HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:33:00 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <BruM2H.4LD@apollo.hp.com> heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com (God of Thunder) writes:
>
>In article  <1992Jul23.092233.8083@alf.uib.no>, edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor
>Legvold) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul2.103818.41228@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
>cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>> >In article <1992Jun29.180530.11377@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com
>> >(Nick Szabo) writes: 

>So, what are these judgements based upon?  From the articles and research
>that I've read, I would disagree completely with you.Given the native language
>complexity and capability that many whales and dolphins have, and the 
>complexity of their social interactions and relationships, along with 
>the complexity of interactions and relationships that people have been
>able to develop with these creatures, I would agree that they could be
>classified as having a 'high order intelligence'.  

1.  What native language?  Outside of science fiction none has been
found.

2.  Please consider the complexit of interactions and relationships
that people have been able to develop with dogs, cats, monkeys, apes,
and pot-bellied pigs.

3.  Please define 'high order intelligence'.  Do we have one?  Do
dogs?  Do mice?


>I think it is probably close to impossible at this point to 
>compare their intelligence with humans', since the respective 
>environments are so completely different, and the respective way
>in which the two classes of species interact with their environments
>are so different.

Intelligence is only worthwhile if it is useful. For hundreds of year
we gave them damned good reason to communicate with us.  They have
never done so.  Therefore thier intelligence is almost certainly less
than humans.  

(Note that a very simple way to comunicate with us would be to kill
swimmers and recreational boaters near whaling centers.  Real simple
and doesn't require similar environments or anything.

>But I have no difficulty saying that the complexity of their language
>and societies are at LEAST as complex as apes or gorillas.

I challenge you to present eveidence for any language on the part of
either cetaceans or apes and gorillas.

In general, I have no difficulty saying anything I want.  The more
imortant question is whether or not your beliefs approximate reality.
Given that you seem to believe that whales, apes, and gorillas have
languages I think most of us can dismiss you as ignorant.

>So, were your comments based completely on a Sea World show?

And were yours based on science fiction books and Tarzan movies?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul20215203@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jul21.093756.5392@s1.gov>
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:54:12

The biggest cost associated with BART was the construction cost
of the right of way, tracks, etc.  Also the land acquisition cost..
That was originally estimated at $2.25 billion, but it ran way
over.  I don't recall reading the final construction cost.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:16:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul23.071631.5359
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <BrsErF.2uA@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>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.

This sounds like a "might makes right" argument.  It is probably false that
'using force and fraud in social relations is not in one's rational
self-interest..."  If, through use of force, I can gain total power over
everyone, then it is probably in my "rational self-interest" to do so,
especially if I have an urgent need for power (people's needs differ).
As for the particular criteria presented above: YES, some animals
(e.g., whales) are members of social arrangements (and some individual
people are not); PERHAPS some can make moral evaluations (this depends
on their intelligence & sentience, which was the basis for MY analysis
of where rights come from); YES, some will retaliate if not treated well
(although this criterion is irrelevant); WHO CARES if one can be protected
from this (one can be protected from human retaliation too); and WHO CARES
whether the animal is of practical use to us.

-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10308 sci.physics:12052
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:35:13 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

In article <1992Jul29.223430.6269@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	And when I specified "no competition", I had in mind an
>absence of other drivers. Traffic jams cause considerable slowdowns.

	My impression was that the test was done weekdays.  My memory
	isn't perfect.

>	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?

	Yes.  It's something I considered also.
	For those who can use that time it may be quite useful.
	Some do.  Some don't.  However, that's pretty hard to place
	a real value on.  Which is why I never mentioned it.
	What do you prefer, reading or listening to the radio?
	I listen in my car.  You see my point?  It's difficult to judge.

>::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.
>
>:	To be fair you would need to compare against a mass transit
>:system that carried the same volume of people.  Hard to do.
>
>	One can do this in several places.
>For example, in the Bay Area, one can compare commuting by
>BART between Walnut Creek or Hayward or El Cerrito to San Francisco
>and driving the distance. Going under the Bay by BART certainly beats
>out fighting all the traffic on the Bay Bridge.

	We were discussing LA.  If you insist though, in San Francisco
there exist rather special geographic restrictions to the road system
that favor mass transit, forcing the road system into an analog of
rail at certain points.  It's also a reason why the city went up rather
than out.  Does that BART line carry daily loads similar to either the
Oakland bay bridge or the Golden Gate?  I don't know.  I don't deny
that your comparison exists.

	I agree that in sufficiently dense cities mass transit may be
effective.  It is unfair for them to operate primarily through
subsidies that come from expropriated funds.  That's my point.  You
build a fairly financed convenient system and people like myself mught
use it.

--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10296 sci.geo.meteorology:2625 sci.skeptic:13397
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:36:37 GMT
	<JMC.92Jul31004008@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul31.120249.16542@ugle.unit.no>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: haralds@ifi.unit.no's message of 31 Jul 92 12:02:49 GMT


In article <1992Jul31.120249.16542@ugle.unit.no> haralds@ifi.unit.no writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul31004008@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John
   McCarthy) writes:

   The MW was not hunted during the golden ages of whale hunting
   (start of the century). The reason was that is was too small -
   it made more sense to catch the bigger ones, thats the reason why 
   thy exist in so big numbers today (total of 700 000 ?). Being the
   only type of whale we know for shure can not be threthened by
   some small-scale hunting - it is also the only type hunted in
   the world today.

Not quite true. I believe "indigineous" people in US, Canada and maybe
xUSSR are still allowed to hunt great whales - including species
known to be in severe danger of extinction. The US is one of the
main proponents of this practise.

   >This doesn't settle the question of whether it is ok to hunt
   >whales.  However, it removes one argument against it.

   >The main objection to hunting whales is that many of my fellow
   >humans don't like it.

   If you don't like whale hunting, but have no other reasons for
   beeing against it than "don't like", I think you should spend
   your time on something else.

It is a compelling argument - even if they are all wrong.


A question for the "whales are intelligent" crowd. Are we
talking any particular species here, or the entire genus?


*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:58:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Jul28.192405.837@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.145630.1530@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>I assume you support the one-step processing plan that appears likely
>>to get federal approval.  Do you believe that this post-construction
>>review process is not needed?  Are there no issues to examine after
>>construction?  Are there no examples of falsified x-ray safety
>>inspections?
>
>Can you provide a reference for your claim that the proposed one-step licensing
>procedure does away with post-construction review?  Every newspaper reference
>I've seen that went into any detail at all seemed to indicate that the proposed
>procedure would still have the post-construction review.

Isn't this what 1-step licensing means?  I have read about it in many
places, usually blurbs in the press.  I will see if I have anything
more substantial.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:55:27 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:

>>Turn the numbers into constant dollars and it is much less crazy.

>In any case, it would seem
>that nuke plants are the only type which are actively, rather than
>passively, dangerous when shut down.  That is, any building can 
>collapse on you, but only a nuke is full of bad stuff.

No.  A shut down nuclear plant with the fuel removed and the primary
chemically flushed (trivially cheap) contains little activity.
Said activity could be completely and totally isolated by pumping
the containment and aux building full of concrete.  Not that
this would likely ever be done to modern plants.  It will be much
more cost-effective to refurbish the facility and run it for 
another 40 or 50 years.

Let's take a look at a few other power sources:

Soot burners (coal):

Flyash and scrubber tailings remain.  Acres and acres of this stuff is
generated during the life of a large soot burner.  These tailings 
present physical and biological hazards.  Physical in that slag
pond breakthrough is a common occurance.  This happens when the 
pond skims over enough to support the weight of a person.  Said person
ultimately breaks through and drowns.  Biological hazards include
concentrated heavy metals, concentrated radioactivity and a variety
of other goodies.  Seems like they used to quote a figure for 
Widdow's Creak (A TVA plant near chattanooga, about 3000 MWe across
13 units.) of 20 acres of scrubber sludge per year of operation.
I do know that the scrubber sludge was eating up all available land
around the plant over 20 years ago when I briefly worked there.

Hydro:

Dam structure remains.  Impounded water and sediment may also remain.
Sediment will contain concentrated toxins from the years of collection.
May not be feasable to remove the dam and powerhouse after decomissioning
leaving a ugly, hazardous structure.  Hazardous from things like 
people falling off it and hazardous from the risk of failure.

Flushing out a few miles of primary piping in a nuke plant looks 
positively benign in comparison.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? et 
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:47:36 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <k!lm3!l@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com writes:

   A nuclear power program operated under rules set by engineering
   criteria and not political  considerations will have ZERO impact
   on the environment.  This will include breeding, reprocessing,
   integrated generation and processing sites and similar
   technologies.

This is a silly statement, John.  A nuclear plant needs:

  o tons of concrete and steel to build the plant.
  o acres of land to put the plant on.
  o cooling towers.
  o water for cooling.
  o decomissioning (gotta do something with all that radiated material,
    even if all you do is leave it there).
  o etc.

This has "zero environmental impact"?  How about "minimal
environmental impact" instead?

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>  I'm proud to be a humble Quaker!
Crynwr Software            Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.               315-268-1925 Voice   [ if mail bounces, forward it ]
Potsdam, NY 13676          315-268-9201 FAX     [ to uuadmin@uu.psi.com.      ]
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10262 sci.energy:3784 sci.physics:11981
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:39:49 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <c1nm58h@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>will such a major refurb be done all at once.  Even for something 
>as serious as neutron embrittlement, in situ solutions are already
>being (or are) developed.  Things like in-situ reactor pot anealing.

References? Northeast Utilities decided to abandon Yankee Rowe mainly
because in-situ annealing is more of a theory than an actual working
process. When I asked the NRC folks at the Rowe hearing about
experience with annealing, they pointed to 1 Belgian experiment
with ambiguous results, and some data that they hoped to get from the
xSSR. What, other than ideology, leads you to expect that the problem
can be solved in a reasonably cost-effective manner. Until someone
actually tries an experiment, such confidence seems misplaced.


>Expense has been addressed in this forum ad infinum.  Consider this.
>Browns Ferry Nuclear plant was built at an average cost of $300 million
>per unit.  This is a good example because BFNP was one of the last of 
>GE's turnkey (similar to the current proposal for type-accepted designs)
>units, was one of the last before the anti-nuclear hysteria started and
>is a large plant by modern standards at about 900 MWe per unit.

Of course, when BFNP caught on fire and nearly melted down, it both
inflated the actual cost/unit, and fueled the anti-nuclear "hysteria".


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9917 sci.physics:11542
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <JMC.92Jul20201524@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>BART is currently raking off a half percent sales tax in the counties
>it "serves".  I'm not sure whether this is paying off its bonds
>or if it is just a subsidy of its operating costs.

MARTA promised when they imposed the 1% sales tax in 1969 that it would
be reduced to 0.5% in 10 years and phased out completely in 15 years when
the system was complete. They also promised that the $0.15 fare would
remain in place indefinitely. It's now 23 years later, the tax is still
in place at 1%, fares are $1.25, and the system *still* isn't finished.
Meanwhile ridership is down, and has been steadily declining for years,
the Federal government has picked up 90% of the construction costs so
far, by raiding the Federal *Highway* Trust Fund, and MARTA itself
admits that it's immediate operating cost is $2.95 to transport a 
passenger. When you divide the yearly revenues from the sales tax,
Federal subsidy, and fare by the number of riders however, you find
that the system is costing $15,715 per rider per year. It'd be a lot
cheaper to buy them all Hyundais.

Gary
From: charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:21:37 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

#Kenneth remarks about Greenpeace:

#     I'm suprised they have not tried banning microwave ovens
#     because they use *RADIATION* to cook the food.

#I dunno about Greenpeace, but Ralph Nader did try to ban microwave
#ovens for that reason.  If Nader is responsible for the slower
#penetration of microwave ovens in the U.S. as compared to Japan,
#he killed a lot of children.  No-one has been injured by a microwave
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You can support this with facts, right?

#oven, but the conventional cooking that might have been displaced
                                         ^^^^^
#partly by microwave cooking has proabably killed a few hundred
                                 ^^^^^^^^^

Some sound reasoning here, based on verifiable fact.

#children in the last 20 years.  The Statistical Abstract does
#not give enough information for detailed arithmetic.  It is certain
#that Nader never bothered to ascertain the impact of his campaign.

But you're willing to speculate on the basis of this lack of information.

#Well he's a lawyer, and to a lawyer, science is just something from
#which you select a few facts that will help your cause.

How would you characterize the content of your posting?

#He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

It leads you to make the above kind of argument, right?

CvD
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:17:38 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <10030@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.151538.1388@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>>Scientific studies have shown that 90% of the available wind energy in
>>the U.S. is in the plains, especially the upper plains.  The fact that
>>90% of current wind generating capacity comes from CAlifornia shows
>>how underused the capacity is in the plains.
>
>Or maybe it shows which geography is more suited to actually
>capturing and using that wind energy.  I suspect that Calif. has
>more areas which concentrate wind in passes etc. giving a more
>reliable, higher velocity wind compared to the plains.  This higher
>velocity wind will be easier to use.  Oregon has a smaller scale but
>similar situation.  There is a lot of wind on the high desert of
>Eastern Oregon but wind generation experiments (and windsurfers) are
>largely confined to the Columbia River Gorge where the wind is more
>constant and often stronger.  There is a lot more total wind energy
>in the high desert but it is spread out and not easy to capture.
>The gorge is a much smaller area and hence contains less wind energy.
>However, that energy is more constant and concentrated.
>
>Maybe after we learn from the wind generation sites now existing we
>can design practical systems for areas where the wind is less 
>concentrated.

The existence of these passes is what makes wind energy usable in
low potential states like California and Oregon.  The states with
the highest potential, N Dakota, S Dakota and Nebraska, followed
by the states to their west and south, already have intense enough
wind for use with existing technology.

There are a number of reasons why CA has so much utilization.  Among
them are previously available tax credits, the general tendency
towards innovation in CA, and the fact that low local needs in these
upper plains states does not encourage innovation.  They have little
motivation to try new technologies in these areas when the needs
are elsewhere.  It is true that
transmission efficiency must improve if this energy is to be widely
exported, but they could start by serving their own needs.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy