HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:01:34 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul27.163959.2414@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> orf@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Leigh Orf) writes:
|In article <1992Jul25.210755.21103@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick
|Szabo) writes:
| 
|>We already know that there are _benefits_ of CO2 itself, such as the 
|>fertilization effect which increases the productivity of agriculture 
|>and most ecosystems.
|
|Increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase agricultural productivity? Hmmm. I
|would be interested in reading documentation about this. I have always been
|under the impression that most plants are very efficient CO2 engines, and
|that, unlike phosphorus, CO2 is not a biolimiting compound.

True, but other, related, factors often are biolimiting.

For instance, there is a very large amount of land near the Arctic Circle
(All of Alaska, Northwest Territories, the northern parts of Saskatchewan,
and Alberta, and most of Siberia - many millions of square miles).
With any significant warming these frigid lands become part of the
wheat belt.  Voila, at least a doubling of available wheat acerage.
(Think - Siberia as fertile as Kansas! - that's lots of wheat)

And I think the original poster had other effects yet in mind.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: ae277@yfn.ysu.edu (Stewart Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: How water pollutes
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:00:06 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Originator: news@news


In response to my mention of what the trade calls "resource and
environmental impact studies", Bruce Nordman (B_Nordman@lbl.gov)
states:
 
"The tradeoff issue is a very real one, but Product Life-Cycle Analysis
studies, such as the ones of diapers (as by ADL) are not very
useful in discussing the issues.  Many important issues, such as
variations of all kinds, and choices among alternative methods of
doing things, are nearly always left out of these studies.
Among the results of this are that erroneous conclusions are
drawn (by authors and readers), and many good methods of improving
our systems are ignored (and not quantified)."
 
Since I was what you might call the sponsor's project officer on several
such studies in the 70's, I am well aware of their limitations. Of 
particular difficulty is the need to quantify accurately the impacts 
of the many steps from growing the cotton or harvesting the trees
or extracting the natural gas for plastics manufacture through
final disposal as solid or liquid waste, and the opportunity for bias 
in the assumptions that are made. We also had a concern because
the contractors wanted to be "independent" and refused to use our 
consumer habits and practices data, preferring to use less accurate 
but "public" data. Even knowing the average composition of a cloth
or disposable diaper requires brand and size share data available
only to the manufacturers.
 
 In any case, the objective must be a comparison
of _current practices_, not of theoretical possibilities.
 
We and the contractors recognized that products and practices vary, and
as a consequence they made every attempt to incorporate the best 
"average" they could find: for example, that mothers average 9 cloth 
diapers (because of double and triple diapering) but average 6 or
fewer disposables (over the average 30-month diapering life of a child).
This is just one example of the detail that must be addressed. I
have been annoyed that most sponsors of studies of this type have 
been unwilling to publish the full reports. Readers could see
how much work went into them but then, opponents would search for
nits to pick. ("_I_ don't change the baby that often").
 
Of course one can always say that improvements in a system are possible,
and in fact active competition makes such improvements a necessity. 
It is not always clear that laymen outside the industry are qualified to
say what improvements are technically feasible or acceptable to
consumers. In the instant case, the best improvement is to 
have fewer children!
 
 -Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:13:19 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

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.

>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.

	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.

	That story is as hard to kill as the one that claims the word
`gaudy' came from the architect Antoni Gaudi.  I just heard that one
again on the Olympics coverage yesterday.
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9963 sci.physics:11591 sci.energy:3652
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Nuclear Waste.  Was (Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:43:01 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <#bcm43a@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>
>>In article <dbbm4xl@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>#I'm honored.  But I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the non-zero
>>#impact of nuclear power is.
>
>>Spent fuel casings for example.

>Could you be referring to the zirconium fuel cladding?  I'm trying to figure
>out what effect a rather inert metal would have on the environment.

Try the impact of diggin up the ore, refining it, fabricating it,
transporting it, reclaiming it from spent fuel rods, dumping or recycling it.
EVERYTHING has a non-zero impact... just not a significant one ...

>Zirconium is harmless and does not become radioactive so after the
>fuel is removed and the tramp contamination removed from the 
>surface, it is just, well, .. metal.  Perhaps you're referring to 
>the spent fuel itself.  We work this one out periodically in this
>group.
{... if you want ...}
>I'll mail you the whole archive.  Since you've stepped 
>in way over your head and are simply attempting to save face through 
>arm waving, I'm going to spare the rest of the net a repeat.

A short synopsis:  Nuclear waste CAN be delt with in a safe and effective
way that results in a burried waste pit no more risky than the original
ore in a time scale shorter than 400 years (i.e. within the length of 
the typical societies governmental structures).

The down sides:  It ISN'T being done that way today.  It doesn't have
a ZERO impact, just a rather low one with acceptable risk levels.

BTW, John, before you sharpen your knives too much realize that 
there was a magnitude 5.x ish quake within a few miles (12? 24?) of
Yucca (where they want to put the waste pile).  This was way outside
the limits set for the site.  It was also FAR larger and far closer
than any quake that the experts felt was likely for that site....

While I don't think it matters a hoot to long term safety of the 
waste, I do think it continues to point out the need for fuel
reprocessing first and/or a waste disposal strategy that allows
for inspection and retrieval of the stored waste...  That is, put
it in well engineered concrete vaults in granite rather than tin cans
in a salt mine with walls that ooze ...  It also is yet another
black eye for "Trust me, I'm an expert"...

-- 

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: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Careers in environmental science--Science magazine
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:20:30 GMT
Reply-To: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Followup-To: sci.environment
Distribution: sci
Organization: Boston University

In article <JMC.92Jul27172533@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <92048@bu.edu> jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:
>
>   Since this worked well for me, my colleague will try a posting....
>
>   attenion environmental scientists
>
>   My name is Richard Stone and I'm a staffwriter at Science Magazine. The 
>   reason I'm hailing you is to ask for help with an article on careers in
>   environmental careers. But I'm hung on a few minor details:
>   Thanks for the help and feel free to circulate this among your colleagues
>
>Ah, a staff writer for _Science_.  Just what we need to settle some
>arguments.  What are the criteria at _Science_ for staff writers putting
>their own opinions in the non-refereed parts of the magazine?
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

Since I'm the one with net access, and also a staff writer, I'll reply to
that difficult and provocative question. personally, I try to go into
any story with no preconceived notions. However, the idea of objective
journalism is difficult to achieve especially in science-related
matters b/c you can find -someone_ to argue every side. Stories
of he said, she said, but so and so said are invariably boring
and do little to convey the general consensus within a field. So...
by the end oa story I have to interpret my research and  present fairly
the results.  Almost by definition that interpretation will be the
"opinion" I formed during the research. Therefore I guess opinion permeates
my stories. BUT I hopefully do not use my articles to argue for a
viewpoint. 

If this random string of word helps, I'm glad. It's late, I'm swamped
with five stories to do, and I'm lost with out my editor :)

Last word: Fair interpretation of the news is my goal...usually :)

john travis
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:52:14 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul25.235844.24525@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe) writes:
:
: ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter)writes:
: 
:"USAnian cities have generally chosen to cater to demand for facilities
:for automobiles and have progressively built more and more freeways,
:parking etc.  This was done in the name of free choice and consumer
:sovereignty.  Unfortunately it has ultimately led to cities in which
:the basic choice in transport is to drive a car or to stay put!"
: 
:It was not entirely un-directed. Shortly after the end of World War II,
:General Motors Co. and one of the major rubber tire manufacturers
:formed a joint company called American City Lines. This company proceeded
: to buy control of street railways in cities throughout the country, 
:to 'run them into the ground' with no maintenance, to tear up and sell
:the rails (quite profitable), and where profitable routes could be
:maintained, to convert the lines to rubber-tired, General Motors-
:manufactured busses. Subsequently, most of these lines were taken
:over by the city governments under the treat from American City Lines
:to close them down.

	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 :-), most rail vehicles run on steel
wheels without rubber tires. However, there is less excuse for GM and
Mack Truck, which could have gotten into the trolley business without
too much trouble.
From: tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:55:44 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul24150518@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

|> I spent Fall 1991 at Harvard living in Brookline.  For a long time,
|> Harvard bureaucrats wouldn't let me buy $4 per day parking stickers
|> for a convenient lot.  For most of this time I took a bus.  Not
|> bad as buses go.  I had to walk to Cleveland Circle from where I
|> lived and walk from Harvard Square to the Aiken Center.  The
|> alternative was commercial parking at $12 per day which wasn't
|> always available or parking in Somerville which wasn't always
|> available.  When Harvard relented and sold me the parking stickers,
|> I switched entirely to driving.
|> 
|> --
|> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|> *
|> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
|> 

Interesting, the free market values the parking at $12 while Harvard
charges $4 per day. Seems to me like they are subsidising the parking
by 67%. Why don't I hear any cries of outrage that this is wrong? 
Could it be that YOU profit from this subsidy?

-- 
"Goood planets are hard to find."    Thomas Palm
				     Department of Microwave Engineering
				     Royal Institute of Technology
				     S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
				     tpalm@mvt.kth.se
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: How water pollutes
Keywords: disposable products
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:55:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <baljeual.711406042@uther> baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu) writes:

>If I leave the shower running for the next five days, I have water coming
>from a pipe and returning to a pipe unchanged.  Where is the pollution?

The waterworks for a start.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel Bowen)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:59:50 GMT

In <4xdmd6h@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Let's see.  you travel a minimum of 25 minutes, I travel seldom more than
>15 minutes and you still claim that my statement that my travel time is
>less is false?  Amazing.

I really don't know how you can compare your travel time to mine, when
we're talking about different distances, to different destinations, in
different cities, and under different conditions.

What I am saying is that in this city, it is often quicker to travel by
train into the city centre than it is to drive. As well as cheaper, no
hassles parking etc..

>>Parking in the city of Melbourne is not easy. A friend's husband once
>>spent over 40 minutes looking for a place to park one evening. I presume
>>he didn't want to have to go to a paid parking spot. Anyway, I digress.

>Sounds like another place to stay away from.

Well, if you and your car stay away, that's fine by me. Heck, you
wouldn't even be able to drive down the main street here now that
they've closed it off to pedestrians and trams.

>>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.

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

Cheaper? Certainly.

Safer? Around 500 people are killed in road accidents every year in my
state. Rail accidents? I think the current figure is about zero. Sounds
safer to me.

Environmentally friendlier? Try comparing the fumes from 1000 people 600
cars to the fumes from the power generation needed for a peak hour
passenger train carrying another 1000 people.


Daniel Bowen
-- 
Daniel Bowen, Monash University |
            Melbourne Australia |           I think fishing
   daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au |          is a load of carp.
      TCWF: tcwf@gnu.ai.mit.edu |                                    [TCWF]
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10067 sci.physics:11709 sci.energy:3704
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: 27 Jul 92 09:53:36 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

>In article <1992Jul27.031508.875@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>In article <k!lm3!l@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>#I meant ZERO IMPACT.  I have a habit of saying exactly what I mean.
>>#Haven't seen one worth commenting on yet.  A nuclear power program
>>#operated under rules set by engineering criteria and not political 
>>#considerations will have ZERO impact on the environment.  
>>
>>How do you get non-trivial quantities of uranium ore out of the ground
>>with ZERO IMPACT using engineering criteria?

As John said in the rest of his article, had you taken the trouble to read it,
if we used breeder reactors, the so-called "nuclear waste" we've got lying
around already would make it unnecessary for us do dig another hole in the
ground for the next hundred years.  Perhaps ideology has gotten in the way of
your literacy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Bau-Biologie
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:10:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Does anyone out there on the net have information on a school of
thought, German in origin (as far as I know), called Bau-Biologie
("building biology")?  I believe it has to do with the health and
environmental effects of buildings and building materials; some
people seem to think it's a little New Agey, others swear by it.
(I'm getting this from an entry in a catalog by the Whole Earth
people.)

I'd be grateful for any references to books or articles on the 
subject (in English), or personal knowledge.  Please e-mail; no
need to take up the bandwidth...

                             Thanks,
                          
                                       John Michael Greer
                                       grimoire@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: jake@dxal13.cern.ch (Robert Jacobsen)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Reply-To: jake@dxal13.cern.ch (Robert Jacobsen)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:58:05 GMT

A summary of what has gone before:  lip@s1.gov is trying to show that highways are significantly subsidized by non-"user-fees".  His argument is reproduced below:

In article <1992Jul23.000116.4102@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|>In article <JMC.92Jul22091522@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
|>>The Interstate system is financed by the gasoline tax, more than 100
|>>percent, I believe.  In fact the lawyers want to tap the gasoline
|>>tax to finance their public transit boondoggles.
|>
|>	If one does some VERY clever accounting, then just MAYBE. But
|>total costs are:
|>
|>	1979 US government agencies on highways:
|>
|>	$71.2 billion total
|>
|>which breaks down to
|>
|>	$44.3 billion in "user fees"
|>
|>and
|>
|>	$26.9 billion in subsidies.
|>
|>The "user fees" include vehicle registration fees, fuel taxes, and
|>tolls.
|>
|>The subsidies are all sums whose sources are something other than user
|>fees -- income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, bond-issue
|>proceeds, etc.
|>
|>	Thus, highways are 38% subsidized.
|>
|>	Does that answer your question?
|>
|>	So one has a choice of riding in a subsidized mass-transit
|>vehicle or driving on a subsidized road. Take your pick.
|>
|>/Loren
|>

Unfortunately, the argument requires that ALL highway user-fees go just to highway maintenence and construction.  The accounting becomes complex when highway fees pay for mass transit, and mass transit fees pay for highways (does that happen anywhere? I only know of examples of highways subsidizing mass transit, not the other way around).

There are lots of examples, including the Golden Gate Bridge providing funds for bus and ferry lines, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority ditto, and the use of Federal highway funds for new construction (San Jose light rail and the SCRTD system in LA). 

In article <21985@venera.isi.edu> finn@atomic.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
 
>:Source: SCRTD
>
>:	In millions of 1988 dollars for 4.4 mile Phase One funding:
>
>:	 34   	City of LA
>:	 90.6 	Secondary Federal Funds
>:	130   	Private Sector Tax
>:	176     Federal Mass Transit Fund
>:	176	LA County Transportation Commission
>:	203	Additional Mass Transit tax funds
>:	213	State of California
>:	225	Federal Gas Tax			    <<<
>

Note the 225 million dollars that come directly from Gas Tax. 

The fair comparison, no fancy accounting involved, is money spent on highways (seen as $71.2 billion in 1979 above) versus the total user fees EXTRACTED (not just that spent).  I have no access to 1979 data, unfortunately, but the 1980 number for Federal Gas Tax was $48.3 billion, to which must be added State gas taxes, tolls, and registration fees. Maybe also speeding and parking tickets? I don't have any of those numbers, but fell quite confident that it will exceed the expenditures of approximately $70 


billion.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9942 sci.physics:11571 sci.energy:3636