HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hayesk@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: Re: Dolphin Advocacy
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:17:56 GMT

In response to the following request:

>As distasteful as I find fanatical activism to be, I am moved to feel
>fanatically active after watching a recent PBS broadcast of a 
>documentary on dolphins and their slaughter worldwide.

>My first request is for pointers to favorite articles on dolphin/
>porpoise research, either on the net or in specific journals.  I would
>also like to hear from any scientists or graduate students working on
>research involving dolphins, or from anyone who has participated in 
>similar research in the past.

>I am interested in finding out more about and
>possibly joining groups who seek protection of dolphins in the wild.
>Once I know the facts, I can write letters to the appropriate
>politicians and corporations.  Advice on other actions and comments
>on their effectiveness would be appreciated

I believe that there is a fair amount of research being conducted at the 
University of Guelph (Dr. Levine?) in Guelph, Ont. (tel: 519-824-4120). 

As for groups who seek protection of dolphins in the wild, there is a man 
(whose name, unfortunately escapes me !) working out of Florida who used to 
train captive dolphins.  He is now dedicated to returning them to wild and,
to date, has met with a fair degree of success.  He recently returned two
dolphins who had been in captivity for 25 years to the wild...apparently, 
they are doing well and have joined a school of wild dolphins.  The female
also gave birth recently.  There is another woman by the name of Cara Saunders.
She lives in Toronto, Ont. and has just founded a group by the name of
'Friends of the Dolphin'. Unfortunately, I don't have much information with
me (it's in Toronto!) but I know that she is working toward the release of
captive dolphins.  She is particularly interested in the release of a 'retired'
dolphin currently housed at the aquarium at Marineland, Niagara Falls.
Unbeknownst to most of the public, this dolphin is housed in a poorly-lit and 
very depressing building on the Marineland grounds.  He is, apparently, in
very poor shape and is housed alone.  The argument is that he could not survive
in the wild. However, given the current successful reintroductions , I find
this hard to believe!!

Having had the unique experience of swimming with dolphins in the wild, off
the coast of New Zealand, I feel very strongly that the intelligence and
wisdom of these wonderful creatures is greatly underestimated.  Although there
were some 200-300 dolphins in the area where I was swimming, I never once felt
in the least bit threatened.  Quite to the contrary, I think that I derived as
much amusement from swimming with them as they from watching me flail around 
in the water !  At one time, I was surrounded by some 7 or 8 dolphins, one
of which was swimming directly beneath me on its back. He/she swam at exactly
the same speed as myself and kept eye contact with me at all times. It was
truly an exhilirating experience and one that I shall never forget!

Kate


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:40:33

When I drove through Altamont Pass yesterday, the windmills seemed to
be doing better than several years ago.  Still quite a few of them
were not turning, and I suppose some that were turning were not
generating.

What is the average up time of a windmill?  What fraction of capacity
is actually generated?  Does the 12 megawatts in Britain mean 12
megawatts averaged over the year or is that the rate at which
electricity is generated when the wind is blowing at optimal velocity?

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:58:18

In article <183eo5INNg4e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:


   Since 1957 more than 3,300 launches have produced 7,000 trackable objects
   currently in orbit, equalling approximately 3,000 tons of man made material.
   Of these 7,000 catalogued objects the U.S. and USSR have produced approx
   3,300 each.  The rest are from Europe and other countries.

   Of these 7000 catalogued objects only 400 are operational satellites.
   The rest of this number include abandoned or nonfunctioning satellites,
   upper stages, and fragments including lens covers, separation bolts
   and clamp bands.
   Further, there are from 30,000 to 70,000 smaller objects that are larger
   than 10 cm which have not been catalogued.  Any pieces in this size range
   and eventually rain down to earth.

   Objects above the geostationary altitude of 1000 km will remain there for
   approximately 1000 years during which time orbitting the earth more than
   5,000,000 times posing constant collisiion hazards.
   Interactive collisions in Earth orbits will eventually generate sufficient
   debris to create a dense debris belt and prevent further launchings.
   Some scientists also suggest that such debris belt could significantly
   reduce solar radiation and therby produce world climate alterations.
   -- 
	       Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley

Can Mike Romano name one of the scientists who suggested that the
debris belt could affect solar radiation preferably with his or her
institutional affiliation?  "Some scientists also suggest" has a
dim reputation in this newsgroup.

Oh well, let's do a little arithmetic about the probability of collision.
Consider a new satellite with a 10 sq meter cross section.  Suppose it
to be in a band 1000 km by 1000 km, i.e. 10^12 sq meter.  It then
has a probability of 10^(-11) of collision per time tau.  Here tau
has to be computed from the difference in orbital periods of the
spacecraft and the debris fragment.  Since the debris and the spacecraft
will be going around the earth in the same direction, i.e. to the east,
let's suppose the difference is an hour.  Then there is a potential
collision every 24 days, e.g. 15 per year.  This gives an expected
lifetime for a satellite from each piece of debris of about 10^10 years.
A million objects will bring this down to 10^4 years.  But the
average piece of space junk only lasts 1,000 years we are told.  I
suppose this reduces the hazard by a factor of 10, so the lifetime
is 10^5 years.  [Oh well, I need to go to dinner now.]

Even 10^4 years is acceptable.

Lower down there may be enough junk so that something should be done
about it.  I leave to Mike Romano the library chore of looking up in the
existing literature the proposals for cleaning up low earth orbit.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Carbon paper
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:52:03

Surely carbon paper is on the way out.  I doubt that my secretary
has any, since we do all our letters on the computer, and the
multi-part forms almost always use a different method of producing
all the copies.

However, carbon paper smudges the environment.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Space Poop Message Deleted?
Date: 3 Sep 1992 22:44:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


I posted an article concerning space debris yesterday in this
newsgroup.  Now I find the following day, the original posting
by me has disappeared!
Indeed...is this an un moderated newsgroup?
Why would my posting be deleted and by whome?
I notice further that there are responses to my posting still
listed.
What is going on?
Here we go again:

Most of this is from Acta Astronautica  July 1992:

Since 1957 more than 3,300 launches have produced 7,000 trackable
objects currently in orbit, equalling approx 3000 tons of man
made material.
Of these 7000 objects the US and the USSR have produced approx
3300 each.  The rest are from Europe or other countries.
Of these 7000 catalogued objects only 400 are operational
satellites.
The rest of this number include abandoned or non functioning
satellites, upper stages and fragments including lens covers
separation bolts and clamp bands.
Further, there are from 30,000 to 70,000 smaller objects
but larger than 1 cm which have not been catalogued.
Any pieces in this size range can and do damage spacecraft.

Through the effect of air drag these obejects continue to
lose altitude and eventually rain down to earth.

Objects above altitudes of 1000 km are in geo stationary
orbit and will remain there for 1000 years orbitting
the earth more than 5 million times and posing a constant
hazard of collision with other objects.

Interactive collisions in earth orbits will eventually
generate sufficient debris to create a Debris Belt
and thereby prevent further space launchings.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: p37006r@kaira.hut.fi (Matti Ikonen)
Subject: Re: Composting
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:02:18 GMT

One not so easy way to make a compost is to use a composter. I have a
self made recycled composter that works even in winter when we have
-20 C (252 K). I used old freezer, which I picked up from local
CFC-collecting plant. Freezer is the type that opens from top like a
car trunk. So it has insulation allready, all I had to do was some
holes to bottom and walls, put some chicken wire on the bottom (or
actually something stronger that leaves a couple inches room for air
to circulate) and paint it green to suit our garden.

Now we compost all biodegradeble stuff from kitchen and garden.
Temperature stays in 50 C (322 K) troughout the year. Use only
freezers which no more have CFC. Insulation is not necessary, compost
can frost in winter and warm up again in spring.


Matti.Ikonen@hut.fi
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: DRAG STRIP POLLUTION?
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug23.212532.3708@desire.wright.edu> nyoung@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I am part of a neighborhood coalition fighting a drag strip's
>being built within a mile of our homes. Is there any information
>available (journals, papers, whatever) on the toxic pollutants
>generated by dragsters? Or: any info on pollution of the aquifer
>from drag strip accidents or usage?
>  The local zoning board, in coopertion with the county government
>has seen fit to allow a "zoning variance" of agricultural land for
>what they call an entertainment facility (the drag strip). That the
>strip will be built within a mile of a heavily populated area, on
>top of the HIdden Valley aquifer and on land which was possibly
>once wetlands (and is now near wetlands) seems to have no bearing
>in the case.
>  Any hints on what to look for, or where will be greatly appreciated
>by the community involved.

The only impact of any significance posed by a drag strip is the 
same impact caused by any other sporting event drawing 5 to 30
thousand spectators on a Saturday afternoon, like a college
football game for example. Any air or water pollution from the
operation of the drag cars would be totally lost in the noise
compared to the impact of the crowd driving to and from the 
facility, using it's restrooms, and consuming it's junk food.

Unless you would fight a college sports stadium located similarly
near your home, your fight against this facility is based purely
on prejudice and you should admit it.

Gary
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Composting
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:02:25 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <Bu0BE0.4qA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>>There may also be local environmental laws with regards to composting
>>or leaving exposed food residues (if, i.e. you dump food scraps in it).
>
>Then the next obvious question is why anyone who is interested in
>composting would tolerate living in an area where this would be a
>problem.  It's real simple,  if you're unable to do it due to
>zoning/bylaws/etc. then change the rules.  If you are unable to change
>the rules, decide if it's important enough to you to move.

True. But in reality, very few subdivisions priced reasonably (i.e. in
Carmel, IN where I live, say, up to $150K homes) have such laws per se;
or even if they do, they're not enforced, just like chain link fences, etc.
More upscale developments (i.e. $200K and up) have more explicit laws.

In many cases composting can be avoided by proper selection and use of
lawnmower; A good mulching lawn mower can help solve most of the problem
of grass clippings; Frequent mowing helps too. If one's really set on
using organic material for fertilizing etc they can be purchased also,
although the price goes up by quite a bit.

Your suggestion is excellent, but should be taken into account before
a person buys his/her house. Personal experience has shown that once
someone puts up the pile (in whatever form) it is very hard to get
them to get rid of it without getting involved in major warfare 
at the neighborhood, local, city, etc level. Check before you buy
is the best approach.

This coming from someone who's neighbor has a compost pile (no grass
clippings, just rotting home garden vegetables, and no chicken wire or
other container) 20 feet away from my house. 

So, just like you'd check whether the bylaws/zoning allow, say, a mini
barn or chain link fence for pets, check for composting BEFORE you
buy! It can save lots of aggravation.

Spiros




-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
From: bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Composting
Date: 2 Sep 1992 11:09:53 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


When the circus is in town take yer pickup and fill it with
elephant _____(poopydoody). Great stuff. Big chunks like super
horse turds. Also get some straw bedding from the big cats.
Full of urine it'll keep Bambi and Thumper out'n yer garden.
-- 
Ted....
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: greg@gregm.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz)
Subject: Re: ... why I don't recycle
Reply-To: greg@gregm.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz)
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:29:39 GMT

Lines:44

Eric Huppertz (ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu) in a paranoid frenzy wrote:

: So where are these miraculous systems?  Are they installed in our
: automobiles, reducing our fuel consumption and air pollution output?
: Of course not.  You know as well as I do where they are:  In the
: vaults of the world's major oil companies.  That's right, build a
: better carburetor and Exxon will beat a path to your door.  I can't
: imagine how rich the developers of these super-effient systems must
: be, now that the oil corporations bought their ideas and stapled
: their mouths shut with platinum stapleguns.

So, do you mean to tell me that the Japanese, who import well over
99 percent of their oil have not been able to duplicate the 100 mpg
carburetor that you insist exists?  How about a 75 mpg unit?

The Germans don't seem to be able to come up with any such wundercarbs
either.  Do you really believe that Exxon has the power and money to 
shut down every attempt at building such beasts in not only the US, 
but those countries?

If such things existed, those nations (with no domestic oil industry
to protect) would be building and exporting and kicking our domestic
auto industry's butts with them RIGHT NOW.

Eric.  He lives by the .sig that I saw once:

       You're not paranoid.   They *are* out to get you.

: the garbage can.  Same with newspapers, bottles, plastic jugs,
: you name it.  I say, into the trash with it.

Well, at least you're not a litter bug.
From: tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:23:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601750:000:2303
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep  2 05:23:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind

/* Written  5:15 am  Sep  2, 1992 by tgray in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "--UK Moving Ahead in Wind" ---------- */
UNITED KINGDOM TO PASS U.S.
IN NEW WIND INSTALLATIONS

For the first time ever, wind development during 1992 and 1993 in
the United Kingdom will exceed that in the U.S., according to
industry and government sources.  The growth of wind energy,
primarily in England and Wales, further illustrates the declining
dominance of the U.S. market in the world wind energy picture.

The recent completion of England's first commercial wind power
plant at Delabole in the southeastern county of Cornwall brings
total wind capacity in the U.K. to 12 MW.  By the end of 1992
Andrew Garrad of Garrad Hassan, a wind consulting firm, expects 30
MW will be in operation.  But development will accelerate during
1993 when as much as 100 MW of new capacity will be installed.

According to M.B. Anderson of Renewable Energy Systems, a British
developer of windfarms, there will be 131 MW in operation by the
end of 1993.  The U.K.'s 1993 installation rate will exceed that of
any other country, including the U.S. and Denmark.  The UK now
joins a growing list of nations that will install more wind
generating capacity during 1993 than the U.S., including Canada,
Denmark, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands.

===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org    UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --Energy and Sustainability
Date: 25 Aug 1992 20:07:28 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <1992Aug25.153557.1513@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
writes:
|> In article <1466601742@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
|> >
|> >From: Tom Gray <tgray>
|> >Subject: --Energy and Sustainability
|> >
|> >o    World energy use would be held to 30 TWa (about three times
|> >     today's consumption), a reduction of 70 percent below a BAU
|> >     level of 100 TWa (nearly nine times current use).  (At the
|> >     same time, global per-capita energy use would be stabilized at
|> >     3 kW/person, or about one-fourth of present U.S. usage per
|> >     person.)
|> 
|> These units seem useless to me. 30 Terawatt what? 3 kw/person per
|> hour, day, week, month, year, what? Power is measured in watts, 
|> energy is measured in watt-hours. This information would be interesting
|> if it meant anything.
|> 
|> Gary

This information does infact mean something.  As you said, power
is measured in watts.  If all the energy were electricity (which
of course it isn't), it would be flowing at that rate.  Converting
to energy, as you noted, requires multiplying by a time unit, so
30 TW for one hour is 30 TWh.  30 TW for one year is 30 TWh - 8766
hours/year = 262980 TWh, or more correctly 260000 TWh.  I haven't
checked the actual numbers, but the units seem sound.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier)
Subject: Re: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 18:26:16 GMT

Tom Gray (tgray@igc.apc.org) wrote:
: 
: From: Tom Gray <tgray>
: Subject: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind
: 
: /* Written  5:15 am  Sep  2, 1992 by tgray in cdp:en.energy */
: /* ---------- "--UK Moving Ahead in Wind" ---------- */
: UNITED KINGDOM TO PASS U.S.
: IN NEW WIND INSTALLATIONS
: 
: For the first time ever, wind development during 1992 and 1993 in
: the United Kingdom will exceed that in the U.S., according to
: industry and government sources.  The growth of wind energy,
: primarily in England and Wales, further illustrates the declining
: dominance of the U.S. market in the world wind energy picture.

Has the UK done anything to prevent killing birds-of-prey?  It
is my understanding that, here in California at least, the
wind-power stuff came to a standstill when they realized how
many birds, especially hawks, eagles, etc., were getting mulched
by them (this from a friend working for S. CA Edison, no
numbers provided).

--
"They thought to use and shame me but I win out by nature, because a true
freak cannot be made.  A true freak must be born." - Geek Love

Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: sci.environment