HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Solar Power?
Summary: What?  Why do it *that* way?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:45:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.1992Apr6.224500.13009
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI

In article <1992Apr6.163006.3674@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (anmar mirza) writes:
>For the dryer (not that I have one) in my personal home system 
>I'd use my generator for the high-demand, short duration loads.  
>But that's the kind of guy I am ;-)

Why run a heat engine to produce electricity and then turn
the electricity into heat?  That's silly.  Use the engine
to make electricity for storage or sale, and heat things
with the cylinder coolant and exhaust heat!
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Apr8.115131.1189@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>
	<46290@dime.cs.umass.edu>
	<1992Apr10.102305.1200@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:33:22

Someone, perhaps Victor Yodaiken, posted the rhetorical question:

> How about, if the rest of the world produced the same amount of garbage
> per-capita as we do. Where would they put it? 
> 

There would be no problem unless they wanted absolutely free dumping
grounds.  Do the arithmetic.  Starter: the U.S. produced 500 million
tons of waste per year some years back.  Countries with far higher
population density than the U.S. manage their waste without much fuss.
 
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

From: gph@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Paul Houtz)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 22:28:51 GMT
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>   Readling this thread triggered a thought.  At present some
>African countries have godawful AIDS rates, e.g. 40% in Uganda,
>(the maximum according to my office mate who does AIDS 
>epidemiology).  This indicates we will have a substantial
>human dieback in that area (eastern subsaharan africa), 
>baring a cheap techno-fix.
>
>   Has anyone done an environmental impact study for a human 
>dieback in a pandemic?  The thing that worries me here is not
>so much the AIDS but that we are soon going to have large
>populations of immunodefficient people that will serve as a
>breeding ground for diseases more infectious than AIDS.
>
>   I suspect that the collapse of society in these areas would
>be a lot worse for the environment than any poopulation 
>reductions that result.  I'm curious if a systematic attempt 
>to quantify the results has been done.
>----------

   My goodness.  If you are so worried about having a large population
   of immunodefficient people serving as a breeding ground for diseases,
   maybe you out also to be worried about havine several billion cattle,
   chickens, turkeys, and pigs serving as a breeding ground for 
   antibiotic resistant diseases.

   I would actually think that while diseases that crop up in the aids
   population may have a greater likelihood of infecting other humans,
   the fact remains that dieases that develop in weakened immune systems
   probably don't pose much of a threat to people with healthy immune
   systems.   Caviat:  I don't work for CDC, so I could be wrong.
From: degroff@tricorder.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: Re: Malthus was just ahead of his time
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.221719.29752@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, carnes@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) writes:
|> reasoning cogent.  Brown points out that new cropland and fresh water
|> are becoming scarcer, the marginal returns on the use of fertilizer
|> are diminishing, topsoil is eroding, forests are shrinking, rangelands
|> are deteriorating, deserts are expanding, acid rain is falling,
|> stratospheric ozone is being depleted, greenhouse gases are building
|> up, the air is being polluted, and biological diversity is being lost,
|> all of which factors have a negative effect on food production -- and
|> the Panglossians are telling us not to worry, just look at the falling
|> prices of the past, as if the future were bound to be a linear
|> continuation of the past.
|> 
|> Richard Carnes
  OF course even if the global damage out runs our effort and technology,
we might still see lowered prices if death rate and social/economically
excluded poor increase sufficiently.  Don't trust prices, in many, many
way's they are decoupled from the environmental and ecologic issues. 
   and to change the subject.... population is on exponential, food
and industrial production has been well above linear....the really
hard part of trying to fit logistic curves is the runout sensitivity
to small parameter changes (like <3% technologic rate boosts)...
Brown however has been stating near term doom and collapse for most
of 25 years, he and others have managed to hit the standard "cry wolf"
problem, the human exponential keeps on keeping on and sometime
the wolf will bite.  (taking the wolf analogy a little too much further,
however...it's likly to bite, Mexico, Bangladesh, Sahel area of Africa...
and then we see the "oh thats not our sheep, don't worry we have a
good fence, and the wolves don't come into town. :) )
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:57:48 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <46290@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>How about, if the rest of the world produced the same amount of garbage
>per-capita as we do. Where would they put it? 

If the entire world population produced garbage at the rate we do, 2.5 tons
per person per year, 15 billon tons total, it would all fit in a pile 
10 kilometers on a side, 150 meters high. That would cover the state of 
Nevada in 3,000 years. By then it would have settled enough for us to do 
it again. Finding enough room to put the world's garbage is not a problem.

Gary
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: EMI Book
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:18:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: anasaz.1992Apr10.151829.23145
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA

Keywords: 

In article <3753@cod.NOSC.MIL> jmichael@cod.NOSC.MIL (James A. Michael) writes:
]I believe the book was _Currents of Death_, and I think the author was John 
]McPhee.  It dealt mostly with EM radiation from 60 Hz power lines, but also some 
]with higher frequencies from cathode ray tubes, like the terminal monitor I'm 
]looking at now.  I don't think McPhee is considered a crackpot, but his approach 
]on writing this book was mostly anecdotal information from epidemiological (sp?) 
]studies.  In order to believe McPhee's conclusions, you need to accept 
]statistical evidence which is somewhat sparse and difficult to duplicate 
](unfortunately, that's the nature of this kind of epidemiological approach, but 
]it's the only approach available for a study of this nature).  I believe that 
]McPhee did mention some animal studies, which are more quantitative, which did 
]indicate adverse long-term effects from exposure to high EM fields.

The book is sitting here on my desk. It is "Currents of Death" by Paul
Brodeur. The blurb on the cover says "Power Lines, Computer Terminals,
and the Attempt to Cover Up Their Threat to Your Health."

It is a muckraking journalism sort of book, with evidence strongly selected
to support its point of view. It quotes a number of researchers on
the subject, but fails to distinguish good science vs. bad science. It
also doesn't adequately address the issue that no one can explain
physically how very low power ELF fields can affect biological processes.

On the other hand, there IS some evidence for the book's premise. There
are animal studies that do show some strange biological effects of EM
exposure. The epidemiological studies that Brodeur quotes are quite
suspect and inadequately controlled. The paranoid cover up theory is
a paranoid cover up theory.

Brodeur is also the author of a book called, I think, "The Waving of America"
which alleges all sorts of terrible effects from low power microwaves,
and which caused so many people to fear their microwave ovens. There
is virtually NO evidence to support this book, and the physical mechanisms
there are even harder to explain. The magnetic fields from ELF do at least
penetrate the body, but those from microwaves penetrate only to a very
short depth.

Thus, I would say the author is a money-grubbing scare monger, but he
has dug up a few studies of interest. I would point out that UFO's,
PSI, cold fusion, and other dubious areas have at least as much proof
as Brodeur's assertions.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:49 PDT
Subject: Re: ECO CENTRAL 11
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466601332:cdp:1466601336:000:494
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Apr 16 23:49:00 1992



Dan: "I thought you said one a week?"

Me: I said I hope *at least* one a week. But I'm paid up in advance --
if I revert to battleaxe stuff for a while, I can still live up to my
hopes on time average. Since (as Sigurdsson has taught us) there is no
way to distinguish between a time average and a stable state, there 
can be no difference between 11 posts in 15 days, and "at least one post
a week" for 11 weeks, since the averages over 11 weeks can be the same :-)

No?

-----
Alan McGowen
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Pontificating, was Re: Short Population Facts
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:05:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: topaz.STEINLY.92Apr8150521
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
In-reply-to: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil's message of 8 Apr 92 18:11:52 GMT

In article <18441@smoke.brl.mil> chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) writes:

   In article <1466601312@igc.org> ecosystems@igc.org (Eco Systems Inc.) writes:

   <What we need less of is closed minds. I don't see how listing of 
   <facts can be construed as pontification.

	   When controversial ideas are being discussed, there is frequent
   disagreement on the accuracy, applicability, relevance, or even truth of 
   chunks of information presented as facts.  If we could agree on the facts, 
   there would often be no further discussion; it would be obvious what the 
   conclusion should be.

I would strongly disagree with that. When people reach conclusions
they weigh the facts according to some internal preference, and may
reach diametrically opposite conslusions.
To consider an extreme example, a person adhering to some
(hypothetical ;-) religious tenet migh agree that the ozone
layer is shot, the greenhouse effect is running rampant and that
there will be a 90%+ reduction in biodiversity if this goes on,
but that it is all irrelevant to any determination of human behaviour
because the "Messiah" will come in 8 years and the world will end.
	Most people bothering to read this group migh consider such
a view functionally insane, but they exist, also in less extreme
version, and facts won't alter their evaluation. Nor can they be
dismissed or ignored, nor can you assume that if only things were
just explained to them properly would they see things the "right" way.
	It is almost impossible to argue with moral imperatives, it
seems to me that the best you can do is to accept provisionally some
of the underlying assumptions for the purpose of communication and
see if you can transliterate some of the concepts of infiltrate the
belief system... people might note that this certainly goes on with
the less extreme views more common on Usenet, although a lot of people
would appear completely unable to identify at all with other people's 
points of view... ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@helios.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 *
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 00:43:14 GMT
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) /  6:55 am  Mar 30, 1992 /


>   Has anyone done an environmental impact study for a human 
>dieback in a pandemic?  The thing that worries me here is not
>so much the AIDS but that we are soon going to have large
>populations of immunodefficient people that will serve as a
>breeding ground for diseases more infectious than AIDS.

Welcome to the world of density dependent mortality, Dan. This is
one of those carrying capacity enforcers that doesn't apply to us 
angelic, post-biological humans. Mere animals that exceed their K 
can be expected to suffer increased attacks of diseases and parasites,
in part because they become a better "breeding ground" for them as 
their density increases (making transmission easier) and their immune
systems are stressed (which can happen even without AIDS, e.g. in 
response to poor nutrition, or just as a response to crowding.)

But not to fear. We know that the concept of carrying capacity can't 
apply to us.  The idea that it could is... well the sort of thing some 
student of the coevolution of butterflies and flowers, or some spoiled 
Amazonian ant-watcher, might come up with. It's clearly too insulting 
to our dignity to be true.

------------
Alan McGowen

"If we breed like rabbits, in the end we shall die like rabbits."
-- Rachel Carson.
From: walker_m@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: ACID RAIN AND ECONOMICS
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:49:01 GMT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

I am currently writing a paper on Acid rain and its Economic relationship
in the US.  

If you have any thoughts, facts or thought provoking questions, or information,\
please E-Mail any such items to me Mark Walker  at WALKER_M@LRC.EDU


THANKS!!!!

AND HURRY
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:50:56 GMT

(victor yodaiken, self annointed universal opponent) writes:
>(Gary Coffman, blatant rationalist) writes:
>>(victor yodaiken, champion of the oppressed) writes:
>>>How about, if the rest of the world produced the same amount of garbage
>>>per-capita as we do. Where would they put it? 
>>
>>If the entire world population produced garbage at the rate we do, 2.5 tons
>>per person per year, 15 billon tons total, it would all fit in a pile 
>>10 kilometers on a side, 150 meters high. That would cover the state of 
>>Nevada in 3,000 years. By then it would have settled enough for us to do 
>>it again. Finding enough room to put the world's garbage is not a problem.
> 
> Unless you live in Nevada, or nearby, or downstream, or ....

   I feel a need to exercise my paraphrasing muscles:

Victor> The horrible injustice that we have imperialistic garbage disposal!
        We should stop!  If everyone did it, oh my!!

Gary>  A simplified exercise demonstrates that this isn't the problem 
       you think it is.

Victor> If we take your simplified exercise literally, it's stupid!!

   What's the point Vic?  We _know_ you like arguing for the sake of arguing,
(who doesn't?), but a higher quality product would be nice.  I mean, your
stuff, in addition to being petty and obtuse, isn't even fun to read.  It is
like reheated bean-and-bean burritios with no sauce or grated cheese.
Bleah!

Disclaimer: I don't mean to offend anyone's sense of food.  If you like
reheated burritos with no condiments, fine, I apologize.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: degroff@tricorder.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: re: faith, speciation
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:06:25 GMT

In article <1466601310@igc.org>, Patricia Daye <pdaye@igc.org> writes:
|> 
|> This is for John McCarthy of DStanford CA
|> 
|> You mention territoriality, human ownership of land , and
|> population conrtro,.l.  Just what is your correlation.  
|> In this country the landed have less children than the
|> unlanded.  Seems that other factors are at work in 
|> this question.  While we must  share
|> some biological imperatives with the tribla culture, 
|> I'm  not sure, this metaphor is pure.
|> 
   An aside to the primary issue, it is always worth considering,
from  an analytic viewpoint, almost every specie shows multiple
strategies for adaption, population regulation ect.  With the
addition of culture including technologies and multigenerational
knowledge transmission via language and marking (writing, pictures,
structures) many more "strategies" may be possible.  
As has been explored in a few science fiction stories...it is possible
(likly?) that a long term strategy of "out breeding" can be effective
between subpopulations.   Going back over a month in the thread
between Alan McGown and myself (Les DeGroff), a hunter gatherer or
natural harvester culture needs territorial control over large
areas that from an agriculturalist perspective are under utilyzed.
  Continuing the conversation of (IMHO mythical) ecocentric cultures,
we might today give points to any human group that "reproduces under
replacement" including (in bulk) the independently wealthy, the homosexuals,
the dead before replacement substance abusers.  In the longer run of
Natural evolution however, they may simply be "out".
   It is worth considering  models of human psychology like Mazlovs
pyramid/stack of needs/wants  with reflection of how and why reproductive
choices are made. It is widely believed (possibly a myth) that high
third world birth rates are driven (directly?) by need for the
"productive children pension" effects.  Even in the face of high
economic costs, "the unlanded" (however we collect this class) clearly
find reproduction (acceptable?, Necessary?, Desirable?, Gods will?,
possible?) while some other subpopulation dosn't.
   I really do not forsee you finding a pure metaphor in this 
morass of varied motivations and strategies...it's more like a
dirty pile of tangled and tied ropes! Les DeGroff   
    
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Where's the "F" in CFCs?
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:27:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.181819.26213@crd.ge.com>, Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon) writes:
>Contrary to other comments on this thread, the HF/HCl ratio is a very 
>important number to know. I think we should all be quite interested to 
>realize that in spite of the fact that  HF is known to be removed more 
>slowly, nevertheless there is much less of it than there is Cl--even 
>though Freons deliver F and Cl in near equal quantities. Clearly there must be
>a very large natural contribution of chlorine to explain this situation. 

This conclusion rests on the premise that F and Cl are photodissociated from
the HFCs in equal quantities.  Is this premise valid?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: A Technomaniac Position (was: Worse case scenario)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:57:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.085854@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>Since there is an unbelievable investiment in sequencing and the _decoding_
>the sequences of a spiecies the number of spiecies available for use in this
>this tinkertoy approach will be small.  Likewise, most of the combinations
>will be impossible leaving only, say 2^20 spiecies ~1,000,000 from the ten
>spiecies I mention.

The following is done from admittedly vague memories of the history of genetic
research.  I'm sure Dan will correct any mistakes I make.

Well, let's see.  40 years ago, we didn't even know what it was that we were
supposed to be sequencing and decoding;  i.e., the structure of the DNA
molecule wasn't known.  About ten years ago, the sequencing still had to be
done largely by hand.  Until about 5 years ago, we hadn't sequenced the genome
of a single species, an accomplishment that should, I suspect, eventually
improve our ability to decode genetic sequences.

Meanwhile, until about 40 years ago, we didn't have digital computers.  We had
analog computers, the programming of which involved moving patch cords around.
Until about 30 years ago, we didn't have solid state computers, nor did we have
anything approximating high-density, high-speed, low cost storage systems. 
Until about 20 years ago, we didn't have integrated-circuit-based computers.
Until about 10 years ago, the computers we DID have were horrendously
expensive.  Until about 8 years ago, all of our computers were serial
processors.   It's predicted that it'll probably be another decade or so before
we hit fundamental physical limits in the design of microprocessors.  It's
likely to be somewhat longer than that before we even approach the limits of
efficiency in software aspects of massively parallel computing.

Combining the above two paragraphs, I suspect that the cost of sequencing and
decoding genetic information will continue to drop at a fairly amazing rate for
the next several decades.

Comments, Dan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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.
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:48:31 GMT
Subject: Where's the "F" in CFCs?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA