HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Wolf Kill Alaska/Natures Way?+
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:07:39 GMT

Here here Grey (sherwi@ocf.berkeley.du) good points made..

At what point do we go from helping animals to actually hindering them or
causeing the damage that we say we are preventing, but in fact actually doing
more harm.. A animal hurt in a natural way, has the right to die, as its
ancestors or kin have done for ages past. Do we as humans really have the
knowledge and brain power to play GOD? To reall yunderstand his/her/its/God's
wishes and plan? I live here in Alaska and I have friends who are
environemtalist, bilogist, fish and game, hunters, headers and such.
Do we have the right to stop what nature has already planned? Maybe we should
let the wolfs live and die later in the year (or now) becuase there is no moose
to kill or eat, and everything else that a wolf will or could eat is eaten and
the wolves die in droves.. MAybe that problem has been caused not by nature,
but maybe by human intervention. I know the food chain well, when Im faced by a
1000 pound brown bear who is hungry, Im part of it.
OR when a herder freinds reindeer are killed by wolf packs, and his life
is threatened, it gets real close to home. Seems that many (personnel opinion,
not necessarily the facts) well meaning people live in suburbia or the cities
and don't understand about nature and its ways.. NAture works, maybe we should
let it figure its own way out, no matter what the "poor bambi" shot are on the
news.. I know I have left myself open for alot of criticism, but I hoep I have
made someone think, including myself..

By the way I don't hunt, I have a job (well income) so I don't need to hunt.
Some people still do..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Nome, Alaska. Im not an Eskimo, I'm a crzy Gusik.
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet!
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:26:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec25.132653.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Question in many places Public Transit is not needed or just to expensive.. I
live in Nome, AK. Atleast a Public Transit (Bus) like Anchorage, AK. You had
migth as well walk.. Question why must it be "Public Transport" why not be a
private company that earns its bread by doing the transport, if they do it for
the money they would have the insentive to be on time.. 

It would be nice if more people had the idea that you can do many of your work
at home and not have to do it at work.. Why commute to work when you can
fax/phone/or mail in your work.. Maybe with the future of technology we can
seem to be at work when we are not..

I do like it when I can get on my four-wheeler and go.. ITs cheaper than a
car.. its 1.95 for gas here, we have to ship it in by barge in the summer and
fly it in (as hazardous material and that is expensive) during the winter. Not
sure how espensive it is for heating oil.. It would be nice to be able to get
our power from solar, or wind, but its not to be fore now..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Nome, AK.. Living near the edge of the world.. Next door is Siberia..
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:03:30 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Dec23.163445.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>Wrong bud, the lands of Alaska belong to the citizens of Alaska, which I just
>happen to be a member.. Only reason why you all the FED own any land here is

Not legally. The land is held by the US government in trust for the
population of the entire United States. I see no advantage for us in 
just making a gift of the land to you.

>because you have the might to make right.. I do not want a hand out. I would
>not mind some land to make my place like my ancestors did, and the right to do
>with that land what I wish to do with i, with out having to worry about some
>Eco-Freak having a say in what I do with it.. Basically what is coming down to

Unfortunately for you, the supply of land has dimished and the demand has
increased. I'd like some land too, but I don't believe that the other
citizens of the US have an obligation to give me acreage. Like I said,
if you are down and out, go to the welfare office. 

>the argument, is does the land we own in the US/States belong to the owner or
>are we borrowing it from our Land Lord the FED in a semi-feudal relationship.
>Are we nothing but vassals of the FED. It is getting harder to do anything with
>the land that we own, with more paper work necessary to do anything.. In part
>what I am trying to say in my original message is if you all in Mass (sp) want
>a park, then condemn your own land and make it so.. Turn Wall Street and the

We have. The alaskan parks are our land. There's plenty of private land in 
Alaska, why don't you park yourself on some of that?


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14173 sci.energy:6541
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:36:33 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Dec31.165855.22315@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>
>>I'll let others take shots at the rest of the "study".  I've seen enough
>>in just this little chunk to discredit it.
>
>Most of these figures were taken from the literature of organizations
>promoting nuclear power and match the best history from France.  The
>only exception is the 65% figure.  I am not sure what its source is
>but increasing it to %80 or %90 will not change capital costs at all
>nor will it drastically change operational costs.

It will reduce the number of plants you need.  If you need 10GW you must build
at least 15 1GW plants, if the availability is 65%, but only 12, if it's just
over 80%.

Total operating costs also decrease since a plant probably has costs that go on
even when it is not running.

-dk
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13791 ca.environment:1117 ba.transportation:2882
From: rovero@skye.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:34:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <72137@cup.portal.com> gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler) writes:
>I'l add my $0.02 worth on this one.
>
>If we were to charge the full economic cost to ALL items used, mined,
>manufactured, etc. we wouldn't be in the present condition at all.
>
>Not just autos, everything is to some degree paid for at costs far 
>below their tru economic cost if you factor in the environmental cost/
>damage.  
>

Agreed.  Don't forget to include things such as CITIES, which rarely exist
execpt as sinks or transit points for raw materials extracted from 
surrounding areas at LESS than full economic costs.  

Of course, if the full costs were paid up front, most city residents would
bail out.  Now they just demand increased subsidies from the government...

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 05:00:18 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <svtrpg@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com writes:

 > I see the debate to be quite similar to that on abortion.  There is really
 > no middle ground and no room for compromise amongst the combatents.  Our 
 > leaders, presumably wiser than the public opinion under the Constitution, will
 > ultimately make a decision that will please some and piss off others.

You might try at deriving a few statistics from social survey method
for yourself. It is reasonable to anticipate that around 95% of the
population will lie within two standard deviations of your compromise,
and 68% within one standard deviation.

If I were a politician even getting 50% of the primary vote regularly
would ensure my lifelong political career as an outstanding leader and
statesman.

Yes, I agree, all this hysterical propaganda and religious fervour
depending on the emotional shock value of misinformation is doing us
no favour whatever. We have very significant economic developments
here in our country as well, waiting for the *fog* to clear.

Gil
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Development policies
Date: 27 Dec 92 03:05:07 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Dec26.181149.15707@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>The World Bank is fundamentally statist in that it only deals with
>>>states. And it is collectivist in the sense of Karl Marx's taking
>>>from those who can produce and giving to those who cannot, or will
>>>not. Though Robin Hood was more honest than Marx in stating his
>>>intentions.

>are *implemented* to do so. Re-reading "Animal Farm" every few years
>should be required of political theorists on the left.

Could you tell us specifically which "leftist theorists" you have in mind?
As far as I know, most "leftist" theorists tend to take a very dim view of
the world bank. And you have Marx backwards. He argued that it was
capitalism which took from those who produce in favor of those who own.
Read the Communist Manifesto some time. Or, if you like Orwell, try reading
"Homage to Catalonia". 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: objective environment? (was Save the Planet)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 23:50:18 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <725959723snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>unlike zoology for example where they appear quite free to simply call a pig
>a porcine specimen and throw it in a box with other porcine species.
>
>They only really run into strife when they discover such creatures as
>the platypus and the echinda, but all they did there was to throw them
>both in the same box together as *monotremes*, despite the fact that
>one is a aquatic browser with a duck-like bill while the other is a
>terrestrial ant eater with a snout and long tongue.

You don't seem to appreciate that biologists use not one type of "box"
(category) but a number of categories applied hierarchically.  Traditional
levels of the hierarchy, in decreasing order of diversity, are: kingdom,
phylum, class, order, family genus and species.

It is not surprising the order Monotremata contains the Platypus and the
Echidnas.  An order is a high level category.  They are however, placed in
separate families.  Even the two Echidna species are placed in separate genera.

How do you suggest biologists deal with the million of species on the planet
without placing them in categories?  Why do you make assertions about complex
subjects of which you apparently know very little?

Andrew Taylor
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:12:29 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Dec21.041755.4485@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
> 
>      Believe it or not, there is a simple way to save our economy,
> restore social equity, and save the planet, with one act!

Who was who said that for every problem there is a solution that is
simple... obvious... and *wrong*?

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Externalities (ws Re: Save the Planet and the Economy...)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 02:14:38 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: na
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

((I just changed the subject line since this thread seems to be following
  several diverse directions))

In article <72137@cup.portal.com>, gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler) writes:
|> I'l add my $0.02 worth on this one.
|> 
|> If we were to charge the full economic cost to ALL items used, mined,
|> manufactured, etc. we wouldn't be in the present condition at all.
|> 
|> <<examples deleted>>
|> 
|> Bottom line here..... If we want to curb the destruction of this planet
|>                       caused by us, we have to incur the true cost of an
|> 		      item, including the full environmental cost.
|> <<more text deleted>>

Charging for externalities is certainly a good idea, would help,
and in the long run necessary, but it would be a mistake to think
that that is sufficient, and in any case a long time off.
Thus, we need a diverse set of policy mechanisms _including_
charging for externalities, but not limited to that.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13923 talk.environment:5259
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 28 Dec 1992 18:28:21 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec21.225740.20062@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
>You are right. I admitt error. However, I still have a problem with the
>large build up of waste. Until there is a working solution to this
>problem we should consider an alternative, and I don't mean the burning of
>fossil fuels.

Well, fine.  Then do us a favor and die.  After all, that will reduce *YOUR*
use of resources.

>I also made reference to Chernobyl and was then asked to keep my
>references to the U.S. on the grounds of:
>"The reason for limiting the search to the U.S., or any other Western Country,
>is not underhanded.  Chernobyl was due more to the failing of an incompetent
>and illegitimate system than the failure of Nuclear Power.  The (now defunct)
>U.S.S.R. was rife with similar examples of irresponsibilit and the system
>succumbed, inevitably, to its failings".
>
>What do you think about this?

The management of the plant at Chernobyl was deliberately running the reactor
well outside of specifications.  There was no clear benefit to be gained by
running the reactor in that way.  The basic design of the reactor made running
it in that fashion intrinsically dangerous, a fact known to the management at
the time.

Perhaps you could favor us with a realistic scenario as to how the same sort of
thing might happen in a commercial reactor in the United States?

Please don't forget to include the vastly different reactor designs in your
scenario.

Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 05:41:06 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>In article <51736@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>>Why not take a chunk of vessel to a lab and see exactly what annealing
>>treatment will restore ductility?  Then simply design new reactors with
>>an installed annealing system - annealing could be performed as part of
>>regular maintainance every few years.

>This would not affect the projected lifespan of current reactors, and
>might not provide an accurate indication of how weld points or different
>topologies  or larger chunks of metal will behave in situ.

Hi Rich.  I don't think I've seen you in these threads before so 
I thought I'd warn you that debating with Yackadamn is like yelling
at the wall.  He's a classic armchair critic who gets all his energy
information from the Union of Concerned Scientists Book of the Month
Club.  Us regulars over in sci.energy regard him as a sparring partner
who aids in keeping our debating skills sharp.  You'll also note another
of his tricks and that is when the heat gets too high, he'll redirect
followups away to some more friendly group and away from the experts.
So it goes here.  I've pointed it back to sci.energy where it belongs.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Personnel Response versus Fed Response.
Date: 28 Dec 1992 19:13:58 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec24.210446.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>Question is if the US does the 100 year plan thing. I posted that same idea on
>another subgroup (but for cyberpunk). Question is in what direction will it all
>go? And how fast will it be able to change if info comes about that was not
>available in the begininng.

Well, that *IS* a major problem.  And the federal goverment hasn't shown much
of an ability to be adaptable.  Take, for example, NASA, where your typical
spacecraft these days is obsolete by over half a decade before it's even
launched.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: From radical to common sense (Was: ...paving moratorium)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:09:57

What's that whining sound I hear?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NYT article on Japanese breeder
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:15:02 GMT

len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:

|We all filter things through our preconceptions, including John
|McCarthy.   I read exactly the same article but did not see any
|of what he claims.   I think the article reports objectively on difficulties
|the Japanese have been having with their breeder reactor program. 
|However, you shouldn't accept anyone's claims in this newsgroup
|since you can read the article yourself.  

Sorry, but I don't have access to the NYT here in the northern Alberta
bush, so I do appreciate two views of what the article said.  But having
calibrated John McCarthy's postings, guess which view I assume as
valid?
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace+
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:48:15 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec30061125@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> Not just any wood for David Hinz's stove - old growth hardwood no less.
> 
> Split atoms, not wood.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 
After all it is HIS land (or so he mentioned).. Would you have him have some
kind of reforestation program and make him pay for it??

But burning something other than Old Stand Hardwood would be nicer, but that is
the problem with things.. To get less pollution, you burn hardwood, which is
harder to replace. So you burn less hardwood, and you get highter cots and more
pollution.. Catch 22 aint it.. God help you if you burn coal or fuel oil..
(yes Im trying to correct my spelling errors).

Factors, COST, TIME, POLLUTION and what else??
Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
I know here in Nome we once had some forests but not anymore they were all cut
down for fuel and timber c.1900 for the miners..
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 12:16:33 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Dec29001443@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > At the end of World War II, Japan lost all its Asian possessions,
 > and subsequently pursued a policy of industrial and commercial
 > excellence, which turned out to be successful.  The policy included
 > a continued political and military dependence on the U.S.  It will
 > take some fancy footwork to regard this as just a continuation of
 > the previous imperial plan.

You are yet ignoring the traditional social structure of Japan, John,
which of course does not reveal *a plan*, but plans within plans
within social norms and cultural dynamics carried on for generation
after generation, which brings so many workers to give such loyalty
to their company over the whole of their lives which simply cannot be
matched by Americans. The issue here is concerned with how Japanese
excellence manages to so consistently undercut US excellence, *not*
with how Japan manages a greater economic growth than Zimbabwe.

 > Perhaps the Japanese plan consists of advancing the interests of the
 > country using whatever means seems appropriate at the time.  If that's
 > it, then every country has the same plan.

I should hope that by now every country should have much the same
plan in order to survive at all, but the issue remains on the extent
to which that plan has infiltrated the masses and tuned the engine to
run for centuries, not merely the next 5 or 10 years.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: xslkkk@oryx.com (kenneth k konvicka)
Subject: Re: toxic spill remediation
Organization: Oryx Energy, Dallas, Texas.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:02:45 GMT

Soak some filter paper in weak palladium(ous) chloride.  Let dry.  Throw the 
filter paper where you suspect Hg.  Any Hg present will darken the 
yellow color of the Pd chloride on the paper.  Compare with uncontaminated
paper.  Said to be quantitative, but I've never confirmed.
P.S. Avoid exposure to the palladium salt (kids/pets).