HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:31:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.164701.8222@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>ENSO is rare?

No.  Nor is it global.

>Pinatubo-sized volcanoes are rare?

No.  Nor do the particulates injected into the atmosphere by the eruptions hang
around in the atmosphere for very long.

>You would also be hard pressed to demonstrate Younger 
>Dryas (greater than IPCC hypothesized global warming in both rate and 
>magnitude) is rare, since it is a newly discovered phenomenon of a kind 
>not yet looked for in other epochs (I hope they're looking now, though).

Nor is is global.

>Since the YD is quite recent, there could be dozens or thousands like
>it waiting to be found in the geological record.
>
>>I will grant that the Younger Dryas transition is as fast as the middle
>>range of the IPCC predictions, though not as fast as the upper range.
>
>Again, you make a lawyer's claim instead of stating the facts!
>From the numbers I have, this claim is nonsense.  Younger Dryas was a 
>change of 7C over 40 years.  The worst case IPCC scenario is 5C in over 
>100 years (best case 1.5C, mean 2.5C).

Now compute the difference in global temperature resulting from Younger Dryas
and use that figure for comparison.

>N.B., the 100 years assumes no technological change that reduces CO2
>emissions -- something you always fail to mention; you imply to the layman
>that the CO2 projection is based on climatology just like the other
>projections.  Even the "best case" IPCC projection is a fantasy world
>where humans never learn how to conserve or become proficient in
>non-fossil electricty or biomass for fuels, etc.

Nick, you seem to be forgetting that Tobis is arguing that global warming ought
to be a reason for us to get away from using fossil fuels.  He's saying "If we
continue as we have been, this is likely to happen, so we might want to start
looking for alternatives."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:40:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.222459.8257@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
}In article <1992Jul17.183418.3418@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Jul16.020958.1439@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
}
}>}	And are cars really that cheap?
}>
}>Well, without one I wouldn't be able to get to my job.  So compared to the cost
}>of NOT having a car, yes.  Which is, after all, what you are comparing it to.
}
}In McLean, VA?  I find that hard to believe.  Where are you living?
}Leesburg, Annapolis, Fredricksburg?  McLean is well served by mass
}transit, if you bother to find it.  It could be a lot better, but I
}find it hard to beileve that you would be unable to get to work,

Laurel, Maryland.  And I looked into it.  The nearest stop is miles away.
I'd need to walk, then train, then metro, then bus, then walk.


Xref: sparky sci.environment:9770 sci.energy:3524 sci.physics:11375
From: shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:27:52 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: Earth_Sciences_Dept.,_LLNL

In article <1992Jul21.042941.2278@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
|> In article <BrJIr0.F7z@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com:, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
|> : But you seem to be able to ignore that the fuel isotopes
|> : are RADIOACTIVE (the main gripe you seem to have with the
|> : products), have been for billions of years, and will continue
|> : to be for billions more, unless they are used to make energy.
|> : Then they are only radioactive for a few tens or hundreds
|> : of years.
|> 
|> In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
|> the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
|> years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated than
|> you would think).  Therefore, I've often said to some of my environmentalist
|> friends that nuclear power is really cleaning up the planet on a long
|> term basis :-).
|> 
|> -- 
|> Kenneth Ng
|> Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
|> "No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG


This is incorrect.  For unreprocessed spent fuel, the toxicity does not fall below that of the original 
ore until approximately 3,000,000 years after discharge, according to the latest ICRP evaluations (ICRP-46).  
For a nuclear fuel cycle that includes reprocessing to extract the fissionable actinides, followed by 
"burning" of these elements in reactors, the toxicity curves for the ore and the reprocessing waste cross 
at about 20,000 years.  These values have increased significantly from the ICRP's previous assessments.


In any case, toxicity is a poor measure of the risks associated with nuclear waste.  It grossly overestimates 
the actual risks by assuming that the waste is totally dissolved in water, which is then consumed by someone.




References:

"Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste" _Annals of the ICRP_, 
International Commission on Radiological Protection, M.C. Thorne, ed, 1985.

"Managing the Nation's Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste", Office of Technology Asessment, OTA-O-171, 
March, 1985.

Pigford, T.H., Effect of Actinide Burning on Risk from High-level Waste", Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., v63, p80, 
June, 1991.
Ramspott et al., 1992, "Impacts of new Developments in Partitioning and Transmutation on the Disposal of 
High-level Nuclear Waste in a Mined Geologic Repository", UCRL-ID-109203, Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, Livermore, CA.


-- 
Henry Shaw, Earth Sciences Dept., LLNL |    All opinions are my own.
Internet: shaw4@llnl.gov               |  
CIS: 76347,2523                        |
Fidonet: Henry Shaw at 1:161/55        |
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:41:02 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Jul27.101707.2485@cco.caltech.edu>, Carl Lydick writes:

>> But, suppose whales were highly intelligent creatures: what would you have 
>> them do?  Invent nuclear weapons?

> Avoiding the tuna fleet would suffice.

Or beaching themselves as a form of non-violent protest would do, also.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 08:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.235844.24525@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe) writes:
>
>Of course, we surely all agree that door-to-door personal transport
>is hard to beat for convenience and comfort.
>

Easy to beat in time though if you can use underground routes
that are more direct and don't have to battle traffic.







Xref: sparky sci.environment:10223 sci.physics:11898
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:41:45 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <22060@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>In article ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:
:
::Sure they are not pure subsidies, but on the other hand fuel taxes are not
::pure use taxes. I spend a very small amount of time driving on interstates,
::so a very small percentage of the federal gas tax I pay can be considered
::a use tax ... the rest is pure subsidy ...
:
:	The taxes are also used for local roads and intra-city
:freeways ... not just interstates.  The use taxes are a very good
:approximation to a fair use tax.  Those who don't drive as a rule
:don't pay.  Those who do drive do pay.  If you used only private roads
:you would have a gripe.

	But as I showed, our nation's roads are about 38% subsidized,
so in effect, non-drivers are subsidizing drivers, infrequent drivers
are subsidizing frequent ones, and (due to which vehicles cause the
most road damage) car drivers subsidize truckers. Are these subsidies
really worth it?

::About social engineering ... if I remember correctly some rubber company
::(Goodyear?) did a little social engineering in L.A. helping along the
::demise of mass transit down there.

	That's right, and that happened in several other places, such
as the Bay Area. There was once the Key System light-rail line across
the Bay Bridge, but it was dismantled in 1958. The recent BayLink
proposal for a light-rail line(s) that would go across the Bay Bridge
to Oakland, Berkeley, and other East Bay communities is in effect a
revival of the Key System. BART parallels some of the old Key System
routes -- only some of them, and the BayLink system (probably light
rail) will likely go were BART doesn't, like San Pablo Blvd.

:	The alternate press in LA tossed this into the dustbin a few
:years ago.  A study of timetables demonstrated the the Red-Line was
:much slower than autos over most of the same routes.  Station waiting
:time made it less convenient for the majority of users.  Timetable
:data confirmed that this was true before and after the "conspiracy"
:supposedly took place.

	When doing the car calculations, was it assumed that one had
now competition as one was traveling by car? It would be interesting
to compare the Red Line timetables to those one works out from
traveling in present-day LA's parking-lot freeways.

	And were schedules over the Red Line's history compared? I
would not be surprised if there was actually deterioration over that
time. The old trolleys could have been replaced with newer, faster
ones, and some subways built for really fast service. But instead of
building trolleys, GM built buses.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9875 sci.physics:11504 sci.energy:3587
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:26:07 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <STEINLY.92Jul23125752@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.145515.7912@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>
>   In article <STEINLY.92Jul22171433@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>   I have in front of me a graph of the U.S. that indicates that if we had
>   100% extraction of wind potential from a band of states in the center
>   of the U.S., we could supply 90% of current U.S. electricity demands.
>
>That is precisely what the numbers above show. I assumed a generous
>1000m height for extraction efficiency, and a 1000x1000mile strip,
>in practise you'd want longer, thin strips with spacing of order
>the turbulent mixing length. That is, extracting _all_ the wind energy
>from the lower atmosphere across the US would just about provide
>for the current grid demand! (Note wind energy is replenished on
>100,000s time scale).
>	I assert, and claim it is incumbent on the proponents to prove
>otherwise, that to extract all the wind energy across the mid US would
>cause a local climactic pertubation large compared to any projected
>greenhouse heating, and that to attempt to extract more than 10% would
>be suicidally foolish. That ignores the indirect impact such as land
>use, bird kill and distruption of migration patterns.
>
>   I have no idea what the climate effects would be.  Have there been any
>   effects at the wind farms in CA?
>
>You're talking a 3-4 order of magnitude change in scale! 

Thats a reasonable point.  Since the installation of these wind farms
will take plenty of time even if they are pushed, the effects could be
studied as bigger and bigger farms were installed.  Maybe the various
GCM's could be consulted.
>
>   >I'm puzzled, is the study for all uses or for domestic uses only?
>
>   Residential, commercial and industrial.
>
>Paul notes this a saving from _projected_ demand! Big difference,
>that way the numbers actually make sense...
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Some people think they're really clever			*
>*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9778 sci.energy:3531 sci.physics:11384
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less pollutin
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:23:59 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Jul21.221750.25209@wdl.loral.com> mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>In article <kR29NB8w164w@musubi.pubnet.com> ehenigin@musubi.pubnet.com (Edward Henigin) writes:
>>houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>>        While I acknowledge that I don't have all my facts in order, I would 
>>encourage people looking at the power versus pollution issue to take a looka 
>>at coal fired plants, which generally recieve little if know attention due 
>>to the hype surrounding reactor power plants.  The bottom line is how does 
>>the output of a power plant affect people and environment, and the pollution 
>>produced by a coal fired plant (radioactive and non radioactive) is large.

	Sorry pal,  but I didn't say this.  If this is an accidental misquote,
maybe somebody else said this,  then I think it's an honest mistake which
should be corrected.  I certainly ~hope~ it's an honest mistake.


-- 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:33:08 GMT

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?

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:49:35 GMT

In article <4xdmd6h@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>Cheaper is debatable.  Safer, surely not.  I'd like to see you justify
>your claim of "environmentally friendlier", whatever that means.
>

Mass transit may, or may not, be cheaper (it is for me but your mileage
may vary), but it is definately safer.  I was in a GM bus that was rear ended
by a compact.  The bus had stopped to let off some passengers.  There was a
barley detectable thump, and the confused passengers and I watched the driver
exit the vehicle, instead pulling into traffic.  People outside staring at 
the bus clued us in to what had happened.  The car had its right front crushed
in by a collision none of us felt.  10 tonne (metric) buses winn collisions
with almost any object not set firmly in concrete, they are driven by people
who have had rigorous training (the only license harder to get than a bus
drivers license is a schoolbus drivers' license [in ontario]).

"Environmentally friendlier", a bus can easily carry 40 people (and if I
were shorter, I might even say comfortably) a non-carpooling vehicle seats
one.  Compare one bus versus forty cars: unless they are all chevy sprints,
or worse, they use more materials to build, collectively burn more fuel than
the bus, and definitely take up more space if not recycled.  I do not know
if a bus lasts longer than a car or not.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:44:09 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <131129@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.045724.2488@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>|> 
>|> I seem to remember that there is indeed a fee paid by nuclear power plants
>|> to go toward decommissioning, can anyone confirm this?  Reprocessing or
>|> recycling of nuclear wastes is for the federal government only, by law.
>|> By the way, define "safe".  The present deposits of uranium, radium, and
>|> radon are hardly distributed in nature in 'safe' locations.
>|> 
>|> -- 
>|> Kenneth Ng
>|> Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
>|> "No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
>

>I know of no fee specifically levied to pay for decommissioning costs, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
>

Many utilities put aside some fund for decomissioning costs, but these funds
are not necessarily anywhere near sufficient. The first retired commericial
plant, the Yankee Rowe plant has just started the paperwork for
decomissioning and the estimated cost is already twice the value of the
set-aside fund.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9921 sci.physics:11546
From: daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel Bowen)
Subject: Re: Mass transit and politics (was Re: Is car pooling for real?)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:24:05 GMT

In <+1cmmlm@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Same here.  We've ridden Marta to Atlanta Stadium to watch baseball
>(but not so much since they've been winning.  Too crowded :-)
>The return busses stick around until the end of the game but the  train
>back to where we park quits at something 1:00 AM.  WE had to get up 
>before the game was over more than once in order to catch the last
>train.  so much for another idea.

Sounds like whoever runs this Marta thing needs their heads examined.
Obviously for something like a baseball game where there's going to be
thousands of people leaving at once, trains need to be ready to leave
after the game. It works for night football games here; the PTC put a
dozen trains on standby to run from the ground when there's a big match
on at the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground). Even for a smaller daytime
game, in the suburbs, you'll see a train on standby for the end of a
game, to run in addition to normal services back into the city.

The same goes for other special events.. horse racing and the Melbourne
show come to mind.. public transport authorities MUST be willing to bend
the rules and run special services when the demand exists. Moving a lot
of people, after all, is what public transit does best.


Daniel Bowen
-- 
Daniel Bowen, Monash University | I'd say it's an element of any post-
            Melbourne Australia | allegorical discussive climax of the
   daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | positionist stance. Either that or a
      TCWF: tcwf@gnu.ai.mit.edu | load of bollocks.                  [TCWF]
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.020800.8476@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.190947.5700@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     Another thing, the free-market people certainly did not come up with 
>>     insuring accounts in federally-insured institutions with the 'full
>>     faith of the US treasury'.
>
>True, but it was, unfortunately, in the name of the free market that an idiot
>decided to relax the regulatory constraints without tying insurability to the
>business practices of the S&Ls.

     Agreed, but reducing the insurance was one of the original
     proposals, objected to strenuously by the non-free market crowd.

                                    dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: fzimmerm@csd630a.erim.org (Fred Zimmerman)
Subject: Looking for Important Data Sets About Global Change
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: sci,world
Date: 22 Jul 92 11:45:37

Can the Net provide me with some guidance?  I'm trying to 
inventory data sets relating to global change that may be 
important to archive.  I'm especially interested in preserving 
unique datasets that aren't being archived but should be. In 
particular, I'm looking at three categories:

1.  U.S. and International Global Change Research Program data 
sets, generated by recent and planned research, especially 
those with a human dimensions or interdisciplinary focus.

2.  Global change relevant U.S. and international government-
generated data sets that have been inaccessible in the past and 
for which no current agency, mechanism, or mandate exists, 
for preservation and or public access.  This would include data 
from less developed countries and former Eastern Bloc 
countries.

3.  Data sets that focus on core parameters for understanding 
and modeling selected issues and change processes; this would 
include data sets that focus on one particular parameter, or 
that by virtue of being organized and accessible together in one 
location constitute a unique and primary data set or database.

I will summarize results to the net.

Frederick Zimmerman 
Data and Information Resources Team
Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM)
Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)
fzimmerm@erim.org
fax: (313) 764-8085 
phone: (313) 764-2237  

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9769 sci.physics:11374 sci.energy:3523