HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:56:35 GMT

In article <Brsryo.BxL@watserv1.waterloo.edu> rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:

>"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.

     Yours is a handwaving argument.  From the other side,  my car easily 
     seats 6, and the buses I see usually hold less than 6 in the summertime 
     while spitting out foul and noxious fumes.  Thus I can conclude
     that buses are not "environmentally friendly" (whatever that means).

     Of course, this points to the need for less handwaving on assumed
     benefits.  It could be that per actual passenger-mile the emissions
     from buses are greater (of course, then we must discuss which emissions
     are currently deemed most 'harmful').

                                  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: ehenigin@musubi.pubnet.com (Edward Henigin)
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 06:41:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: musubi.kR29NB8w164w
Organization: Studio Musubi, Honolulu HI

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

> 	Assuming that safe disposal is possible -- say,  we find a good
> standard for keeping the stuff confined,  and nobody ever slacks off and
> just figures he can grind up a fuel road and use it to pave the street
> with,  the cost of disposal must be added to the total cost of energy
> from nuclear sources,  as must the cost of extraction,  processing,
> decomissioning,  etc...  All the costs which are currently disassociated
> with the operation of a nuclear power plant.  I wouldn't be suprised if
> we find that nuclear power simply costs too much to do it right.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 

        Hi, I just wanted to jump in and make a small point.  I apologize 
for not having the numbers with me, possibly a more informed source can 
supply them
        The point I want to make is about radioactivity released in coal 
burning plants.  Coal is dug up from the ground, and the coal dug up is not 
pure.  It contains other elements (not a lot on a percentage basis) 
including radioactive elements.  I think Thorium is the prime radioactive 
element found in coal.  Coal fired plants burn *huge* amounts of coal every 
year, the numbers (as I recall) are staggering.  Thus, although there is 
only a small percentage of radioactive materials in coal, by volume, a large 
amount of radioactive substances gets released to the atmosphere from a coal 
fired plant.
        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.

ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Internet:  ehenigin@musubi.pubnet.com (Edward Henigin)
   Twisted Pair: +1 808 521 1355
      STUDIO MUSUBI - Home of Hawaii's Anime and Manga Enthusiasts.
          Honolulu, Hawaii's Free Public Access Internet/Usenet System
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:43:18 GMT


In article <1992Jul24.042149.5038@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
:In article <1992Jul23.004537.4803@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

	[muggings, murders, etc. on mass-transit systems...]

	But there are serious crimes associated specifically with cars:

	Car theft.

	And car-stereo theft.

:>	Furthermore, BART survived the Loma Prieta earthquake without
:>any serious damage, while there was some serious highway damage -- the
:>collapse of much of the West Oakland segment of I-880, the fall of one
:>of the spans of the Bay Bridge, and some damage to the Embarcadero
:>Freeway. Now which is more earthquake-safe?

:That's not proof. If BART lines passed through the same liquifcation
:zones, and if it was built during the same time period to the same
:codes, it might have been *less* safe than I-880 with even more deaths
:and injuries. Earthquake damage was not uniform throughout the Bay Area.

	In principle, roads and road bridges and tunnels can be built
as safe as BART's tunnels and aerial structures have proved to be,
BUT, what about a lot of the older bridges and tunnels that are NOT up
to present-day earthquake standards? It would need a heck of a lot of
money to upgrade many of the older bridges and tunnels. I have some
documents relating to the construction of BART's Transbay Tunnel, and
its designers had earthquake resistance as an important design factor.
It was built from a long string of cast-iron segments that were
lowered into a trench and filled with concrete. When the tunnel was
finished, some mud was poured back onto the tunnel segments, burying
it. The tunnel is currently protected from corrosion by an electric
current that inhibits the oxidation of the iron.

	[Discussion of bus (in)efficiency omitted]

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 08:04:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.171456.12988@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>On the other side, I think it should not be done. Instead, the city should
>take it's evolution to the logical conclusion and dispense with city centers
>completely. The revolutions in communications, manufacturing, distribution,
>and sales no longer require a central hub. Any attempt to impose one will 
>fail because the usage patterns have permanently changed. There is no longer 
>a need to attempt to cram everyone into a small central core every morning. 
>It's still being done to a large extent, but that's inertia from a previous 
>way of organizing commerce where face to face interaction was critical to
>commercial success. Urban areas should evolve toward the requirements of 
>the future instead to trying to emulate obsolete patterns of the past. The 
>downtown is a dinosaur that hasn't got the message that it is dead yet.
>

I much prefer the vibrant, social atmosphere of the pedestrian
oriented European cities (or some older N.American cities like Quebec
City) to the impersonal 6-lane downtown of most American cities
(including mine).

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10123 sci.psychology:3276
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:33:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul27.213339.4344
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <1992Jul27.092653.21363@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.070132.13837@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>>
>>I've been thinking more about the argument that whales lack a complex
>>social structure, and therefore lack higher intelligence.  A better criterion
>>than complexity, however, is quality: do some whale species have a social
>>structure more desirable than our own?  One that leads to a better life?  I
>>have only an interested layman's knowledge of whales, but my impression is that
>>the social activities of some whale species consists primarily of: playing,
>>eating and humping.  I can't imagine a better social structure, and I think
>>ours positively sucks in comparison.  A social structure like that is the
>>utopian ideal of which we all dream; we are truly inferior beings.  Many
>>of our "structures" which we think of as indicative of our superiority
>>become irrelevant when "complexity" is replaced by "quality" in the criteria
>>for being superior.  And doesn't that substition make sense?
>
>GACK! If playing, eating, and humping were all that there were to life,
>then I don't blame whales for beaching themselves. If that's all there
>were to my life, I'd suicide too. That's an animal existence with nothing
>worthwhile to accomplish, no way to make your mark on the world, leave it
>a better (or at least different) place. No thank you Lotus eater.

Fine, whatever turns you on.  But do you think "Lotus eaters" must be
of a lower order of intelligence and therefore without rights because
of their lifestyle?

-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10337 sci.energy:3817
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil.
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:22:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <JMC.92Jul30122015@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I wonder if the State of California program to use methanol fueled
>vehicles isn't just more lawyers' technology (perhaps politicians'
>technology is better in this case), a politically popular idea
>that won't cost too much if done on a small enough scale.

In a way I suppose it is.  It is being driven by the Smog Laws ...

L.A. is so far out of spec, and Ca. laws are scheduling such tight
requirments over such a short time span, that radical things MUST be done.

Take the Zero Emmisions Vehicles requirments for example.  Specific
numbers of ZEV's that each car manufacturer must sell to do any business
in the state ...

Lawyers Delight.  Politicians Dream.  I'd rail against it, if it 
wasn't promoting the cleaner air that I'd rather breath and the 
alternative fuel vehicles that I'd like to play with ...

So methanol is coming in as a way to cut smog, no matter the cost
today, in preparation for a cleaner tomorrow  ... The State is 
spending the money to set up the basic government market in the 
expectation that this will build enough infrastructure for the
average fleet owner and/or private citizen to feel comfortable
buying a flex fuel vehicle.

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:35:36 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Jul24100456@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
:After discussing how public transit decays when cities spread out
:Paul Barter includes:

:     It is easy to see the past choices and the effect they had
:     on US cities versus different choices on European cities.
:     The next question might be how can a US style city try to
:     regain some of the qualities of transit based cities?  Not
:     easy..but I think it has to be done.

:I don't see that it has to be done.  Would Paul Barter consider
:the following experiment?

:Let a new modern, what he calls European style city be built and let a
:modern spread out city be built at similar expense.  Let them be only
:100 miles apart.  See which people move to.

	Already, the people of LA are performing this experiment by
building up rail transit systems. I've met people who are seriously
surprised that LA does not already have an efficient mass-transit
system like BART.

:The experiment is unlikely to be performed in its pure form.  However,
:there are indications.  The population of New York declines, and the
:population of Los Angeles and Houston increase.  Maybe people don't
:have the same relative preferences as most intellectuals think they ought
:to.

	Are you seriously suggesting that people move to Houston and
LA just so they can drive their cars around?

	One of the difficulties with LA and other such places is that
growth in the mass-transit infrastructure has not kept up with the
increasing population, and LA's subway, light-rail, and commuter-train
lines are simply an effort to catch up.

	However, New York City or Philadelphia or Boston are not
likely to become ghost towns any time soon.

	NYC and others already _have_ a lot of transit infrastructure,
much of it built over half a century ago. And once a subway tunnel is
built, it's built. So even if the NYC area is not exactly where the
action is, don't fault it for having an extensive mass-transit
infrastructure.

	John McCarthy, would you advocate every major city in the
world shutting down, yes, SHUTTING DOWN, _all_ mass-transit systems:

	No more buses, no more trolleys, no more subways, no more
commuter trains.

	Yes, cars only, since you seem to believe them the only
legitimate and civilized means of passenger transport.

	Would many of the cities of the world be very livable?

:Well, maybe everything is in order.  New York is still a powerful magnet
:for intellectuals, and other people move to Los Angeles and other
:spread out cities.  Perhaps we're better off with not just one kind
:of city.

	John McCarthy, why are you indulging in this shameful
anti-intellectual bigotry? Especially as you are supposedly someone
well educated.
From: Claire Gilbert <cgilbert@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 20 Jul 92 21:00 PDT
Subject: Happy Birthday to Blazing Tattles!
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601726:000:1309
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cgilbert    Jul 20 21:00:00 1992


                      Material herein from
         _Blazing Tattles_, Vol. 1, Issue 12, July 1992.
                 Published by Claire W. Gilbert

               HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO BLAZING TATTLES!

     In July of last year, the first issue of Blazing Tattles was
published, featuring a long essay on the media overage of the Gulf
War and the governmental cover up of data.  The next issue was
published in September, after which BT has put out monthly issues
and one special edition for the World Women's Congress for a
Healthy Planet, when it met in Miami, Florida.  When the fires were
officially extinguished, we decided to continue publishing until
the whole oilfire story is told and the environmental consequences
are well understood -- or until we go broke.
     Much to the surprise of the publisher, BT has developed a
following and a "name" though the distribution in hard copy is very
limited.
     The publisher is still traveling around North America, and
expects to "land" around the first of October, at which time she
will evaluate the future of BT.  Should it expand and cover other
topics?  Become a full length book?  Become a commercial
enterprise?  Any constructive input from readers is welcome.  In
the meantime, we conclude the first volume with Issue 12.
     --Claire W. Gilbert
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Forests Increasing
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:22:37 GMT
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center


In <1992Jul26.155021.5760@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:

> 
> Take a walk in a cornfield sometime.  Then take a walk in 
> one of our "National Forests".  The only difference is you 
> might get sunburn in the cornfield.  They are equally devoid 
> of biodiversity.

I happened to have been in a National Forest within the last two
weeks: Coronado National forest in Arizona.  I didn't notice any
particular lack of biodiversity; in fact, I've read that the Sonoran
Desert is noted for it's biodiversity, and a large chunk of it is
National Forest.  What you say may be true of some National Forests,
but not all.

In any event, if we're narrowly worrying about getting carbon dioxide
out of the atmosphere, I'd guess that monoculture might be the way to
go, something that grows quickly and "fixes" as much carbon as
possible.

> 
> arf
> 

--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:11:55 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Jul27.145214.23048@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	I think that the name was the _National_ City Lines. The
>GM-led consortium included Firestone Tire and Mack Truck. Firestone
>Tire's excuse is rather obvious :-),

Really?  I note that the nearest railroad grade crossing to where I live has the
Firestone name and logo stamped into a number of the metal parts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10354 sci.physics:12092
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:42:58 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul31.050115.7395@unixg.ubc.ca> moore@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Brian Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.001125.9798@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.223430.6269@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

:::	And if one drives, one's time is occupied controlling the car,
:::while if one travels by public transit, or is driven by someone else,
:::one is free to do other things. Is _that_ ever figured?
::
::I can tell you aren't a veteran auto commuter. We eat breakfast, shave,
::drink coffee, talk on the phone, sing along with the radio (real loud), 
::...
:
:Which brings up another pet peeve of mine.  As someone who has been
:forced to take public transit for several years (5 years of grad. 
:school in L.A. and now a post-doc in Vancouver), this idea of the
:bus being less stressful than the car is a myth.  Just try taking
:the bus during (or even close to) rush hour in the city.  The
:majority of the time you'll have to stand, usually in a crowd.  
:Definitely *not* a stress-free experience, especially if you have
:some place where you're supposed to be at a certain time.  Every
:once in a great while it is the enjoyable experience where you
:can sit back and read a book.  But that is the exception not the
:norm.

	I will concede that a lot of city buses are not very pleasant
places to read in. But a lot of rail transit systems have a much more
comfortable ride. I usually do a lot more reading aboard BART
(whenever I'm not intently staring out the windows :-) than aboard
most of the local buses.
From: utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Cars vs. Bikes (Was: Why electric cars?) and carpooling stuff.
Date: 29 Jul 1992 11:21:59 GMT
Organization: Processed People for a Processed America
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

A comment on all of this carpooling stuff, and commuting via bicycle.

o Many people seem to have the impression that they have a "right" to
drive a car.  Not so, in California anyway, strange to some of you as
this may seem.... The licence to drive is a *privelege*, NOT a *right*.
Check your DMV handbook.  This is why the state can pull your licence.

David Utidjian

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10351 sci.physics:12090
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:14:52 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul31.001125.9798@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.223430.6269@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

::	And if one drives, one's time is occupied controlling the car,
::while if one travels by public transit, or is driven by someone else,
::one is free to do other things. Is _that_ ever figured?

:I can tell you aren't a veteran auto commuter. We eat breakfast, shave,
:drink coffee, talk on the phone, sing along with the radio (real loud), 
:and think about what we're going to do during the day. Driving to a veteran
:is a purely automatic process. I often notice after the fact that I've
:slowed or stopped, or changed lanes, or even gotten off at my exit. The
:subconscious has been doing the work while my conscious mind is focused
:on other things. About the only thing you can't do safely in a car is
:read the paper, though I've seen commuters doing that too. 

	Sounds like a real mess :-)

	And a dangerous one.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Reliability of BART (was: Cost of public vs. private transportation)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:04:25 GMT

In article <JYM.92Jul28184807@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
:[Note that since this has nothing to do with physics or science,
:I've set followups to talk.environment.]

:: He said that he often takes BART, but he wanted me to be sure
:: to be on time, so I had better drive.

:=o= I can't imagine what could have been going on in his mind.
:BART does a very good job of keeping on schedule.  In contrast,
:a typical Bay Area rush "hour" goes on for half the afternoon
:and half the evening, *especially* if you go through S.F.  And 
:it's especially bad at the several places each day where there's
:an accident.

	As a happy BART rider, I certainly agree with that assessment.

	Still waiting for a BART line to be built out to Livermore.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:04:26 GMT

I think you are partially on the right track.  It IS the special mental capacity
human beings have that gives rise to our having rights, but to complete the
concept you nned to have a theory of what rights are and why the concept arises.
You also have to have a theory of morality on which to base your theory.  Without
one, it isn't possible to demonstrate that one ought to abide by rights (for example,
if you have adopted a religious morality and God says that one ought to ignore
rights, it really doesn't matter what your theory of rights is, does it?).

My own perspective is that the proper ethical system is one of rational
self-interest, and that rights arise from the need to be free from interference
in a social context.  The point is that using force and fraud in social relationships
is not in one's rational self-interest (for reasons which ought to be obvious).
Now, does that apply to animals?  Are they members of social arrangements?  Can they
make moral evaluations?  Will they retaliate if they are not treated well?  Can
one be protected from this?  Are they of more value to oneself left free or kept 
enslaved? (Free men make scientific discoveries, produce goods, etc.  Slaves do not
do as well).  Animals fail at all of these, therefore their relative intelligence
is not important.

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.environment