasoning and zero research. It's clear that you find Mr. Nader
not to your liking, and that you are willing to badmouth him.
It's also clear that you have absolutely no idea what Nader's objections
to microwave ovens were, how well researched his objections were, and 
what the effects of his objections were on current safety standards.

>   I find this question interesting. Does it not seem to you that one should
>   nail down a few actual data points before making an accusation of the 
>   magnitude that "X killed children" ?
>
>That is precisely the issue. Nader did not, yet he made the

You have no idea whether he did or did not. 

>accusation, the counter-accusation can then be made at the
>same standard that he used. 

Even if we accept your critique of what you imagine Mr. Nader's argument to
be, your reasoning is rather peculiar. An unsound refutation of an 
unsound premise is still unsound.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9982 sci.geo.meteorology:2578 sci.skeptic:13206
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:54:12 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Jul22.180905.17900@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>We have a government intruding in people's lives with very little
>justification.  We have speculation about possible man caused changes
>(possibly harmful, possible beneficial) in a very complex system (the
>world climate). 
>
>we can:
>a)  use precedent and restrict people's  freedoms (e.g. noone allowed to 
>      own a car, etc.).
>b)   wait until there is specific knowledge that specific actions are
>     causing real injuries.  At that point restrict peoples freedoms in the
>     least intrusive manner possible to end the injuries.
>
>Socialists choose a) and individualists choose b).

I would note that waiting until _specific knowledge of specific real injury_
in situations known to be _likely to cause harm_ is negligence.

I would vigorously agree that if restrictions are necessary, they should
be done in the least intrusive possible manner.

I would quote  (from 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' I think) :
"There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend. There are those
who divide people into two kinds and those who don't."

mt
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:46:57 GMT

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>In article <dhalliwe.712451903@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:

>>Generally, the climate models [you
>>don't trust ;-)] suggest that soil moisture will be *decreased* in
>>much of North America during the summer season.

>The same speculative models show moisture _increases_ for most of the
>rest of the globe, including Northern Europe and Siberia.

    Do you have a refernce for this, Nick? I have only seen published
papers which deal with North America and the Asian monsoon regions, and
I would be interested in the information you are presenting.
  
   And are you sure that the result is SOIL moisture increases, or just
increases in precipitation? The work that I am familiar with shows
increases in precipitation, but the increased evaporation due to warmer
temperatures leads to reduced SOIL moisture (in NA summer).


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:08:13 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <18560@drutx.ATT.COM> rcb@druwa.ATT.COM (BakerRC) writes:
>
>This stuff about computer driven cars is bugging me too.
>How does technology that's "just around the corner" figure out:
>
>Is that a rock that I should avoid at all costs or is it an empty cardboard box?

Human drivers usually can't determine if it's just an empty box, or a box
containing bottles of sulphuric acid. The rule of thumb is, it's FOD, avoid 
it.

>Should I slow down for that deer ahead just on the side of the road
>or is it just a tree?

Human drivers also have this problem, with the result that car/deer
collisions are frequent. With IR sensors it should be possible to
detect the difference between a tree and a warm blooded mammal. It's
still impossible to know whether the fool deer will decide to stand
there, reverse course, or jump in front of you at the last second.
The answer on Interstates is higher guard fences. On two lane uncontrolled
roads, the automatic car will have to take it's chances just like the
human driven ones.

>Is that ice up there on the next bend?

Black ice is almost impossible for humans to detect visually, yet there
are commercially available sensors that you can buy for your car that 
will sound a warning when it detects ice ahead. They look like radar
detectors and mount on the dash, and no, I don't know how they work,
ask JC Whitney.

>How big IS that pothole?

A good chirp radar, used anyway for obstacle avoidance, can tell you
it's depth to the millimeter.

>I don't believe even artifical inteigence is that far advanced yet.
>Heck, they can't even get a robot to go 5 MPH on mars yet.

*Artificial* intelligence isn't needed, just plenty of ordinary old
intelligence by the systems designers. We don't *have* a mobile robot
on Mars, much less one that can go 5 MPH over unknown and unmarked
terrain. Roads are different. They are built to specification, mapped,
and marked. The car knows exactly where it is, where it is going, and
how it's going to get there. The only unknown is foreign objects in
the roadway, and sensor technology is sufficiently advanced to detect
FOD in milliseconds, better than any human driver's reaction time.
In the worst case, the car merely brakes to a safe stop, notifying
other vehicles of it's intentions in milliseconds, and asks for
human assistance from it's occupant.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment