HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: H2 powered cars
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:25:31 GMT
Reply-To: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: wolfone@sneezy.cc.utexas.edu

In:
>Article 7991 of talk.environment:
>From: drt@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Robert Toreki)
writes:

>	With the note here about a H2-fueled car...seems like a great idea. 
>Then imagine the public horror (liability...) the first time one of these
>suckers gets creamed in an accident and goes up in a fireball.  Would make a
>Ford Pinto look like a Bic lighter.  Ever see those signs on the highway
>"TUNNEL 10 MILES" with huges warnings about carrying compressed gases?  Think
>there might be a reason for these?  Ever witness the detonation of a
>hydrogen-oxygen balloon?  Mighty impressive. 

>						Rob
Hmmm... Seems you forgot to use the obligatory example against H2 powered cars:
the Hindenburg disaster. The H2-filled dirigible caught fire while it was
about to be moored at its dock in the U.S. and made a horrufying sight. Though
a funny thing happened: 2/3 of the people on board got off the ship unharmed
(scared sh*tless, but unharmed.) Why? H2 floats upward as it burns. This is
opposed to gasoline which has the bad habit of forming puddles of fire on the
ground. I might dare to suggest that H2 is SAFER than gasoline. All that is 
needed is to strategically place the fuel tank, plus maybe some armor around
the tank to help direct the blast away from passengers. If the H2 suddenly
ignited, it might indeed look like a Bic lighter, but the gas would float up
and away from the passengers (though you might lose your luggage.) A fuel
leak and a fire on a gasoline powered car would form a deathtrap for the
occupants. With the engineering changes I suggested, the occupants of an H2
powered vehicle would stand a good chance of escaping alive. Those seated
near the fuel tank might get 1st degree burns from the heat (depending on the
angle of the blast) and everybody might have the crap scared out of them but
they would live. Any constructive criticisms? (No flames except those described
in unforseen H2 explosions, please. :)  

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
claypigeon                 |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
(Destroyer Fiend)          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:57:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.001725.18336@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>>>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>>>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>>>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. 
>
>>How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>>levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.
>
>				.
>				.
>				.
>
>>>Up to 27.5 million curies of radioactivity will then be 
>>>released annually.  This may be compared with 
>>>the approximately 50 million curies which, according to 
>>>official data, were released at Chernobyl during the 
>>>accident. 
>
>Gee, Michael, why do you ask questions that are answered below ?
>
>>Now why do I think that something in that paragraph smells fishy?
>
>Because you read it with blinders on.

Ah, I see Greenhype's tactic have worked yet again.  Once again, their
misleading statements have confused someone who reads their propaganda
uncritically.  Please note:  Michael asked how much plutonium contamination
we're talking about.  Nowhere in Greenhype's propaganda did they ever say how
much plutonium they were talking about.  Most of the 27.5 million curies
Greenhype refers to are in the form of noble gases.  Of course, they don't say
that, which leads their victims to conclude that, since the propaganda started
out by talking about plutonium, Greenhype's numbers must also refer to the
plutonium.  Perhaps you should take YOUR blinders off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: talk.environment,sci.environment,pnw.general
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Defenders of Wildlife responds to Bush's speech
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:06:26 GMT

Here is a statement by Defenders of Wildlife 
on President Bush's speech in the Pacific Northwest:

 To: National Desk, Environment Writer
 Contact: Lisa Swann of Defenders of Wildlife, 202-659-9510

   WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 -- The following statement was 
issued today by Rodger Schlickeisen, president, Defenders of
Wildlife, on President Bush's speech in the Pacific Northwest:

   "Mr. Bush has tried to use environmentalists as a scapegoat, to
hide the fact that he does not have a long-term strategy for
sustaining either timber jobs or owls.  His administration has been
advocating clearcutting policy that has not allowed for long-term
viability in the region.  No one seems to recognize that when the
trees are all gone the jobs will be too.  The Endangered Species Act
includes provisions which promote balance between economic and
environmental protection, but the Bush administration policy has been
too short-sighted to recognize this fact," said Rodger Schlickeisen,
president of Defenders of Wildlife, the national conservation
organization.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,pnw.general
From: guru@halcyon.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Defenders of Wildlife responds to Bush's speech
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:12:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.160747.4455@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>
>It isn't only the Bush administration.  Clinton and all the other
>``major'' canditates I've heard are pandering to whatever group
>they're talking to at any given time, but what's new about that?
>
>None of the politicians in the U.S. are doing the jobs they're
>being paid to do -- run the country.  Can they pass a budget?
>Can they make the difficult decisions about priorities?  They
>just promise the illiterate electorate what they want to hear
>regardless of what is really in the best long-term interests of
>the whole country/society/world.
>
>Bill
>-- 
>INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
>UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
>             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
>SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?

I couldn't have said it better myself. 

Vote NO on Bush/Clinton!
From: Jack.Schmidling@iphase.UUCP (Jack Schmidling)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:57:08 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>There is nothing special about plutonium compared to other radioactives,
>a similar amount of activity of any alpha-emitter if ground into dust and
>breathed into the lungs stands a good chance of causing cancer.  One theory
>behind _how_ smoking causes lung cancer is the tobacco plant tends to absorb
>natural radioactives which get breathed into the lungs when it is smoked.

It's worth noting that this is thought to be specific to tobacco grown in
Virginia, in the tailings of local uranium mines ... which brings us back
to the question of whether nuclear processing or reprocessing should be a
default approach to redressing whatever imbalances we perceive in the world
today.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3709 alt.activism.d:3093
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:06:08 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <Jym.14Sep1992.2313@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>[Please note the "Followup-to:" field.  Mr. Friedman's heavily
>cross-posted reply went to a number of inappropriate newsgroups,
>including some that the original message didn't go to in the
>first place.  Mr. Friedman, if you feel you must involve an
>activism newsgroup in a discussion -- especially a cross-posted
>discussion -- please use alt.activism.d; that's what it's for.
>Also, there is no reason to drag talk.politics.misc into threads
>that are already served by a specific talk newsgroup.]
>
>>> Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally
>>> anywhere on earth.
>> While the plutonium found in the Sellafield region is
>> certainly man-made, plutonium existed at least 1.8-1.9 billion
>> years ago, having been formed by neutron capture in the
>> highly-enriched uranium deposits in the Oklo region of Gabon
>> during a "criticality" that may have lasted for hundreds of
>> thousands of years.
>
>=o= That's true, but what of it?  You've won the point but
>avoided the underlying issue.  These days, any phrase that has
>"natural" or "naturally" in it can be rendered meaningless with
>ease.  But of what use that?  If you'd read to understand what
>your correspondent is trying to get at (rather than just look
>for something to rebut), this discussion might actually be worth
>something.
>
>=o= The underlying concern is that the vast majority of the
>biosphere has had no contact with plutonium, and thus has not
>developed ways to deal with it.
>
>> All this is unimportant compared to the blatant scare-
>> mongering of the GP release.  Ugh.
>
>=o= Ugh yourself.  There was no scare-mongering in that release.
>    <_Jym_>


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: File Distribution Coordinator <ecixfiles@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: 06 Sep 92 12:44 PDT
Subject: ECIX File Distribution Update
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483100117:000:1531
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecixfiles    Sep  6 12:44:00 1992


From: File Distribution Coordinator <ecixfiles>
Subject: ECIX File Distribution Update

 
ECIX File Distribution Service Update
 
For those of you who have thought about retrieving back issues of
ECO, the ECIX Newsletter, the ECIX Climate Digest, or Tiempo
via ftp from igc.org.....
 
Now available - the tables of contents ONLY for these publications
so that you can scan them before retrieving the much larger complete
files.
 
All of these files are available via anonymous ftp from igc.org, or
via email from ecixfiles@igc.apc.org.  I will be updating them as new
issues are published.
 
 
In the subdirectory /pub/ECIX
 
ecixtc      - Tables of contents for the ECIX project newsletter
climdigtc   - Tables of contents for the ECIX Climate Digest
tiempotc    - Tables of contents for Tiempo
 
In the subdirectory /pub/ECO
 
ecotc       - Tables of contents for all issues of ECO to date
 
 
If you are not familiar with our file distribution service, send a
note to ecixfiles@igc.apc.org and I will send you an information
file.
 
 
******************************************************************
Lelani Arris                            * Project Director 
EcoNet:    larris                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  larris@igc.apc.org   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 1061 
Telephone: 403-852-4057                 * Jasper, Alberta T0E 1E0 
Fax:       403-852-5173                 * Canada
******************************************************************
 

Xref: sparky talk.environment:3668 sci.environment:11286 alt.activism:16172 talk.politics.misc:44937
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:21:23 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>I think the blinders are over your eyes instead.  Do you really find
>it believable that someone is planning on building a nuclear facility
>that under normal use will release half as much radiation every year

Yes.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:04:17 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Gotta love Greenpeace propaganda.  See below.

In article <Greenpeace.1Sep1992.8am1@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]

>RADIOACTIVE SAND FROM SELLAFIELD PROVES NUCLEAR REPROCESSING IS 
>UNLAWFUL 

>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. 

How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.

>Sand from the shore 
>in the area around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in England.  
>Sand in which children play and families have their picnics.  

Note the brazen scare tactics.

>Many people have become ill with cancer in this region.  

Of course.  Many people have become ill with cancer in every region.
Note how the carefully avoid saying that radiation is the cause -
being caught in blatant lies is embarrassing.

>With THORP the total emissions from 
>plants at Sellafield will increase by 1,000 per cent.  

1000 per cent is much scarier than 10 times, even though 10 times is
clearer.  And so what?  If current levels are a million times less
than regulatory limits who cares about a ten times increase?

>Up to 27.5 million curies of radioactivity will then be 
>released annually.  This may be compared with 
>the approximately 50 million curies which, according to 
>official data, were released at Chernobyl during the 
>accident. 

Now why do I think that something in that paragraph smells fishy?

>  The sand Greenpeace is today presenting to the press and 
>media proves that reprocessing in England contradicts the 
>German Atomic Energy Act.  This stipulates "harmless 
>recycling" in keeping with "state-of-the-art science and 
>technology".  Given these emissions and contamination there can 
>be no talk of "harmless recycling". 

Why not?  The Greenpeace press release doen't even mention any hint of
harm occurring.

>  Scientists from Bremen University conducting gamma- 
>spectrometric analyses detected in the samples Greenpeace 
>took at Sellafield in May up to 9,435 becquerels of caesium 137 
>and 8,520 becquerels of americium 241 per kilogramme of earth.  
>Their alpha-spectrometric analyses revealed up to 
>6,747 becquerels of plutonium 239/40.  These analyses were 
>made on the basis of the samples' weight when wet.  

Sounds scary, no?  But how much is that compared to normal background
levels? 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: red_trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: "Short Envir. Tips" still available!
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:38:53 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

If you're a student returning to school after the long summer break--
welcome back!

I thought now would be a good time to reannounce a file I wrote this
summer:  "Short Environmental Tips."  This file contains about 50-60
ideas of things *you* can do to save the Earth; it's pretty short
reading (300 lines, 40 blocks) but packs (IMHO :-) ) a lot of info.

If interested in obtaining a copy, you can contact me at:

Red_Trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu


This file is heavily, but not exclusively, based on "50 Simple Things
You Can Do to Save the Earth", available at bookstores, or through
mail order at EarthWorks Press #25, 1400 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley CA
94709, United STates of America.


Note:  "Short Environmental Tips" is expressly NOT copyrighted!
*PLEASE* *DO* pass on to people you know; crosspost in newsgroups,
mailing lists and bulletin board services; print out and donate to
your local or school library; use tips as fillers in newsletters or
other publications you maintain (including any books you may publish
in the future!); and anything else you can think of! I appreciate credit,
but it's more important to me that this information is spread as
widely as possible (and also that "50 Simple Things" is publicized
when possible)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: "Global Warming"
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:55:36 GMT


 
> =-= Maybe if you walked right into your University of Lowell
> library there, you'd find an explanation for *both* the cooling
> and warming hypotheses.  I know I did.
>     <_Jym_>

You put your finger right on it.  The warming and cooling hypotheses are just
that--hypotheses.  That is exactly why we should not be worried.  Nor should we
spend billions of dollars preventing crises that have not been proven to exist.
 
> P.S.:  Your college is surrounded by a few hundred toxic waste
> dumps.  If it weren't for us "environmental nutcases," at least
> half of them wouldn't have even been discovered.  You might have
> been living on top of one.  Why not find out what we're *really*
> up to instead of just flaming about us?

I know what you're up to, and that's why I attempt to spread the truth. 
Enviromentalists are anti-business and anti-people.  While there are legitimate
enviromental concerns, global warming/cooling, the ozone "hole," acid rain,
overpopulation, animal rights, recycling, nuclear waste, and most others, are
not. 
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3647 sci.environment:11239 alt.activism:16122 talk.politics.misc:44550
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:47:47
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com>,<1992Sep11.001725.18336@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1992Sep12.185726.16087@cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU's message of Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:57:26 GMT


followers of this thread might find an opinion article in New
Scientist (Forum: 18 July 1992) amusing. The author is a volunteer
in measuring Pu impact on humans and has been injected with 20,000 Bq
worth of PuCitrate - I don't think he even did it as a bet ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:52:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.153215.4126@fylz.wa.com> fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:
>: How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>: levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.
>In the case of plutonium, I beg to differ.  One gram of plutonium is
>enough to give everyone in the United States lung cancer.

One cubic mile of water is enough to drown every person on earth, too.  Wow,
that beach has several cubic miles of water in it.  People even drown there
sometimes.  Forget the sand, the _water_ is deadly.  Right?

>: Sounds scary, no?  But how much is that compared to normal background
>: levels? 
>Considering that plutonium and americium [are] "manufactured" elements I
>would suspect that the answer to this question is fairly obvious.

No, no, not how much _plutonium_ compared to normal background plutonium, but
how much _radiation_ compared to background levels of _radiation_.

[quote deleted.  If people were extracting the plutonium from the sand and
forming it into particles of the proper size, and then dispersed it such that
100% of those particles went into people's lungs, it might be relevant.]
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<9SEP199211051321@juliet.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:11:29 GMT


	Today's BC has an entry from Wiley's Dictionary:  R-U-4-86
[sic] ... R-U-4-stiffing the kid.
	Hart seems to have gotten seriously bent to starboard.  Too
bad, BC used to be my favorite strip.  Now the strip seems to be in
its twilight... Fortunately, I've matured to "Calvin & Hobbes" and
"Fox Trot". :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
         "Are you kidding?  Your man has a camera.  My man has a flamethrower."
Newsgroups: talk.origins