HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: "What is OZONE", 6 year old's Science Project
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:55:26 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <71983@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com writes:

 > Ah, yes, a question about the O-zone layer.  That is the layer of Earth's
 > atmosphere above the M- and N-zones, but below where the P- and Q-zones
 > used to be.  The P- and Q-zones were destroyed by the corrosive effects from
 > the exhaust of the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters.  :-)

I wonder if that's the reason people don't bother to mind their Ps and
Qs anymore?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Consulting Ethnologist                              Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:22:18 GMT

In article <1hnk0tINNnna@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.080944.7939@pegasus.com>, tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>
>>You take a trip to Germany and you sit yourself down in a brewery that
>>has been brewing beer for 600 years and you get yourself a sense of
>>continuity.
>
>I suppose they're still using exactly the same sort of vats they used 600 years
>ago?  And exactly the same processes?  I rather doubt it.  I suspect that
>public health laws have caused significant changes in those breweries.
>
Not really.  Most of those older breweries abided by a beer purity act first
enforced in the early 1200's I believe.  This purity act was more stringent
then than our industry standards are now.  

On another note, what is it about you people (no offense intended) that make
you believe all was toxic and rat-infested before the age of the social
architects?  
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:33:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.182038.26674@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>I fail to see why efficiency improvements and shifts to non-fossil energy
>>sources are mutually exclusive. Your slant seems to imply that it is 
>>necessary to choose one of these approaches, but the use of the words
>>"quite independent" shows that this is not the case.
>>
>>mt
>>
I just wanted to reiterate that if funds are limited, then priorities
need to be made and decisions made about where those funds go.  If the
goal is CO2 remediation, then the best strategy, according to this
study, is to spend this money (or much of it) on efficiency.  If we
have more money, we can also move away from fossil fuels.  Its a
question of budgets and priorities.

-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Development policies
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:11:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.224026.28946@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.155351.9057@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>The World Bank is fundamentally statist in that it only deals with
>>states. And it is collectivist in the sense of Karl Marx's taking
>>from those who can produce and giving to those who cannot, or will
>>not. Though Robin Hood was more honest than Marx in stating his
>>intentions.
>
>By "giving to those who cannot [produce]", I assume you are referring
>to corrupt inefficient people.  These people are the minority in such
>countries and collectivist policies are usually designed to help
>the majority.

I am referring to the corrupt, who usually run the government even if
they are a minority, and who do siphon off most of the aid. Collectivist
policies may be *designed* to help the majority, but rarely, if ever,
are *implemented* to do so. Re-reading "Animal Farm" every few years
should be required of political theorists on the left.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 1 Jan 93 18:03:30 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <1992Dec30.194003.5390@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|> Michael Tobis (tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:
|> : In article <1992Dec29.001438.984@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM writes:
|> 
|> : |> So ask them to deliver it.
|> : 
|> : How would that help? Do you really expect a cheap low-frills volume
|> : distributor to deliver? And if they do, do you expect them to make a separate
|> : delivery to each customer by bicycle? Or what? Where is the environmental
|> : advantage in delivery?
|> 
|> 	You know, I thought about this for a little while.  I live within
|> walking distance of a grocery store, but I drive there (about 3/4 mile),
|> so that I can carry the groceries home in my car.  I could shop
|> every night and buy less (again, a time inconvenience, but I COULD!), and
|> walk every day.
|> 	But what if...
|> 
|> 	I walked to the store, and bought my 3+ grocery (reusable sacks, BTW)
|> sacks -- I want to pick my own produce, thank you -- and then took them to
|> a delivery truck, and walked home?  If a limit was put on the distance
|> from the store the truck could deliver, and it made one trip to everyone's
|> home rather than each shopper taking their own car, it would save on
|> car use!
|> 	Hey, the delivery truck could even be electric, and it would
|> recharge while waiting for the next load to fill up.   A computer matrix
|> could indicate the best route (kind of like the traveling salesman
|> problem -- shortest route that gets to all the points).
|> 	Now THAT'S an idea!  And I'd pay an extra $1-$2 for the service,
|> too.  (approx. $50-100 for the year).
|> 
|> 	Comments are welcomed!  I thought it was a good idea when I
|> came up with it.
|> 
|> 	Jim Acker
|> 	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


Well, here in Manchester (UK) there are at least 2 companies who will deliver
eco-friendly goods to your home by bike! (One also has an electric transit van).
What's more, they'll also take yer recyclables off you!
(Not quite the same as mass bulk buying, I know - but you should be buying 
"eco-benign" stuff anyhow!)

Michael
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Bad science
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:54:13 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <1992Dec18.172102.18456@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>|This study is likely to have little bearing on the greenhouse debate
>|in as much as scientists have very much better instrumental records
>|available to them during modern times than tree rings. The warming
>|is only now supposed to be *starting*, so tree ring records can only 
>|serve as a historic record of natural fluctuations in the temperature
>|record. They could not be expected to show the effects of a temperature
>|increase that has not yet shown up on much more sensitive instrumentation.

>What happened to the claim that the Earth has already warmed up several
>degrees.  Supposedly due to greenhouse build up over the last 100 years.

   Who's claim that the earth has warmed up several degrees? The
instrumental record shows warming of about 1C over the last one
hundred years. However, this warming has not been a simple linear
one: there was warming until the 1930s, then cooling until 1970 or so,
followed by further warming. The overall increase of 1C is consistent 
with the increase in CO2, but could also be due to a number of other
factors, so very few people actually state that the cause of the
warming is CO2.

  Of course, I have to add the usual caveat that these are the *global*
trends that I am talking about, with significant local variations on
the theme to be expected.


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13936 talk.politics.misc:65441 alt.activism:19854
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Followup-To: sci.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<57990@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Dec23.163445.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:48:31

Victor Yodaiken's Massachusetts is in much better shape than Alaska in
that almost all of the land in Massachusetts is in private hands.  It
is unfortunate that so much land in the West is in the hands of the
Federal Government.  The Federal Government should auction off 3/4
of its land in the Western states including Alaska.

Alaskans should get their Congrressmen to introduce a bill to do that.
Even if it doesn't pass the first time, it will be fun to hear the
statists like Yodaiken howl.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:35:50 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA


	The discusson about saving the palnet and economy has a lot of side
loops but it gets bogged down in the same old things.  Ons side claims that
all we have to do is live in apartments and take the bike or mass transit.

	The other side says lets take a reality check here.  Some may not
want kids but others of us do.  Kids do not belong jailed between apartment
walls and day care centers.  They need a place to play just outside the door
that is safe, not down the street in the local gang controlled park.

	Some of us cannot ride bikes for a lot of reasons and homes near
mass transit are not in good neighborhoods.  It is hard to go the the Price
Club and bring home a months bulk food in a buss.

	Some of us want to do more than go to hearings and sit around in
a jail cell watching men in tight pants pat each other on the ass on TV.
It is real hard to bring home a 4X8 sheet of oak plywood on the bus and
just as hard to deliver the Shaker style dresser to a good friend.  This
is not to mention the difficulty of locating a shop in the living room.

	We do need to reduce our load on the enviornment but it will
not be done by trying to tell us how to live.  Present usable alternatives
that we can choose, not force us into a system that reduces our individuality.

	DonB
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 05:57:25 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1743@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com writes:

 > You (it seems) would have the transit system pick its routes and then have
 > everyone find homes and jobs on those routes. That's getting the cart before
 > the horse. That doesn't work. You can't just walk into a business near your
 > home and say that you're going to start working for them today. Nor can
 > you walk into a home near your business and tell the person living in it
 > to get out, that you're going to live here now.

In practice all sorts of transport system develop along established
corridors accessing urban centres anyway. Armadale was established
here in the very early days as a general store and stopover along the
track to farms further south. *All* of the development since then has
merely added and/or extended the range of options available to people
as technology and economy makes them available, including the three
major supermarkets and Action Food Barn now located here people visit
by car, and the urban light rail terminus.

On the other hand, if the opportunity is there to design a city from
the ground up all sorts of possibilities can be negotiated. I am a
consultant to a fully integrated Greenhouse Village project here, but
while it is great on paper, I doubt it will finally be built and make
my reasons known within the context of my discussion papers on its
feasibility.

But you will have to send a large cheque for that, thanks.

Gil

Xref: sparky sci.environment:13909 talk.politics.misc:65407 alt.activism:19846
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:08:25 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.

In article <1992Dec17.174313.4455@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

>but Japan supposedly has a 100-year enviro-industry
>plan. 

I keep hearing this kind of bullshit.  Does anyone out there really
believe it?  After all, can you imagine the hundred year plan that a
business or company would have come up with in 1893?  

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: richard@TIS.COM (Richard Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: richard@TIS.COM
Organization: Trusted Information Systems


In article <1hnke1INNnna@gap.caltech.edu> you write:
>In article <9212281914.AA01253@TIS.COM>, richard@TIS.COM (Richard Clark) writes:
>
>You seem to have ignored my request that you account for differences in the
>design of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States and the design of
>the Chernobyl plant.  That leads me to suppose that you really don't know the
>difference.
>
>>	Nuclear power safe? Only as long as its governing bodies are stable.
>>The collapse that happened in the (former) USSR will eventually and inevitably
>>happen here... Oooooo the ugliness... I think I'll stick my head back in the
>>sand, butt in the air, and just give up and wait...
>
>Fine.  So what if it does?  Please try to include in your next feeble attempt
>at a plausible scenario at least a *LITTE* knowledge of current nuclear reactor
>designs.
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

	Nice try, but the *design* is irrelevant. NOTHING is idiot-proof.
Give an idiot a rubber ball, and they'll find some way to hurt themselves.
Provide all the safeguards you'd ever want on a nuclear reactor, but they'll
eventually wear out, rust, be disconnected, wired wrong, and become generally
disfunctional. Hell, bury it 5 miles underground if you like... but following
good ole Murphy's Law, the meltdown gases will find their way up through the
elevator shaft. Hey, make it even *impossible* to have a meltdown... such that
even if the cooling system and backups stop, and the rods get stuck, it still
can't melt. But then add a bit of pressure for more power, and a couple of
waivers for the removal of a few safeguards so it can cough up a bit more
output... and presto!

	Now normally, I'll grant you, the precautions and maintenance steps
taken are quite adequate to guarantee a tolerable margin of safety. The
scenario involves those precautions being thrown-to-the-wind. "Gee boss, the
containment vessel has cracks developing in the concrete..., It'll cost about
20 million dollars to fix." "20 Mil! Forget it! Just take some of that spackle
over there and fill them pesky little cracks... And then paint the whole damn
thing over so the inspectors won't see it. We'll just tell them we got tired
of looking at the old paint and decided to spruce the ole girl up a bit."




-----------------------Relativity Schmelativity-----------------------------
 Richard H. Clark				My opinions are my own, and
 LUNATIK - watch for me on the road...		ought to be yours, but under
 It's not my fault... I voted PEROT!		no circumstances are they
 richard@tis.com				those of my company...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Why do they hate us?
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:37:10 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <77852@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:

 > In <724578414snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
 > writes:
 >  
 > |Here I do differ; our standard of living is based on our civilised
 > |conduct, which is not always pursued by technology. There is nothing
 > |at all either admirable or edifying about machines and gadgets. Even
 > |Idi Amin had the latest technology the West had to offer, and he *ate*
 > |his political opponents.
 >  
 > I am going to have to differ with you on this one.  I would say that the
 > standard of living is dependent upon both technology and civilised
 > conduct.
 > It doesn't matter how much you love your neighbor if your only source of
 > heat is an open hearth fire and you have to go outside to go potty, then
 > your standard of living will also be considered low.

Well into my teenage years we had the singular benefits of *both* an
open hearth fire (although not the only source) and going outside to
"potty", while my family was considered very well off indeed.

But then, my maternal grandfather as well as my father were also
engineers and I did spend the next 25 years up to my very armpits in
technology before going off into the Social Sciences, actually in the
end building my first computer in 1978. That was about the time they
replaced the two strands of #8 fencing wire strung from poles with
real underground cables so we did not have to wait until 11:00 am for
the dew to dry so we could make a phone call.

I do not recall ever thinking that any of it was really so *essential*,
however, merely fascinating and useful up to a point. I do not find the
level of debate being pursued here, enabled by such stupendous advances
in technology, to be either contributing much to my standard of living;
just more of the same thing via a different medium.

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, n'est-ce pas?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Consulting Ethnologist                              Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --New York Looks at Green Pricing
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:33:35

We have

     NEW YORK LOOKS AT 'GREEN PRICING'
 
     The New York Public Service Commission is working on a
     "green pricing" plan that would allow consumers to choose
     whether to pay higher electricity bills for power from
     clean, renewable energy sources, according to The Energy
     Daily.

I wonder if each customer is allowed his own choice as to what
he considers clean, renewable sources.  I suppose the "renewable"
is designed to exclude nuclear.  However, the idea that 40 to
50 percent would agree to pay extra for "clean, renewable power"
is implausible to me.  It can lead to nice lawsuits about how to
allocate costs among the various power sources.  Another Lawyers'
Relief Act, I expect.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 06:47:14 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

king@reasoning.com (Dick King) writes:

>It will reduce the number of plants you need.  If you need 10GW you must build
>at least 15 1GW plants, if the availability is 65%, but only 12, if it's just
>over 80%.

Yup.

>Total operating costs also decrease since a plant probably has costs that go on
>even when it is not running.

Using the $0.05/kwh quoted rate, a 1000 MWE plant produces $50,000 worth
of electricity an hour.  At the retail rate around here (0.114/kwh in
the summer) that works out to $114,00 per hour or $1900 per minute
or about a buck a revolution on the turbine (1800 rpm typ).  When 
the plant is not operating, not only is the utility not earning that
revenue, it is buying the electricity from elsewhere.  Or assuming
the utility base loads its least cost capacity, generating it from
more expensive sources.

Someone saying that availability does not seriously affect costs is
about like a person who has never seen a gun picking the thing up
and peering down the barrel while pulling the trigger.  In other words,
somewhat uninformed.

john
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and destroy the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:53:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article (Mike Vandeman) writes:

>The answer is to apply appropriate taxes to the ownership, fueling,
>and operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles,
>approximately in proportion to the damage they do.

What a great idea.  I would love to see the Democrats pass a law
taxing motor vehicles according to the amount of "damage" they do.

Of course a few other people have already proposed the simple raising
of the federal gasoline tax.  Surely something much more complicated
is called for here.

Don't we need a new bureaucracy to determine how many miles each
motor vehicle is driven each month and how much damage that vehicle
is causing?  Maybe Mike Vandeman deserves a cabinet-level position!
[Nah - he's almost certainly a white male.]
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:03:13 GMT

>to the global problems we have. On the other hand, you might like to
>visit Guangzhou during peak-hour; getting stuck in a traffic jam of
>*bicycles* clogging up a four lane highway for literally miles, with
>whole convoys of trucks and official vehicles just stuck there until
>it clears, is no rational idea of progress whatsoever.

Why not? would you prefer all the bicyclists to be in cars? You make
no sense.