HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:58:49 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <BrrBLr.n1n@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>You never cease to amaze me.  You really think people have a better quality of life when they 
>life when they cannot drive where they want to go?  Tell me, do YOU own a car?

	Me?

	I don't own one, but I might acquire one over the next year or
so, because of the difficulty of getting around Livermore without one.
I intend to get a small one if I ever do get one.

	And why does one have to drive if one has good public transit.
I've acquired a lot of info about Bay Area public transit so I have no
trouble getting to San Francisco or Berkeley or wherever I might want
to go.

	And is a car really that convenient if you can't find a place
to park it? It is fortunate that BART (for example) has
park-and-rides, and I wish they were more common, since I am
discovering that long-distance driving is not my most favorite activity.

>Why don't you stop being a hypocrite and practice what you preach rather 
>than trying to dictate to the rest of us what you think we ought to do?  What
>makes you such an expert on what would make ME happier?  The evidence that has
>appeared so far indicates that your knowledge on this subject is quite weak, as  is
>your grasp of the concept of individual rights.

	As the saying goes, your rights stop where my nose begins.

	Why hog the roads if there is some high-quality mass transit
(low-quality mass transit is another question :-)? After all, one can
do sightseeing and reading without too much trouble on a high-quality
system like BART.
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: [transport] Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:49:40 GMT


     Whoever, the original poster to whom Brian Yoder replies says,
my opinion is that you don't have to be able to "drive where" you
"wnat to go", to have a "better quality of life".  What we need is
public transport which will take us wherever we want to go.  Or,
at least public transport to take care of fifty per cent of all
commuting traffic.  That will free up the money and the gas for other
qualities of life.  Again to stress, I am not one of those driving alone
to work.

					Daniel Chung, U.S.A.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less pollutin
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:04:14 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul21175813@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>   For example, a Mooney 201, which is pretty crude
> technology today, can cruise at >180 mph and tops out around
> 200 mph on 200 HP.  This is a four place airplane (thought
> I'd be the first to admit the back seats are pretty small).

> Is Mr. Marcus suggesting that there has been much advance in
> light plane technology since the Mooney came out?
 
  First of all, it's Mancus, not Marcus.  Not a flame, just a correction.

> As I recall, the Mooney Mark 21 got about 20 miles per gallon at
> about 150 mph, which was very good for a usable light plane.

  The Mooney was and is a good lightplane.  But the Ranger was designed
in the 50's, and the 201 is really just a cleaned-up Ranger with a 200 HP
engine and some engine tuning.
  But today, we have light aircraft which support massive laminar flow,
more aerodynamic surfaces (due to the compound curves made possible by
composite materials), and generally better design practices.  We have
laminar flow airfoils that are optimized for the flight regime of
these aircraft, unlike the 6-series airfoils.
  Look at a plane like the Lancair IV, which set a speed record nonstop
from California to Oshkosh of ~360 mph.  This is a four-place airplane
powered by an IO-540 (300 HP).  Show me the 1960's equivalent!
  A record in class C1a/o (under 664(?) lbs) was set a couple of years ago.
This single-place aircraft was clocked at 126 mph with a small snowmobile (?)
engine of < 30 HP (sorry, I can't remember exactly; could look it up if
anyone cares).  The equivalent flat-plate frontal area of this bird
works out to slightly more than 1 ft^2.
  Last time I looked, the LongEze, designed by Rutan, held all the C1b
distance records.  Rodie Rodewald flew nonstop from Hawaii to Sacremento
and landed with 12 hrs of fuel still in the tanks.  Show me the 100 HP
1960's aircraft that could do that.  Dick Rutan's straight-line distance
record, set with his (160 HP) Long-Eze, was > 4500 miles.
  Some people may have been fooled by looking only at certified,
production aircaft.  For political reasons involving liability laws and
FAA certification, these aircraft have stagnated and the industry is
all but dead.  Practically all of the real innovations in design introduced
since 1970 appeared in homebuilts or kitbuilts first.  If you want a
truly modern 1990's aircraft, you must built it yourself.

	-Keith <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9898 sci.physics:11526 sci.energy:3605
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:48:42 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Jul23.183503.9094@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.173642.9571@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>	At Altamont, prices rose from $400 to $2,000 per acre, reflecting
>>	royalties paid to landowners for use of the land.  Ranchers lost
>>	only about 5% of the grazing area at Altamont, where cattle graze
>>	around the wind machines.
>
>     You seemed to be saying that we would get 2TW from wind.  I see no
>     way to do that without putting a few (!) windmills around (the 'front
>     yard' thing was a joke, son, just a joke).
>
>     Also, Altamont is just peachy for a wind farm.  Most other places are
>     not so peachy.  There may well be a place for wind power, however,
>     I suspect that filling the plains of Nebraska with windmills is
>     probably not the place.  Power companies tend to like their maintenence
>     nightmares to be confined to a relatively small surface area.

The Cajon pass in Southern California is such a place.  Winds between the Los
Angeles basin and the other side of the pass are funneled through the pass. 
Anybody for constructing an artificial mountain chain across Nebraska so that
they can get the same advantage?

>>Energy use does not need to increase with economic growth.  This has been
>>well demonstrated in CA in the 80's.

Which CA are you talking about?  If you're talking about Canada, I don't know
anything about that.  If you're talking about California, then you might want
to take a look at things now.  Remember:  A business doesn't pack up and move
overnight.  It takes a while before they've got new facilities to move to.  At
the moment California seems to be experiencing a mass exodus of industry out of
the state.  Perhaps your "demonstration" has backfired?

>     I repeat again.  There was no increase in generating capacity
>     in CA in the 80's?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:20:27 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul27.144809.22935@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.171456.12988@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>...The 
>>downtown is a dinosaur that hasn't got the message that it is dead yet.
>
>	Tell that to anyone who has ever shopped at a shopping mall
>:-)

The only good thing about malls is that they're air conditioned. The
worst thing about malls is you have to walk through them to get to
the store you want to patronize. I prefer strip shopping centers 
where I can park close to the door of the store where I want to 
make a purchase.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10357 sci.physics:12094
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 31 Jul 92 07:04:51 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <22089@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>	I agree that in sufficiently dense cities mass transit may be
>effective.  It is unfair for them to operate primarily through
>subsidies that come from expropriated funds. 
If they improve the quality of the air, and reduce congestion, everyone
benefits and subsidies are fair.

>You
>build a fairly financed convenient system and people like myself mught
>use it.
So you're waiting for a fare increase?
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10246 sci.energy:3773 sci.physics:11942
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:26:59 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul29.015231.14191@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
[jgd wrote]
>>Dam structure remains.  Impounded water and sediment may also remain.
>>Sediment will contain concentrated toxins from the years of collection.
>
>I tend to disbelieve this proposition.  Actually, just the reverse
>happens when the basin is initially filled: mercury trapped in the soil
>of the flooded forest floor is released in the water, and toxic fish
>results.  This pollution (which was there to begin with, but was
>natural and hidden) washes out over a time frame of 10 to 20 years.  It
>does not get concentrated, just the opposite.  Think of it, once the
>basin is filled, the average flow is just the same as before the dam
>was built, although admittedly over a wider area.
>
>>May not be feasable to remove the dam and powerhouse after decomissioning
>>leaving a ugly, hazardous structure.  Hazardous from things like 
>>people falling off it and hazardous from the risk of failure.
>
>Ok then, just refurbish it and go for another 50 years, as proposed
>above for nuclear plants.  Actually, it even makes more sense than for
>nukes because, while one nuclear plant can often be replaced by another
>one built 100 meters away, no such option exists for hydro dams.  And
>if you don't refurbish, at least open the vanes, and turn your dam into
>a mere mound of dirt and concrete, no more dangerous than a cliff in
>the mountains.

I suggest you look at the siltation rates of various impoundments. The
Hall of Shame winner is the Aswan High Dam. Because stream velocity
slows when it enters the impoundment, very rapid siltation occurs. The
reservoir capacity of the High Dam has already been reduced by 1/4 since 
the gates were closed. It's widely estimated that most impoundments become
unusable due to siltation in a reasonably short time. Lake Mead, one
of the better impoundments, is estimated to reach full siltation in
under 500 years. That's impressive on our quarterly report time scale,
but considering that to continue it's usefulness after that time it
will require complete dredging, it's a very expensive 500 years. 
Aswan may become unusable by 2020. That makes 50 year bonds a poor
investment.

Toxic solids become trapped in the silt, and over time the layer of
silt will have a much higher concentration of toxics than that suspended 
in the stream flow. This concentration mechanism isn't a trivial concern.
Bottom feeders like catfish have much higher levels of contamination on
the Ohio and Mississippi rivers than top feeders. This is a result of
Corps of Engineers flood control dams slowing stream flow and causing
higher rates of siltation.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Summary: Where are the bodies? 
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:31:05 GMT

In article <DmR-_H#@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>In article <BrsG3D.37H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>What are the "full expenses" that we are suffering under today?  I hear
>>a lot of claims that doomsday is around the corner, but everywhere I look
>>I see thetremendous improvements brought about through the industrial
>>revolution, and none of the "hazards" of it.  Where are the dead bodies?

>In the ground? :-)

>Do large numbers of people have to die for you to see a problem?  

No, but I need to see SOMETHING to serve as evidence of a problem.  Dead
bodies would be a good example.

>Maybe you meant to say "What exactly are the hazards?"

I meant to ask both and you answered neither.

--Brian

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9918 sci.physics:11544 sci.energy:3620
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:20:42 GMT
Organization: LLNL
Originator: lip@s1.gov


In article <1992Jul24.042401.23718@pta.pyramid.com.au>, bgg@pta.pyramid.com.au (Ben Golding) writes:
:In article <11008@cis.rand.org> rodger@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
:>In article <R4Q-##A@engin.umich.edu>, blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
:>> The only system I can think of that currently makes all driving decisions
:>> for you is mass transit.
:>
:>Well, as a previous poster pointed out, most of the nations commercial
:>airlines fly automated systems.
:
:But the commercial airlines are just mass transit, and a very
:successful successful transit system it is too.  The posters that
:continually assert that the American public doesn't like mass transit
:seems to forget this.

	And heavily subsidized mass transit at that. The subsidies
come in forms both direct and indirect:

	Air traffic control.

	The military training of many pilots.

	Airliner development -- both Boeing and Airbus Industrie have
charged each other with receiving big subsidies, and correctly -- and
spinoffs from military aviation.

	The construction and maintenance of airports.

	Interestingly, air traffic control costs about $3
billion/year, while the airline industry has a profit of $1
billion/year.

	Source: Joseph Vranich's _Supertrains_, which advocates
high-speed intercity trains like the French TGV (currently the world's
fastest scheduled passenger train) as an alternative to highways and
airline travel.

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Roberk Kim Rickenbrode II)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:04:29 GMT


[...]

  {Bowen} Get the picture?

  {Armond} No, I don't.  A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make, as is

  {Bowen} A five minute walk is unreasonable? 

  {Armond} It is for me.  That's my personal choice to make.


 Not if your personal choice has negative impacts on the lives -- health -- of
others.  The hazards of high concentrations of automobiles are clearly 
visible in Los Angeles, where the mountains surrounding the basin 
frequently disappear in a nauseating brown haze.  The car you drive
is a contributor, however small. You think you have a FUNDAMENTAL freedom
to drive; I think I have a right to breath clean air.  Who is right?

[...]

  {Armond} So?  Neither opinion matters.

 Then why post? Isn't the intent to elicit some response?  
 
 {Demagoguery??}

[...]

 {Armond} Sounds like another place to stay away from.

 You have that choice; however, whether or not you choose to live somewhere
has NO impact on the problem, nor does it alleviate the problem. The general
tone of your post reminded me of a child who has not yet learned the
value of community and property.  Essentially, it sounded like:

  "MINE! MINE! MINE! ME! ME! ME!"

 Are you not willing to sacrifice some exercise and time to clean things
up a bit?

 {Bowen} Anyway, what I'm eventually getting to here is that trains can be just
         as fast and convenient as driving, if not more so. Given the right
         circumstances, it can work. It's cheaper, it's safer, and it's
         environmentally friendlier.

 {Armond} Cheaper is debatable.  Safer, surely not.  
	  I'd like to see you justify
	  your claim of "environmentally friendlier", whatever that means.

See above. 

Robert Rickenbrode {rkrii@coil.cco.caltech.edu}
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:52:07 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul24.172826.21205@adobe.com> sherwood@adobe.com (Geoffrey Sherwood) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.042401.23718@pta.pyramid.com.au> bgg@pta.pyramid.com.au (Ben Golding) writes:
>:
>:But the commercial airlines are just mass transit, and a very
>:successful successful transit system it is too.  The posters that
>:continually assert that the American public doesn't like mass transit
>:seems to forget this.
>:
>:	Ben.
>
>Let me get this right.  You are claiming the people *like* airplanes?
>We put up with them because they are the most cost-effective (including
>time as a cost) way to get from point A to point B when these are a
>long distance apart, but *like* doesn't even enter into it.  You stand
>in interminable lines, get mashed into a bus-like thing where you sit
>for sometimes many hours, then wait in more lines for them to get your
>luggage back to you.  It beats the alternatives, but it is not a pleasant
>experience.

I'd agree in general with that characterization of airline travel. I'd
like to note, however, that a system of high speed trains could transport
you directly from city center to city center in less time and at less
cost than the current airline system. Boeing made a proposal for a SSSW
(SuperSonic SubWay) system a few years ago when they lost funding for
the SST. Travelling in evacuated tunnels and magnetically levitated,
the SSSW could travel from NYC to LA in under an hour with no sonic
boom or ozone depletion. Weather delays would be non-existant. Naturally 
they wanted government funding for the project. Closer to reality, various 
bullet trains currently operate in Japan and France that beat middle 
distance airline travel.

Gary
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:32:57 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <_#lmfll@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>In article <cydmy-j@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>>>Absolutely true.  I think it a mistake to even use the term "nuclear waste".
>>>Only a tiny bit of what comes out of a reactor is truly waste.  Most
>>>isotopes have potentially great value.  Sr-90 as a heat source, Cs-137 as
>
>>Similarly, used tires have potential value, as does auto exhaust. But,
>>for nuclear wastes to have real value a working nuclear fuel cycle must
>>be developed. As the French have shown, this is not a solved problem.
>>Assuming that such a cycle exists, while the waste inventory continues
>>to build, is simply wishful thinking.
>
>Haaay! Yackadam's back.  The day's not wasted yet.
>
>French you say.... Hmmm.. Same ones who invented the Citroen and eat
>that slimey cheese we would feed to the hogs?  Hmmm..  Problem solvers????
>

The Valdosta Correspondence School of Bubba Engineering must be proud of
you.

>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
>Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
>jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9759 sci.physics:11369
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:19:15 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Jul22.145750.26421@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>:No.  Convert the freeways to turnpikes.  Make the tolls time-of-day dependent.
>:Watch the businesses switch to staggered work schedules as their employees put
>:pressure on them to do so.  Watch the amount of car pooling increase.  You
>:might even see an increase in ridership for the RTD.
>
>	That's a good idea in principle. But it is a bit impractical
>to implement. Toll roads and toll bridges at present require one to
>pass through toll gates, and that would only be practical on roads
>without very many interchanges (freeways usually have lots of them).

And that, as near as I've been able to tell, is one of the reason for the
traffic jams on Los Angeles freeways.  Seems like half the cars on the highway
are moving between lanes either after getting on the freeway or in order to get
off of it.  I've seen highways back east with comparable numbers of cars on
them, though it was a bit difficult to count them, since the cars on the
highways back east were actually moving.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,sci.physics,sci.energy