HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: toxic spill remediation
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:03:44 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <JMC.92Dec15191349@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, 
jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> On the one hand, the rules probably call for entering the premises of
> a mercury spill with self-contained breathing apparatus.
> 
> On the other hand, when I was in Junior High School we played with
> liquid mercury quite freely, and it was explained that only ionized
> mercury was harmful.  Perhaps many of those junior high school
> contemporaries who have since died, had their lives significantly shortened
> by the mercury, but I doubt it.
> --
 It's true that it's the Hg++ ion that's particularly nasty. Metallic Hg
 is not in itself very toxic (it's used in dental amalgams, after all).
 Mercury vapor _is_ toxic, however: according to my 1975 CRC handbook
 the threshold limit value is 0.05 mg/ m^3. The effects are cumulative
 since the body eliminates it very slowly. Since the metal is fairly
 volatile (boiling pt. 357 degrees C) it is quite possible for toxic
 accumulations to build up if a few cc of mercury are spilled in an
 unventilated room (it takes days for the vapor to build up, so playing
 around with the liquid for a few minutes probably didn't hurt anyone).
 The problem with mercury spills is that the stuff runs down into cracks in
 the floor, etc. When I was in high school the recommended way to deal with
 this was to cover the area with sulfur; this converts the Hg to HgS which
 is not dangerous.

 Robert
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: soapbox preaching
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:11:22 GMT

eberh@rocky1 (Erik Eberhardt) writes:


>It's about time someone with some brains and a sense of 
>impartiality started posting on this newsgroup!!

Were you referring to me or John McCarthy?

>--------------------------------------------------------------
>geo-eng's for the disarmament of the green nazies!!
>   Remember  "strip mining prevents forest fires" 
>--------------------------------------------------------------

That is not entirely clear -- depleting the water table may indeed
cause forest fires.
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: intimidation
Date: 13 Dec 92 06:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov

SHW>In the process of earning our
   >PhD's, we were trained to be quantitative and to be skeptical of
   >one-sided, all-or-nothing arguments. Nowadays, we find that many of the
   >most unsupportable arguments come from environmental groups

Thank you for saying that - I've felt somewhat alone saying the same
thing.  Many "environmentalists" I run into are so shallow and ignorant
even on their favorite topic that their message is acceptable only to
those who are even more ignorant.

SHW>They tend to grossly oversimplify complex scientific problems

...so they and their followers can wrap their small minds around them.

SHW>I apologize for the long diatribe.

No; it needed to be said - thank you.
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment


Natural gas is a fossil fuel like the rest. That said, it does
have advantages. First, there is a LOT in the U.S. Recent (<10yrs)
finds say the reserves here may last for many decades. Second, the
extraction process is much, much cleaner than coal or oil. Poke a 
tube in the right place in the ground and out she somes. No muss,
no fuss. It does not need to be refined much so there is improvement
there, too. Finally, it burns cleaner than gasoline and has a lower
(near zero) content of aromatic hydrocarbons which are phsyiologically
more dangerous. 

Good news, bad news about the legislation you mentioned. The good news
is that it takes effect in 1995. The bad news is that it is only 2
percent, not 10. It also has an interim status for very low emissions
which is being met by modified conventional cars. (Mainly, they have a
heater in front of the catalytic converter so that it will work even if the
engine is cold). By the way, several of the 0 emission vehicles
already exist. BMW has built a hydrogen powered car (the exhaust is
water) and GM has an electric car ready. 


Chris Beatty
beatty@lf.hp.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.systems
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Questions About Ozone
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:56:04 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec16.183742.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
= 1 Dobson unit (DU) is 0.01 times the number of millimeters that a column of 
=ozone overhead would occupy, if you were to compress it to 1 at. pressure  and
=heat it to 0 degrees Celsius. Put another way, the ozone layer over  the USA is
=~300-350 D.U. (depending on season); this means that  at 0C and 1 at. it would
=be about 3 mm high.  1 D.U. corresponds to about 2.7 E16 molecules/cm^2.
=Nothing subtle; just a way to get the numbers into the range 100-500.

I think you meant to say "100 times the number of millimeters...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Waste of the West (Review)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:16:51

Reading this review suggests that working at a supercomputing
research center engenders gullibility.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:09:07 EST
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Forestry Service

v151luy2@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott D McGinnis) in article
<BzExH8.Ct2@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:

>Hello: I am interested in getting information about applying tp the U.S.
>Forestry Service for a job.  I would like to ask if any one out there has
>the address I would need to write for info and an application.  Thanks in

>Scott

If you are in Buffalo, NY, you should contact the personnel office in the
Eastern Region.  USDA Forest Service, 310 West Wisconsin ave., Milwaukee, WI
53203.





Mark Kubiske                < MEK104@PSUVM.PSU.EDU >
School of Forest Resources
Penn State University
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Carrying Capacity and Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:12:22 GMT
	<1992Dec15.202330.2990@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu's message of 15 Dec 92 20:23:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.202330.2990@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:


   the greenbacks might be mitigated by an honest concern for evidence. This
   ill-tempered and insurmountable tension is mirrored among more scientifically
   literate folks with the tensions seen here between technocrats and
   biologists. (Alan, if your impression that there was little biology here
   before you showed up is valid, my sincere thanks for rectifying the situation.)

   As someone with one foot in each camp, I am dismayed at the
   constant flamage that seems to invariably accompany discussions between
   them. (in particular, the nastiness between Steinn and Alan, both of whom
   seem to me to have made significant contributions here, dismays me.)

You're not the only one. I regret having lost my temper on at least
two occasions over Alan's posts, yet I find myself compelled to
respond strongly when I'm accused of prejudice and ignorance (as Alan did in the
first followup he made to a post of mine), or malice and dishonesty as
Alan's more recent posts have done. As the Net has no memory and
mud sticks I repeatedly find myself fuelling the flames in trying
to counter Alan's claims... 

   In any case, the idea that citing evidence is pointless appalls me. I would
   hope you would reconsider and temper this statement.

Keep trying ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Australia, farming, and kangaroos
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:12:07 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1466601998@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org writes:

 > Naturally, McCarthy will support anything that sounds like an
 > expression of nationalism. 

There is no nationalism, Alan, merely democratically constituted
administrative practice worthy of due consideration and respect if
we are ever to find a sound and workable basis for international
cooperation.

 > Division is the very essence of ultraconservatism. It attempts to
 > prevent cooperative arrangements from emerging at every opportunity.
 > The more divided we are, the more unchecked are the most powerful.

Nor is there division, Alan. If you are unable to appreciate the basic
common sense of recognising the integrity and autonomy of people other
than those serving your own self-interest, however morally superior
you might consider it to be, I doubt it very much indeed that others
will respect you either.

In the end they just tell you to piss off, and there is nothing on
earth you can ever do about beyond paying thanks that they did not
line you up in front of a firing squad instead.

Why don't you wake up a little to reality?

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Return of Nasty, Brutish and Sh
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:39:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:hpindda.cup.hp.com:149180148:cdp:1466601976:000:2645
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Dec 12 03:39:00 1992



/* Written 11:47 am  Dec 10, 1992 by steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu in igc:sci.environmen */

I wrote:
>
>   We've been here before.
>
>   The *factual* evidence is that hunter-gatherer societies often have *lower*
>   infant mortality and birth rates than do peasant societies, and lower birth
>   rates than early industrial societies did. Consult any standard modern intro 
>   textbook on cultural anthropology for info and references.
>

Sigurdsson:
>"... A nomadic lifestyle, for example, may have more inherent risks
>to birth and life than does a sedentary existence. Consequently, most
>hunting and gathering groups have a greater number of spontaneous
>abortions and stillbirths, a higher infant mortality rate, and a
>generally shorter life span than do most cultivators."
>
>from "Cultural Anthropology" F. Plog and D.G. Bates, p. 144 

My  copy (third edition,  1990) doesn't contain this quote on  p. 
144 -- nor anywhere in that chapter, which is on horticulture.


I suggest that the reader do a little library work before 
accepting Siggurdsson's plausible-sounding asseverations. A great 
deal of work has been done on birth rates, infant mortality, and 
population sizes. The discussion of these topics in 
sci.environment proceeds in an intellectual vacuum, as if the 
eyeball estimations of anyone with some training in physical 
science or computer programming were the only equipment needed 
for an instant assay of any topic. 

What I find appalling is an intellectual arrogance which is 
unwilling to attempt to learn something of a field and the 
reasons for its methodology before condemning it as loaded with 
contradictions -- which may well reflect problems with a 
superficial understanding, rather than with the field. I have 
seen that happen with concepts from ecology -- which Sigurdsson 
once sneered at as "big eco-words" -- assuming that if *he* was 
unable to see much in a concept, it must be the concept, rather 
than his grasp of it, which is shallow. 

This sort of hubris borders on anti-intellectualism, and is only 
a barrier to the growth of one's understanding of nature. Don't 
emulate it -- no matter how much patina of physics-chic is 
painted on it. A particle of fundamental self-doubt is the germ 
of all learning, and facile self-confidence about areas one 
hasn't studied thoughtfully is *not* the sign of an intellectual, 
but a sign, at best, of intellectual immaturity, and at worst of 
little potential for growth. -- And lack of awareness of the 
existence of whole relevant fields of work is solid proof that a 
subject has not been considered thoughtfully. 

------------
Alan McGowen
From: alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Carrying Capacity and Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:37:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:724402542snx@tillage.dialix.oz.a:-1790275328:cdp:1466602005:000:1998
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Dec 15 23:37:00 1992


Of course I'd be a fool to try to compete with Crocodile Dundee in
the dragon-slaying department, but I think that there are still some
extremely basic deficiencies in scientific understanding in this
group, which make it impossible to discuss certain issues intelligently.

I don't intend to halt my two-pronged approach -- basic science in
one thread, politics in the others -- since in the end they are really
the same approach. Nor do I intend to lose sight of the fact that the
readers are much, much more important than the posters. I am even
more convinced of that than I was a year ago.

To Michael Tobis: I didn't say that *facts* or *evidence* are unimportant
to discussions in this group, I said that it was not a suitable forum
for discussing research results in a useful way. There is not enough
commonality of scientific background for that. The group is best regarded
as an educational tool -- and I think that you have been using it effectively
in that way.

Despite the "sci.*" ranking of this group, it is wishful thinking to
imagine that it could function like a group devoted to population
biology or high-energy physics. "The environment", as I pointed out
long ago, is a rubrick which covers a whole emerging set of new
political orientations and alliances  -- and divisions. To pretend
otherwise is to erect one particular political orientation as the
center of the group, call it "scientific", and focus exclusively
on its concerns. This is exactly what the group looked like to me
when I first began posting in it -- plenty of argumentation about
nuclear vs solar, not one word about biodiversity. Let's not use
the mantle of scientific objectivity to form a phoney concensus 
about what issues are central to "the environment." We aren't 
working on a science here -- we are working on the ways in which 
our understanding of our effects on natural systems impinges on
politics. Part of that is science, and part of it is not -- inherently
not.

------------
Alan McGowen
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13673 sci.energy:6238
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Yet Another Anti-Greenpeace Scenario From Thin Air
Date: 18 Dec 92 10:35:17 GMT


	The Greenpeace ship was,apparently,three miles from the
plutonium shipment at all times.This does not count as "harrassment" to
any person with two brain cells to rub together.
	This would seem to be another case of Greenpeace-baiting on the
part of a  national government.

	Incidentally,this argument ran for a long time with nobody
apparently knowing what the hell happened,but people quite happily
condemning everybody in sight on the basis of a few ambiguous newspaper
reports. "A collision" very rapidly became Greenpeace ramming the Pu
freighter, which on the best information I can find was a very long way
from the truth (see above)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13422 talk.environment:4963
From: russell@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (David Russell)
Subject: Re: Hemichromis I.D.
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:20:17 GMT

Brian:
> 
> Coloring: "Jewel" scales are bright blue, about the shade of the
> 	  mouth of a healthy Jack Dempsey.  Background color is
> 	  redder than the "salmon" shade that jewels are usually
> 	  in when not breeding, but not as red as the bright red
> 	  "jewel cichlids breeding" picture I've seen in several
> 	  books (do they really get that bright? mine never have)
> 	  There is a black "eyespot" on the gill cover, as in
> 	  regular jewel cichlids, but none near the tail on 4
> 	  of the 5 fish, and only a faint, faded spot on the other.
> 	  The edges of the dorsal and caudal fins have a thin
> 	  fringe of bright red, about 1/16 inch thick.

Just a guess. Sounds like Hemichromis Cristatus to me. The description
fits. A.K.A "Forest Jewel Fish".
Good luck, 
--
  David M. Russell              \    /--------\   ><>    ><>         ><>
  Clarkson University, MAE Dept,  \-/(((((((((o\        ><>    ><>      
  Potsdam, NY 13699               /-\(((((((((--<   ><>         ><>    ><>
  russell@sun.soe.clarkson.edu  /    \ --------/   ><>    ><>      ><>
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: silverst@wagner.ecn.purdue.edu (Brian R Silverstein)
Subject: Hemichromis I.D.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:43:52 GMT

I have a puzzler for some African cichlid enthusiasts.

In short, I bought some (5) fish I couldn't identify...BECAUSE
I couldn't identify them.
I realize that the 3 likliest possibilities are
   1) species I just haven't seen before
   2) hybrid
   3) hormones

The fish looks a lot like a regular Hemichromis "jewel cichlid"
as far a body shape and temperment.  It was sold at the fishstore
as "neon jewel cichlid".  The major puzzler is their color: it is
the main difference between them and regular jewel cichlids.

Description follows:

Coloring: "Jewel" scales are bright blue, about the shade of the
	  mouth of a healthy Jack Dempsey.  Background color is
	  redder than the "salmon" shade that jewels are usually
	  in when not breeding, but not as red as the bright red
	  "jewel cichlids breeding" picture I've seen in several
	  books (do they really get that bright? mine never have)
	  There is a black "eyespot" on the gill cover, as in
	  regular jewel cichlids, but none near the tail on 4
	  of the 5 fish, and only a faint, faded spot on the other.
	  The edges of the dorsal and caudal fins have a thin
	  fringe of bright red, about 1/16 inch thick.

Current size of 5 specimens: 1-1/4 - 1-1/2 inches standard length.
Body shape: identical (as far as I can tell) to jewel cichlids
Sexual dimorphism: none apparent
Feeding: they eat Hikari cichlid pellets until I'm afraid they'll pop.
         The "small" pellets hardly fit into their mouths, but
	 they'll each suck down 6 or 8 pellets for an evening meal.
	 Bellies bulge! These are piggy fish.
Temperment: they chase and nip each other a bit, but all the torn
            fins they had 10 days ago when I bought them have healed,
	    so they appear to be fighting less than in the overcrowded
	    tank in the store.
Growth:  noticible in 10 days!  About 1/8 - 1/4 inches each
	 since I got them.

I realize that much of this is unnecessary, but I couldn't think
of what else to add that might be useful.  If anyone knows what
these might be, let me know.  If now, I'll keep 'em anyway: they're
beautiful... and let me know 8 months from now if anyone wants
fry: I have high hopes.

Brian Silverstein
From: rabbits@carson.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Re: O3 ---> CO2
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:30:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec11.213023.29699
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


O3 gets converted to CO2 in the carbon filter by chemical reaction- Ozone
is _extremely_ reactive, and has a high affinity for forming covalent
compounds to things with lower reduction numbers, like carbon.  As for
using it as your CO2 source- the levels are far too low for effectiveness,
as to get a high enough of CO2 output, you would be spending a bundle for
O3 (whether injected or UV produced), and your carbon filter would
probably heat up to over 50 degrees C.  Fish soup.  The carbon filter does
not remove any of the CO2, so anything that is produced, should go into
the tank.

Rabbits.
From: SASAXG@mvs.sas.com (ghosh)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: has anyone kept any greenback wrasse
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:27:00 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

Hi,
Does anyone has kept or know about a greenback wrasse (it has a pointed
nose and is algae green in color.) If so could you email me so I
can ask you a question.
Thanks -ami  sasaxg@unx.sas.com
From: gt6441c@prism.gatech.EDU (Jon Edwards )
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Re: newsgroups
Date: 19 Dec 92 05:53:13 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I was told once that there is no such thing as a stupid question, so here goes:

  Are rapid start (don't need starters) ballasts necessarily "electronic" 
ballasts, or do they usually say "electronic" on them?

Jon

-- 
Jonathan R. Edwards                         "In the darkest depths of Mordor,
gt6441c@prism.gatech.edu                     I met a girl so fair..."
Georgia Institute of Technology                     -'Ramble On,' Led Zepplin