HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:40:58 GMT

>In article <JMC.92Aug16203921@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>Mr. Tarasov has been paying too much attention to people who
>>exaggerate.  There is plenty of water in almost all parts
>>of the U.S.  However, if every project to get more is blocked
>>
>
In article <1992Aug18.054745.21158@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt) writes:
>Is there plenty of water in California? Nevada? Arizona? Oregon? Utah?


There was certainly plenty of water in California when I lived there and
we had "droughts".  Unfortuneately, it was all taken up by the farmers
at steep discount, while homes and industries got the scraps.  There is 
certainly plenty of water here in Oregon.  The Columbia and Willamette 
flow by, billions of gallons per hour, while neighbors turn each other 
in for having green lawns.  We also have a large contigent of ecofascists 
who will tell any sort of lie, screw over people with the stupidest of 
policies, in order to save their beloved old growth forests.  Thus, they 
have created a whopper of a myth, that Portland is utterly and forever 
dependent on the Bull Run watershed (old growth area). To sustain
this myth they have fought every single proposal to tap the Columbia
or Willamette or their basin aquifers.  Across the Columbia 
in Vancouver the lawns are perfectly green; they had the common sense 
to tap the Columbia instead of hanging their people out to dry for the 
sake of an unrelated piece of eco-politics.

Now that I think of it, that sort of nonsense is of a piece with the
Swedish "carbon" tax that included nuclear power.  Selfish ecofascists
think alike the world over.

We have an incredible shortage not of water, but of brains educated
in something beyond selfish political scheming.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10632 alt.society.futures:237
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: LA on the Tundra
Date: 12 Aug 92 04:46:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug12.044649.17306
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Aug11.024623.11111@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:

>With the advances in Appropriate Technology it is now possible to do
>the following:

I'm glad to see you classify some of the most energy-intensive and
polluting, but important, industries as "appropriate".  Biosphere 2
relies on steel, aluminum, and many kinds of plastics for its 
construction.

>Build a large greenhouse, double paned and designed for heavy winds
>(similar to Biosphere II in Oracle Arizona) but in Alaska or
>elsewhere in the far north on the permafrost or tundra.

I have suggested that the "Starship" proposal for self-contained 
communities could first be implemented by oil companies working in 
laska and Siberia, so that they don't have to fly their employees in daily, 
a very expensive and environmentally wasteful method.  One possible model 
is Biosphere 2, but it would have to be far more pre-fab, like the 
manufactured houses currently being used in the Artctic, since construction 
conditions are hellish.  (Eventually, enough indoor space might allow indoor 
manufacture in Siberia).


>For those of us looking for inexpensivle land and the last great
>frontier...technology can create an oasis in the north.

Unfortuneately, the ecofascists will fight tooth and nail to put this
land put out of reach.  You watch.  They've already done it for much of
Alaska and all of Antartica.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10727 sci.energy:4037
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <JMC.92Aug14165324@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The original purpose of the tolls was to pay off the bonds that were
>used to finance the construction of the road and bridges.  Almost all
>the bonds for almost all the toll roads have been paid off, but the
>road authorities and the states can always find uses for the money.
>Therefore, they celebrate the paying off of the bonds by raising
>the tolls.

Not all State governments are that dishonest. On July 1, 1992 the
last bond was retired on the Pennyrile Parkway in Kentucky. By
3 pm July 2, 1992 wrecking crews had removed the toll plazas from
the parkway.

Gary
From: lc1bocv1@cine88.cineca.it
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: EPA BBS ?
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:48:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: cine88.1992Aug12.184804.383
Organization: CINECA, Italian Interuniversity comp. centre

I' ve heard there is a public EPA bbs for download air & water soft-models.
I live in Italy, a phone call to USA is quite expensive..... :-)
Is thany way to connect to this bbs by intenet (or DECNET) ?
,or at least a internet address to order sofdocs ?
thanks 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 17:36:28 GMT


The US has been a country run by businessmen for the last century,     
its the biggest debtor nation in the world now. The rich have the
choices, but what about the poor? With your wasting of water 
resources, what are you future choices? Major diversion schemes
of rivers from Canada? A state run by businessmen would I 
presume base their policy on profit. When will that magic faith 
that profit maximization guarantee quality of life and environment
be seen as the modern equivalent of the belief that the rain gods
determine when the rain will come.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10786 alt.politics.clinton:2473
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:38:00 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: EARTH DAY SPEECH
 <1992Aug20.194012.18473@hsv3.lsil.com>
 <1992Aug21.150401.22517@news.acns.nwu.edu>

In article <1992Aug21.150401.22517@news.acns.nwu.edu>, len@math.nwu.edu (Len
Evens) says:
>
>In article <1992Aug20.194012.18473@hsv3.lsil.com>, mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van
>Pelt) writes:
>>
>> Out of one side of his mouth, Slick Willie says
>>
>> Mike Van Pelt                       When the fog came in on little cat feet
>> Headland Technology/Video 7         last night, it left these little muddy
>> sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp               paw prints on the hood of my car.
>> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
>
>--
>Might I suggest that for the sake of civilized discourse, we refrain
>from name calling.   Use of the term `Slick Willie' adds nothing
>to the discussion.

It doesn't matter to me.  But everytime I see the name "Slick Willie,"
I'm going to refer to "that fucking Bush" (Bruce Springsteen) as
that "Wornout-Kneepads Wimp."

Jeff Luck                           -STD DISCLAIMER-
CES Systems Office
Penn State University       "We have had triumphs, we have made mistakes,
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU           we have had sex..."
                                -George Bush on the Bush/Reagan Era (1988)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Aug19185443@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug20.181758.29072@vexcel.com>
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:33:46

In article <1992Aug20.181758.29072@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Aug19185443@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >In article <1992Aug19.150702.29920@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
   >
   >
   >   Just for interest, Vancouver has faced lawn-watering bans this 
   >   year. The states have a lot of water, but a lot of it is wasted.
   >   Some of the dam projects in Alberta(such as the OLDMAN river) 
   >   seem to make more sense for setting up a large-scale water-
   >   diversion system to the states. The premier of Quebec has
   >   long been associated with the grand-canal scheme: to dam up
   >   Hudson's bay and blast a canal down to the great lakes for 
   >   US water usage. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to conserve
   >   our resources than mutilate our watersheds?###
   >   ####
   >
   >Mr. Tarasov likes words like "mutilate" that prejudice the issues he
   >purports to discuss.
   >
   >How about "develop" instead?  Then the answer wouldn't be obvious
   >and would actually be subject to discussion.
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >*
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
   >

   Dams do tend to flood an area and drive out all of the wildlife in the
   area.  I would suggest that mutilate would be more descriptive, and
   accurate, than develop.
   -- 

		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

I assume that Dean Alaska is opposed to all dams.  If not he should say
which areas were or should be mutilated by dams.  The question is whether
he would use the word mutilate for something he favored or was neutral
about.  Would he use the word mutilate for what will happen to an empty
lot when he builds his house on it?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Question about MPG
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 05:03:36 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 <1992Aug12.071823.21690@nuchat.sccsi.com} kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
}In article <1992Aug7.025234.28942@oracle.us.oracle.com} mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
}}In article <1992Aug3.221908.1860@nuchat.sccsi.com} kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
}}}In article <1992Aug3.042511.10570@oracle.us.oracle.com} mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
}}}}In article <1992Jul31.044155.1211@nuchat.sccsi.com} kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

}}}}}No, but the pollution produced in the manufacture of a new automobile may
}}}}}compensate for the amount of emissions produced by his current car.

}}}}Not true.  This has been analyzed in the context of suggestions that
}}}}companies get emission credits for buying clunkers and junking them.
}}}}Remember - you aren't building a car that otherwise wouldn't be built.
}}}}You're just building it a few years early.

}}}Yeah, but in doing so, you increase the number of cars that get built on 
}}}a per-unit-time basis, and thus increase the per-unit-time pollution
}}}output that results from production.  Then it becomes a question of 
}}}whether or not the pollution produced is offset by the savings.  It's
}}}not clear to me whether it is or not.

}}Well, this may not be clear to you, but it's clear to California's
}}Department of the Environment or whatever it's called.  How exactly
}}would you go about finding out if they are right?

}Look at the EPA information (if it exists) on how much pollution is being
}produced (grand total) by the automakers annually.  Divide this by the number
}of cars they produce annually.  This should give you a rough estimate of
}the pollution produced per car in the year the statistics were taken.
}[... More Math ...]

Yes, but they've already done all that in California in more detail
than you and I have time to.  Now how do you propose to find out if
they are right.  Short answeR?  We can't.

}}By the way, that's another clear proof that a lot of this
}}environmental stuff is political grandstanding.  If smog, etc. was
}}really a problem we wouldn't have this bulshit where older cars don't
}}need to meet as strict emission standards.

}This would definitely be valid if it weren't for the fact that the chassis
}of older cars were not designed with catalytic converters in mind.  Cats
}produce a lot of heat, and that heat has a nasty tendency to melt and
}burn things that aren't protected.

}Other than that, I'm inclined to agree.

Why should this matter?  If X pollution is so much that we can't let
the car on the road why should the age of the car matter?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Friday, 14 Aug 1992 13:06:23 CET
From: <MKHAN@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Plastic or Paper...which is environmentally correct?
Distribution: usa

Mark Wilson states that the fiber length degrades in the recycling process
thus precluding a closed paper loop.
I concur but would like to point out that a prime market for recycled paper
would be applications like tissues, napkins, toilet paper etc where the waste
product is not fed back into the loop and quality or appearance of the product
are not of prime importance. There is still quite some scope for the
use of recycled paper there. It is possible, and it will be accepted by the
market, as experience in Germany shows.
Another aspect (this addresses most other contribitions recycled paper

discussion) is the following: Not only the energy consumption required in the
actual production process should be regarded, but also the energy required
to pump, provide and purify the enormous quantities of waters required in
the production of paper. Here the manufacturing of paper from waste paper
instead of wood is far superior as it requires dramatically less water.
Therefore using recycled paper is not only "kind to the forests"
but also more energy efficient, if you take the grand total.
A compromise solution, already in widespread use in Germany where recycled
non-bleached paper is available for almost every use is a production
process adding around 50% of waste paper to the wood pulp to counter the
adverse effects of fiber degradation.

Michael
From: louis@cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Plastic or Paper...which is environmentally correct?
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:01:45 GMT
Organization: Athabasca University

In article <65589@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt3791a@prism.gatech.EDU (gt3791a Johnson, Mark R.) writes:
> To answer the question, we most look at the overall processes needed to form
> (and dispose of) paper and plastic.  Then, once we have the numbers, it should
> be rather simple to compare the environmental impact of each.

And then compare the impact of using neither.  My wife and I have weaned
ourselves from using bags for groceries or most anything else for that
matter.
-- 
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
========================================
Not everything that counts can be counted.  Not everything that can be
counted counts.   - Charles Garfield
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hayesk@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: Re: Recycling in the Workplace
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:24:18 GMT

I am looking for any information related to recycling, reduction, reuse, etc.
in the workplace.  If anyone has any information related to the 'how-tos'
of implementing a programme etc., I'd love to hear from you. For example,  
I understand that Bell Canada has been very successful in their '3R Programme' 
(ie. 97% reduction??)....This is the sort of information that I'm looking for!!

Thanks in advance,  Kate (hayesk@wl.aecl.ca)
From: jhurst@amb4.ese.ogi.edu (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Putting out Oregon fires
Summary: Potential...
Keywords: Stop the Orygun Firebomb Massacre, etc, etc.
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:36:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.41299
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center of Nowhere

Russ Cage write:
> ... it occurs to me that FAE's
>(fuel-air explosives) might be able to help in putting out
>forest fires after all.  What they could do is knock down
>standing timber and remove branches from trees *ahead* of
>the fire, like bulldozers cutting a fire break but immensely
>faster.  

So we're talking about a linear explosion.  I have no idea if this is 
feasible or not.  Interesting possibility, but could you reliably lay 
down this kind of pressure wave without fire reaching the ground?  The
atmosphere is kind of elastic for that isn't it?  Most of the time the
system will be operating in rugged terrain.

Knocking down the timber probably isn't enough, since it will still 
burn fine and hot on the ground.  It *might* be enough to convert a 
crown fire to a ground fire, which could be a reasonable success in
some cases.  Good firebreaks are as wide as a road or wider, and clean 
to the mineral soil, so I'm a little skeptical this would work.  Without
salvage, your new firebreaks will dry out and become fire hazards in their
own right next season.

>If detonated high enough in the air, flame would
>not reach the ground and ignition would be unlikely.  If
>propane is used as the fuel, the flame should be mostly
>blue and clean and radiate relatively little heat.

>My imagination conjures up images of re-usable bombs, basically
>drone aircraft which are all wings and fuel tank, with spray
>nozzles and dispensers for delayed igniters.  They fly out,
>level a stretch, and fly back for re-filling and re-stocking.
>With nobody on board, nobody is at risk.

Interesting.  I'm skeptical.  I think you're selling the people who work
on fire protection short.  It's no accident that aviation and fire protection
are in a single division, and with lots of ex-military types flying for the 
forest service,  the are presumably familiar with the technology available.  My
experience with the FS is that they are good to excellent about applying 
innovative solutions to their work.

I'm also skeptical about the wisdom of fighting big fires head on.  A more 
prudent and cost effective approach will probably be to manage the forests 
so that big fires are rare, and the landscape developed to provide natural 
breaks.  That is, preventive care rather than crisis management.  Still there
will always be cases where fires threaten features worth protecting, so 
fire protection is not likely to disappear.  The FS has lately taken a hard 
look at the economics of their fire programs, and is exploring the concept of 
controlled burns.

					Jim
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Stratospheric O3; Human Factors
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:15:18 GMT

>
>Speaking of NASA publications, anyone interested in the ozone question
>should read "Condensed Nitrate, Sulfate, and Chloride in Antarctic
>Stratospheric Aerosols" by a large group of NASA scientists out of
>Ames Reasearch Center and several universities. NASA TSP number is
>ARC-12618. 
>
>This publication highlights a very illuminating relationship between
>condensed HNO3*3H2O and ozone depletion. There is a very strong inverse
>correlation between condensed nitrate concentration and ozone levels.
>Condensed nitric acid is not found above 200 degrees K in the stratosphere.
>When it is not present, chloride levels have no statistical relationship
>with ozone levels. Since the stratosphere at 18 km only drops below 200 K
>above 64 degrees latitude, chlorides can only deplete ozone levels above
>this latitude. So fear and panic about ozone depletion by beach dwellers
>in Southern California is not warranted. This work seems to show that
>banning CFCs is similar to the cyclamate ban of the sixties, a possible
>over-reaction to poorly understood correlations.
>
>Gary

The article title that you mention (... Antarctic ...) makes it 
sound like this is a
discussion of ozone _hole_ chemistry rather than generalized ozone depletion,
so it would make sense that it would only occur north (or south) of
64 degrees.  The chemical reactions that create the ozone holes are not
the same as for general depletion.  Considering that generalized ozone
depletion has already been documented in the temperate regions of the northern
hemisphere (Science, 4-17-92), a claim that it couldn't happen would be
quite curious.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10758 sci.energy:4058
From: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:58:57 GMT
Reply-To: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: U of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography

In article <1992Aug17.161028.24300@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
writes:
 article <JMC.92Aug14165324@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
$>>The original purpose of the tolls was to pay off the bonds that were
$>>used to finance the construction of the road and bridges.  Almost all
$>>the bonds for almost all the toll roads have been paid off, but the
$>>road authorities and the states can always find uses for the money.
$>>Therefore, they celebrate the paying off of the bonds by raising
$>>the tolls.
$>
$>Not all State governments are that dishonest. On July 1, 1992 the
$>last bond was retired on the Pennyrile Parkway in Kentucky. By
$>3 pm July 2, 1992 wrecking crews had removed the toll plazas from
$>the parkway.
$>
$>Gary
$>

I've always thought it would be a good idea for the toll people to time-stamp
the cards they give out.  It would be a simple matter, then, to determine who
has been speeding on the road.  Perhaps then the fees for usage could change for
time spent on the roadway (an inverse relationship, I hope).  Doesn't the speed
at which a car/truck/bus travel influence the rate of road wear and tear?  And
the police could dispense with radars.

Scott
--
   The only other sound's the sweep of easy wind and downy flake

shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu 4017926509 URI GSO NBC Narragansett RI 02882
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10669 sci.energy:4001