HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Date: 27 Sep 1992 00:21:44 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep25.202241.17243@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust) writes:
>I'm not sure I buy this.  How can you get from exp(ln(t)/t*t) to t^2/2?
>I'm pretty sure its not elementary math.  Maybe chaos?

I was trying to inject just a bit of humor and subtlety into the discussion.
The defining property of an exponential function is that the integral of the
function is a multiple of the function.  Hence, were the function e^(t*r(t)) an
exponential function, then the integral of e^(t*r(t)) would be a constant times
e^(t*r(t)).  I chose a function r(t) = ln(t)/t which met the criterion someone
claimed would make the population curve an exponential function (viz., r(t) >
0), and showed that e^(r(t)*t) didn't fit the definition of an exponential
function. 

Of course, in retrospect, I should've just pointed out that
	e^(t*ln(t)/t) = e^ln(t) = t
and that ln(t)/t > 0 for t > 1, so the claim that r(t) > 0 implies exponential
growth was pure bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 06:06:16 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Waste containment (was: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves ...)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct1.014931.1321@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.042642.16949@ringer.cs.utsa.edu: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>:What is this "natural reactor" in Africa??  I haven't been reading this
>:groups for very long.
>
>Scientific American had an article on it in the 1970s.  Unfortunately I do
>not have the reference handy.
>
Principal author was George Cowan.  

Such things (happened about 1.9E9+-0.1 yrs ago and stayed crit. for n10E5 yrs)
had been predicted by Kuroda.

Other locations have been found, too.   Detected by U-235 concentrations
at a fraction of normal with relationship to U-238.  Made a bit of
plutonium, too.  

An interesting perspective on the Pu-239 is that it had all (well,
virtually all) decayed by 1.8988E9 years ago.  It seem like only yesterday.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:04:54 GMT

Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.uucp) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct2.135339.13025@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Class Guest3) writes:
: >
: >	Raise the gasoline tax!  Even with a $0.50 increase per gallon,
: >we'd still have the cheapest gas in the Western world.
: 
: Though $.50 a gallon less cheap than we have now. No advantage America.
	Suggested as a way of decreasing the federal deficit.  Advantage
America.  Can you say "hyperinflation"?


: 
: Perhaps we should extend this thought. 
: 
: We have the lowest income tax in the Western world, we could raise it
: to 89% and still be less than Britian. No advantage America.

	Experts evaluating the Reagan years indicated that use of
prior administration (Ford and Carter) policies would have left us
with about $40 billion deficits in 1990, not $400 billion.  Maybe the
taxes shouldn't have been cut in the first place. 

: We have the highest worker salaries in the Western world. We could
: lower them to $41 a month and still be higher than Russia. No advantage
: America.
	Can't argue this.  Lowering salaries wouldn't get us anywhere,
including revenue losses (income tax), i.e. higher deficit.

 : We spend more on public universities than any other Western nation. We
: could cut it tenfold and still spend more than Germany. No advantage
: America.
	And also have the strongest basic research in academia of 
any country in the world.  Granted, technology transfer to industry needs 
to be enhanced.

	But I don't see a trend.  Enlighten me.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan)
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't worry about man's production of CO2
Summary: Not all the evidence is in....
Keywords: carbon dioxide
Organization: Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:04:00 GMT

I just wanted to post to let people know that there are a variety of "experts"
in the global warming debate throwing around all sorts of figures concerning
the carbon cycle. I am aware of magnitudes of estimates, but ther are a lot
of mysteries unsolved from the carbon cycle point of view. To rely on any 
such guesses as a basis for forming well-designed initiatives for the moral
good of all organisms involved is ludicrous, considering that not all the
uncertainties have been given a cursory look!

In Senator Gore's work, the options given are a bit overzealous in some cases.
The issue remains that, ANY geoscientist/atmospheric scientist knows that 
carbon dioxide contributes considerably to the temperature of the planet...
(lest we forget that our temperature would average on the order of -50 F. 
without CO2 and other greenhouse gases). Any increase on these concentrations
should be cause for concern, if not for their demonstrative effects, but for
the POTENTIAL hazards they may pose. A major thrust of the scientific community
in this area is determination of the natural carbon sources/sinks, so that 
we can properly see where our current emissions fit in.

Fossil fuel consumption carries lots of other ills besides CO2 emissions. For
those reasons, it may make good sense to cut back and find other cleaner forms
of fuel anyway, regardless of whether we turn out to be warming the planet or
not. Unfortunately, that doesn't get politicians elected, does it?

Bryan Hannegan
Department of Geosciences, University of California, Irvine
hannegan@halo.ps.uci.edu

 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: napalm@next06pg2.wam.umd.edu (Warren L. Mohn)
Subject: Re: Sharks
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:19:38 GMT

In article <JMC.92Sep30223956@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU  
(John McCarthy) writes:
> While you're at, I'm interested in getting information about groups
> who are involved in halting the slaughter of mosquitoes.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

I recommend taking some classes outside the Computer Science Department  
(like maybe Biology?) and learn for yourself that sharks are not menaces  
or even annoying and deserve to be protected.  Otherwise you'll remain a  
twit. (no smiley face, either)

------------------
Warren L. Mohn
napalm@wam.umd.edu
------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: umrobe57@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Ken A. Roberge)
Subject: CO2 Emissions vs Global Warming/Ozone Depletion
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: World
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:21:35 GMT

	It would appear that the majority of predictions concerning the
rate of fossil fuel consumption state that the supply will be depleted
around the year 2020 or possibly earlier.  This will obviously have
serious affects on the CO2 emissions.  Bearing in mind these predictions
that I have seen were for the U.S, it can still be assumed that the world
supply is not that far behind.  This mass reduction in CO2 emissions is
probably the best thing that could happen to the environment/atmosphere,
however at what cost is it happening.  At the point where the fossil fuels
are gone what form of energy is next, possibly nuclear fission/fusion or
possibly something that will have a worse affect on the
atmosphere/environment than CO2.  Granted that CFC amounts probably won't
cut back due to this problem so there will still be a large amount of
ozone depletion (if CFC's are actually proven to be the problem, which
they probably are).
 
Any Opinions on these predictions?


-- 
Ken Roberge
umrobe57@ccu.umanitoba.ca


Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 18:50:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.150704.14627@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> you write:
>
>In article <JMC.92Oct1182258@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>|> I ask the following question seriously and not entirely rhetorically.
>|> 
>|> How are we to tell the "Energy Efficiency Education Project" from
>|> an "Energy Efficiency Propaganda Project"?
>|> 
>|> For example, does it present more than one view of energy issues?
>|> 
>|> Specifically, do its educational efforts include presentations of
>|> the Bush Administration energy policies by spokesmen for these
>|> policies?
>|> --
>|> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>|> *
>|> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>|> 
>
>Why should it?  The Bush administrations policies are espoused by the government, the oil and energy companies that the administration supports and you.  The Energy Efficiency Education Project is not the official point of view, they are an alternative and have no obligation to present the opposite viewpoint.

Perhaps one might argue that the inability to adequately present your
opponent's point of view undermines the quality of your own.

-- paul



-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Raskin
From: Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: 25 Sep 92 06:52 PDT
Subject: Re: Gore: Bush's Phony Choice Between J
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1483100120:cdp:1483100121:000:62
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!wafcdc    Sep 25 06:52:00 1992


Steve Holmer
Volunteer for Environmentalists for Clinton/Gore

Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Hydrogen-burning cars? Why not use alcohol instead?
Date: 4 Oct 92 07:14:22 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:

> 1.  Alcohol is easier to store, and while not as safe as gasoline, I'd
> rather be riding around with it than hydrogen.

Hydrogen is safer in an accident than gasoline.  Lots of the Hindenburg's
passengers survived--some without injury.  None would likely have survived if
the same energy equivalent of gasoline or alcohol was involved.

> 2.  Make alcohol from grain, corn, etc.

Last I heard, alcohol from grain was quite expensive, surviving only with
large subsidies.  It would take a _lot_ of agricultural land to produce all
the alcohol needed to replace gasoline.  I think agriculture is also a
significant consumer of energy.

> Hydrogen and electric cars emit  emissions AT THE POWERPLANT! Alcohol
> ferments, pollution free.

You could turn that same biomass into methane directly or hydrogen
indirectly, probably more efficiently than turning it into alcohol.

> 4.  Brazil is a model for an alcohol conversion, see what they did right/
> wrong.

I thought their alcohol-power industry was in trouble.  Is it still working
adequately, without massive government intervention and subsidies?

> 5.  Alcohol gives high-outpus (can you say indy-car fuel?)

It has a lower energy density than gasoline.  It is used in high-performance
IC engines, but such engines are not common for commuter cars, and are not
very fuel-efficient or clean.  Alcohol-powered IC commuter cars would not
provide the performance of racing cars.

Fuel-cell powered cars would be cleaner and more efficient, and provide high
performance.  They could also run on hydrogen or methane.

> Why has alcohol not been given serious thought in this country?

Maybe it's not a very good alternative to gasoline.


Personally, I'd rather see more effort spent on reducing the need to drive
cars.  There are big energy and environmental savings possible with that
approach.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Xref: sparky talk.environment:4002 sci.environment:11675 alt.activism:16982 talk.politics.misc:48840
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Waste containment (was: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves ...)
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:49:31 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <1992Sep24.042642.16949@ringer.cs.utsa.edu: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
:What is this "natural reactor" in Africa??  I haven't been reading this
:groups for very long.

Scientific American had an article on it in the 1970s.  Unfortunately I do
not have the reference handy.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NEWS: "Minus-Emission Cars" Tap Hydrogen
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:37:10

I would like to repair Elaine Weinrub's bubble.  Water vapor in the
air is in equilibrium with the oceans.  The amount of water vapor
that would be emitted if all energy were obtained from it would
have no noticable effect on the amount in the atmosphere.  Small
increases would just increase rain slightly.  Besides, if hydrogen
were used on a large scale, it would have to come from separating
water into hydrogen and oxygen.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky talk.environment:3933 sci.environment:11584
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Date: 27 Sep 1992 00:00:45 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep23.115811.17526@kth.se>, tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
=In article <STEINMAN.92Sep22102832@hawk.is.morgan.com>, steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
=|= In article <1992Sep22.033554.4643@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
=|= 
=|=    The world population growth rate has _fallen_ from over 2.0%/year
=|=    to less than 1.7%/year, so let's cut the simplistic nonsense about
=|=    "exponential".  Those who jaw about the "exponential" population
=|=    growth rate don't know what they are talking about...
=|= 
=|= There he goes again! Will someone please explain to Nick that as long
=|= as growth is positive, it *is* exponential? This is simple systems
=|= engineering.
=|= 
=|= Interest rates go up and down, but that doesn't keep compounding from
=|= happening, either! I doubt Nick is any better an investor than a
=|= population analyst.
=
=It's worse than that. Numbers like X% /year is only meaningful if there is
=a basically exponential growth. Linear growth would for instance be measured 
=with  X/year, i.e. an absolute increase. Thus Nick is contradicting himself
=in the post.

No, he's not contradicting himself.  For exponential growth, the percentage
growth per year doesn't change.  For less than exponential growth, the
percentage growth per year decreases.  For linear growth, in particular, the
percentage growth per year is proportional ln(t)/t.  Nick was pointing out
that, since the percentage growth per year has decreased, we're not talking
about exponential growth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Some hard SF, was Re: Solar Powered Roof
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 17:12:32 GMT
Summary: read it

In article <81164@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
>Read some hard science fiction. Not a flame. A serious, hard felt
>recomendation.

May I suggest _Nature's End: The Consequences of the 20th Century_, by
Whitley Streiber and James Kunetka, ISBN 0-446-51344-X ?

"Powerful and extraordinary... a spellbinding narrative difficult to
leave once started... a tale of despair and horror, but, interestingly,
one also of America's eternal spirit of true grit."  - Houston Chronicle

Most "hard" science fiction tends to extrapolate a single current trend
into the future.  What made _Nature's End_ unusual, and made it hold my
attention, was that it extrapolated such a large number of current trends
into such a believeable future.  There's lots of research, and the pace
and depth reminded me of _Airport_.  My programmer friends were a little
put off by what they felt were implausible advances in artificial
intelligence and computer networking in only 30 years.


Cameron in San Jose
cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 27 Sep 1992 00:31:20 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep23.010251.3656@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>I think it would be in order to determine exactly where the press release
>came from, and what it said when it left GreenPeace HQ, before leaping to
>assumptions.
>
>If GreenPeace has attracted attention - bombing, to be specific, an act I
>understood used to be limited to terrorist groups, but which is now all
>the vogue amongst governments when faced with opposition from individuals,
>the Weaver case in Idaho and the MOVE case in Philadelphia come to mind -
>then distorting their information seems to be not unlikely, also.

I see.  The thread in question was a conspiracy.  It was perpetrated by someone
who's been in deep cover in this newsgroup for over a year, PRETENDING to be a
Greenie, but whose REAL purpose was to discredit Greenpeace by misquoting their
press releases.  Right.  I suppose this mole is actually being controlled by
the Greys, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: jere@ecn.purdue.edu (Jere Jenkins)
Subject: Re: NEWS: German Toxic Waste Drums Returned From Rumania
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:15:28 GMT

In article <Greenpeace.22Sep1992.9@naughty-peahen.org>, jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
|> [Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
|>   
|> GREENPEACE BRINGS GERMAN TOXIC WASTE DRUMS BACK FROM RUMANIA   
|>   
|> The environmental protection organisation Greenpeace is bringing
|> twelve drums filled with toxic waste from the German states of
|> Saarland, Saxony and Saxon Anhalt, back to Germany from Sibiu in
|> Rumania.  A Greenpeace truck laden with waste herbicides and
|> insecticides illegally exported to Rumania from Germany has been
|> at the frontier crossing at Schoenberg in Saxony since ten
|> o'clock this morning.  By the symbolic act of transporting this
|> back Greenpeace wants to force the German Government and the
|> Environment Ministers of the states concerned to take back the
|> waste -- since 26 May the politicians have repeatedly promised
|> to fetch the illegally exported toxic waste back to Germany and
|> here render it harmless.  Greenpeace is furthermore demanding an


I am not clear on international law, but doesn't Greenpeace assume
responsibility for the destruction or disposal of said waste by
their having possessed it last?

Greenpeace in the waste transport business?

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: mrb@earth.wustl.edu (Mike Bray)
Subject: Song search: "Requiem for an Ancient (old growth) forest?"
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:24:42 GMT

A friend is looking for more info about a song she thinks she heard
on public radio's "E-town" show, sung by women, possible entitled
"Requiem for an ancient (maybe old growth instead) forest" with
a line that goes "white pine and silver birch, I sing for you this requiem".
Any Idea what the real title is, who sang it, where she can get a copy?
Please email if you respond.

Thanks,
Mike Bray mrb@earth.wustl.edu
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Strip Mining in National Parks
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:21:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

lrxi00@icts01.Kodak.COM (James Nonnemacher) writes:

>Does anyone have more information on the Bush Administration's plans to allow logging and strip
>mining in National Parks. Heard about this on the 11:00pm news last night -- it was given no more than
>30 sec. and I haven't seen the morning paper yet.

I think that there was a long article in Monday's NYT about this (first page
and then continued into section A). Many enviromental magazines have also
discussed this lately.

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu