HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Amendment to Protect the Environment
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 10:02:23 GMT

Your statement that we already manage the environment too much for the benefit
of human beings is incredible.  Why should anyone want to change the world in
such a way as to make it less hospitable to human beings?  I like clean air 
and clean water, but I like them BECAUSE they are good for me, not because I want
bunnies and trees to have a better life.  What is YOUR motivation?

--Brian
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:03:07 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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 <15606@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> altarrib@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Michael Altarriba) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.071119.793@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

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

>|> Kill swimmers and people in small boats near any whaling activity?

>|> >To prove to us they are capable of a
>|> >better social structure?  

>|> Why should they want to prove that?

>|> >The ability to use weapons, such as handguns, de-
>|> >pends considerably on what your body can do rather than what your mind can
>|> >do; the possession of rights depends on what your mind can do.

>|> However they don't need weapons.  In the water they can kill us with
>|> ease.  On land we are not a threat to them.

>... and similar vast amounts of bile deleted.

>OK, look. There is certainly something to be said for using self-preservation
>and/or environmental control as a standard for rating intelligence. But do 
>you really believe that "might makes right"? That one's intelligence can be
>gauged, nay is directly proportional to the body count one can run up? You
>call THIS intelligence???

Well, the way run ones up the body count is important.  There is a big
difference between killing for food or in self defense and killing for
less immediate reasons.  But yes.  I think it's a good measure.  

By the way, I'm remeinded of a sci-fi story I once read.  Humans are
marooned on a planet.  Their clothes are rotted away by fungus.  They
are captured by intelligent aliens who are doing their own
interstellar exploration.  The aliens think the humans are animals.
Drawing squares and triangles on the floor in their cages doesn't
work.  Then one of them builds a little cage out of his bedding and
puts a rodent in it.  They are immediately recognized as intelligent.
Why?  Because onely intelligent species cage other species.

>Well, then, I see a LOT of intelligence in the world today.

Name one.

>Destruction and death are not the hallmarks of intelligence. They are
>its antithesis. 

Don't play silly word games.  There is a big difference between
intelligent as in "Humans are an intelligent species" and intelligence
as in "Einstein was a very intelligent man."  Same word, different meaning.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:01:08 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul26224246@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I happened to land in Paris just as the 1987 strike shut down all
>trains and planes, and I had to be in Marseilles the next day for a
>lecture.  A Hertz rental got me there.  The point is that the
>availability of cars gives the transportation system important
>flexibility in emergencies.

	But strikes don't happen every day :-)

	Furthermore, roads can be affected by strikers -- striking
truck drivers, for example. In France, some truck drivers striking
recently blocked several roads.

	So even cars are not immune :-)

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10312 sci.energy:3804
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.electronics,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:31:55 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jul24.044623.3155@cco.caltech.edu>,<62876@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Jul27.105400.3328@cco.caltech.edu>

In sci.environment, I commented that ignition coils generate the
spark on the inward-going sweep of the magnetic field, because that
produces a bigger spark than using the outward-going stroke of
the magnetic field.  Somebody disagreed with me saying:

> The way an automobile ignition coils works is that, over a period of time, a
> current is set up in a coil.  When the circuit is opened, and the capicitor
> (aka the condensor) is switched into the circuit, the voltage across the
> capicitor builds up in accordance with the differential equation:
>         dV
>         -- = I(t)/C
>         dt
>  
> where, at the beginning of the charging of the capacitor, the current, I is the
> current that was flowing in the coil at the time the circuit was switched.  The
> coil follows the differential equation:
>  
>         dI
>         -- = LV(t)
>         dt
>  
> When the voltage exceeds that necessary to create a spark across the spark gap
> in the plug, the capacitor discharges, providing the energy necessary to ignite
> the fuel (actually, the coil and the capacitor provide a resonant circuit in
> which the spark gap provides a resistive component, so the current through the
> gap oscillates).  What we've got is a circuit that transforms the 12 volts from
> the battery to a high enough voltage to initiate the spark.  The bullshit you
> cite about the
> battery into "_collapse_ of the magnetic field ... yield[ing] a bigger spark
> than the outward-going swing of the field" show a total lack of understanding
> of electromagnetism on your part.


Would a knowledgable person in rec.auto.tech or sci.electronics
please settle this debate?
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9673 sci.physics:11252 sci.energy:3467
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:40:18 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Jul28133353@topaz.ucsc.edu> <51084@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu's message of 29 Jul 92 11:36:15 GMT

In article <51084@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   >I took "Nader's argument" to be one given - it is at some level
   >irrelevant whether Nader used it or whether he was effective,

   It is? In support of a claim that Nader used "lawyers science" in the
   cause of a scientifically invalid argument which "killed children", you 
   claim that "it is at some level irrelevant" whether or not Nader's 
   case has been presented accurately. This seems to reduce to "I don't
   like Ralph Nader so it doesn't matter whether I slander him or not."
   All in a good cause.

Crap. The question is whether Nader is working at the standard he
sets others, it is clear that he wanted microwave ovens restricted or
banned because of a possible threat, and that he did not consider
what potential injuries would be eliminated. Whether he was arguing
about low level non-ionizing radiation or superheated milk bottles
is irrelevant.

   >failure to consider a possible decrease in other injuries, considering
   >only the possibility of new injuries is consistent with the position
   >Nader and others advocate. I note you carefully deleted that
   >paragraph. I ask again, is it not incumbent on someone advocating
   >restraint based on possible indirect harm to also consider the
   >possible harm caused by accepting the restraint?

   Sure. 

   >	Or is ethical consistency irrelevant to you?

   I find this question interesting. Does it not seem to you that one should
   nail down a few actual data points before making an accusation of the 
   magnitude that "X killed children" ?

That is precisely the issue. Nader did not, yet he made the
accusation, the counter-accusation can then be made at the
same standard that he used. 

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
Newsgroups: sci.environment,rec.aviation
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Followup-To: sci.environment
Summary: Please stop talking out of your hat.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.163531.13149@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>... Successful
>automatically-controlled vehicles to date have usually avoided this
>problem by using simplified version of other-vehicle detection;
>airplanes have collision detectors that respond to any large object in
>the airplane's path, for example.

The hell they do.

Even the latest-and-greatest collision avoidance concept
that the FAA deigns to endorse, TCAS II, requires active
participation from the object to be avoided, specifically
an altitude encoding radar transponder.  Nothing on the
aircraft, except the eyeballs of the crew, has any ability
to detect passive objects, large or otherwise, with the
technical exception of radar altimeters and weather radars.

I'm sure lots of people in rec.aviation will fill you in
in even more detail.
-- 
Russ Cage   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9952 sci.psychology:3229
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:16:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul24.191630.12376
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <MAGNUS.92Jul24093918@is19e0s00.jaist-east.ac.jp> magnus@jaist-east.ac.jp (Magnus Halldorsson) writes:

>  "David Gaskin made a thorough review of all the evidence for social
>evolution, communication and intelligence among cetaceans. He concluded
>that observations of free-living animals at the time did not support
>the idea that they have a complicated social life. He says there is
>"little evidence of behavioural complexity beyond that of a herd of cows
>or deer". 

Are you sure this wasn't a study of humans at a sporting event?


Certain categories of human beings, such as infants and mentally retarded
people, routinely fall below apes and whales in levels of intelligence, self-
awareness, language-ability, use of ideas, etc.  Does it, therefore,
follow that it is okay to eat or experiment with these people?  (I do
NOT propose this as a rhetorical question.)  Membership in any
particular biological species is NOT morally significant: if some
criteria, such as lack of certain mental properties, justifies a
 particular treatment of whales, dogs, chimps, it also justifies that
treatment of humans. We're just another species.

Additionally, we should be wary of using as criteria for intelligence just
the properties which we think render us intelligent.  "Intelligent"
does not necessarily mean "just like us."  Simpler social structures than ours,
or even simpler languages, do not necessarily equate to less intelligence 
than ours.  To large extent, the supposed complexity of our social structures
can be attributed to environmental factors such as over-population.  There
have been in history many groups of people with extremely simple social
structures.
-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:11:59 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul22143340@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>Paul, please go calculate the extractable wind energy, comapre it with
>demand, and contemplate potential climatic effects if a significant
>fraction were actually extracted. Wind is going to a marginal
>contributor unless demand plummets.

Wind power could be the dominant energy supply in the upper plains and if
the grid has the capacity to distribute it, the power could be a 
non-trivial (10's of %) part of the U.S. energy supply.
>
>This is dubious. I refer you to Physics Today from early 1992,
>the problem is the comparisons used to make that claim (I assume
>you're referring to the "the Japanese and Germans use much less
>energy - and look we can marginally decrease our household
>consumption...") usually fail to take climate and population
>distribution into account.

Studies of possible electricity savings for the U.S. based on studies
of currently used versus currently available technology in the U.S. range from
about 75% on the liberal side (from RMI) to 44% on the lower (from the EPRI).
The 44% figure is the maximum _MTP_ figure which assumes full
utilization of the best existing technology.  The low end MTP value is 24%.
The difference between the two figures represents rising costs for
installing these technologies.  The technologies for the 24% figure
could be installed for cents per kwh, while realizing the 44% figure
would get into 10's of cents per kwh.  Keep in mind that these efficient
technologies prevent the necessity for new capacity so comparing them
with coal requires including capital cost, not just generation. I can
provide more details from the EPRI report, if people are interested.
[RMI = Rocky Mountain Institute; EPRI = Electric Power Research Inst]
[The EPRI is a think tank for a consortium of utilities]
>
>	   If nuclear power advocates would just give up their luddite-like
>   apprehension towards sustainable technologies,  then we might actually
>   start developing a sane energy technology for this country and the world.
>
>If people would look beyond arbitary "sustainable" labels and
>realistically assess what the options are - rather than jerking their
>knees and becoming phobic, then there might be stable long term
>energy sources available.

If people understood the true state of efficiency and sustainable
technologies, they might stop calling others knee jerks.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Some people think they're really clever			*
>*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? 
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 12:53:11 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Jul21.124620.22895@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>The term we laughingly use is "the free market". In general, blatantly
>"planned" social systems are viewed with alarm(tm) by most Americans.
>We prefer the planning to be done indirectly  as the collective result 
>of individual decisions. 

Yet most Americans are quite happy with the National Highway system, even
complaining when this largest of all American planned systems isn't in
good shape.  Since most American's are hypocrites, they call anything
different 'social engineering', yet they are quite happy to pay for the
interstate system out of taxes.  Apparently the 'social engineers' at
the Big Three's marketing divisions have done their jobs well.

>What? You say that isn't planning. That's right,
>chaos is the natural order of things. Of course many people are making
>decisions behind the scenes that indirectly influence social systems,
>but they are making those decisions for their own personal reasons and
>gain instead of trying to impose *their* view of optimum on the majority.
>In "Field of Dreams" speak, "Build it and they will come..". If they don't,
>you just lost a bundle of *your* money.

You know I actually believed until recently that freedom of movement (ie.
travel how, when, and where you please) was a constitutionally protected
right (it's not there folks).  Amazing how you get programmed living in
our society that cars are a necessity.  Teach me to live outside of
Detroit most of my life.  I suppose we can conclude that this falls under
your last section, on "impose(ing) *their* view of optimum on the majority".
Unfortunately, in this case, the public underwrote the construction, and
the Big Three benefitted.

Ken
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10334 sci.geo.meteorology:2631 sci.skeptic:13426
From: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:26:31 GMT
Reply-To: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: U of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography

In article <1992Jul27.163959.2414@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, orf@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu
(Leigh Orf) 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.
$>
$>leigh
$>
$>>-- 

Check out ``Plant life in a CO2-rich world'' in the Jan 92 issue of Scientific
American.  Author Fakhri Bazzaz (and one other).

Salient points:
  (1)  Plants need fewer stomata to gather CO2 ... therefore less water is loss
  (2)  Light and nutrients (absence or presence) have a larger effect than CO2
amount
  (3)  Some plants do better (e.g. soybeans), some plants do worse (maize,
sugarcane)

Whether or not the plants do worse depends on their carbon fixation pathway,
which of course varies from plant to plant.  In the article, the authors state
that soybeans would have a competitive advantage over, say, weeds who fix carbon
as do maize plants.  Corn would suffer if competing with weeds that fixed carbon
as does soybeans.  Presumably, not much would change if a plant is competing
with another plant and they fix carbon in the same way.  Anyway, Mr. Szabo's
hypothesis is overly optimistic in view of experimental data.

Other articles on this subject:  
 ``Global Climate Change and US Agriculture'' (Richard Adams et al., Nature vol
345 p 219)
  New Scientist summarizes this article on p. 31 of the 2 June 1990 issue.

When I first read Leigh's question, I recalled seeing an article somewhere
within the past year that featured a picture of a man (presumably the PI)
standing next to two plots of trees (about 5-10 years old).  The ones grown in
CO2-enhanced air where noticeably larger.  But I have not been able to find it. 
It was on glossy paper, so I assume it was in Science, or some such journal. 
Whatever.

And to the person who suggests that Siberia will be the next great breadbasket
of the world, (supplanting Kansas as it gets hotter and hotter), I would pose
the question:  Where is the water necessary for plant growth coming from?  Both
Siberia and northern Canada are quite far from sources of water.

I have changed the followup line to sci.environment.  Enough of this
cross-posting nonsense!!!

Scott
--
   The only other sound's the sweep of easy wind and downy flake

shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu 4017926509 URI GSO NBC Narragansett RI 02882
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10311 talk.environment:3064 ca.environment:775
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:46:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <l7f11mINNpou@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>Unless and until human economic activities, and therefore most
>human beings most of the time, are brought into compact, sealed cities
>designed and operated like multigeneration starships, there is no
>population size and no level of consumption that is sustainable for
>very long. If we do turn to starship-cities, the Earth can sustain
 ^^^^^^^^^
>billions of persons for billions of years in civilized comfort. If
>we don't, we will return to the stone age and reduce the earth to a
>barren desert.

The problem with this diagnosis is that even using Mr. Roland's rather
odd notions of ecological and geological processess, he concedes that
small scale "biointensive" permaculture has a probable sustainable
lifetime of 10-20,000 years. Given that this covers a period far
longer than written human history, I suspect the chances of finding
anyone (myself included) who would be willing to pay much attention to
this problem are slim.

Yes, I'd be happier if small scale organic farming was infinitely
sustainable, and in fact, I think it is, and that Mr. Roland's
analysis of the problems with it is wrong. However, lifetimes of 10's
of thousands of years make such disagreements irrelevant to most of
us.

-- paul

-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
From: ml5j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael R. Lutz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities, and Choices
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:37:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EeR5uae00WBLM554xZ
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


   Anybody who would like to know more about how General Motors
destroyed the electric trolley industry might want to read Rude
Awakening by Mariann Keller.  It is a book on the downfall of GM.

Michael
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:13:52 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

>Wow.  I thought a terrorist was someone who killed people in
>order to create fear.

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>No, a terrorist is someone who engages in the systematic
>use of terror, especially as a means to coercion.
>Examples are:
>	o  Pointing to Chernobyl as an example of how dangerous
	    the nuclear reactors in the United States are, when the
>	    designs are entirely different;
>	o  Grossly overstating the amount and/or activity of spent
>	    fuel elements from commercial power reactors in this country;
>	o  Confusing the waste from nuclear weapons facilities (hell,
	    they're DESIGNED to produce lots of radioactive stuff;
>	    small wonder that they do) with the waste from commercial
>	    nuclear reactors;
>	o  Grossly overstating the amount of radiation released at
	    TMI.
>In each of these examples, ecoterrorists misrepresent things in order
>to scare the uninformed, in order to force their policies through.
>Sure sounds like a systematic use of terror to me.

		It does?  Take a look at what you are saying:

		"pointing to," "grossly overstating," and "confusing,"
		are being equated to, e.g., bombing civilian
		airliners, machine gunning passengers at airports, beating 
		airline passengers to death, shooting crippled cruise
		ship passengers, etc.

		Make much sense to you?  I think there is a little 
		problem of scale here.

		David

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy