HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:31:12 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Subject: Youth. 
 This story starts in a discotheque down in Guatemala when a young fellow of 
17 sees a pretty girl and falls in love. Just before the wedding she tells 
him that she has a slight confession to make and he says, "Oh no". She said 
that she was old enough to be his grandmaw (67 years old). He then said, 
"That doesn't make any difference because your young and full of energy and 
I loves ya with all of my little ole heart (or something to that effect).  
They get married and she very careful to take birth control pills because 
they don't want to start a family till later on in life. The boys name is 
Antonia Ocaz, and the girls name is Delmy. She told him the secret to her 
youth is that she is Indian and she drinks a potion made from a plant called 
Uxtali which is picked from the dark jungles near her home in Flores, 
Guatemala. It seems that when the Spanish priests came there many years ago 
they were taken and shown people who had lived to great ages by eating the 
plant. The Spanish considered it to be witchcraft and made the people not 
use it or they would kill them. Her poeple continued using it behind their 
backs.
 Their is a legend about how the Indians got the plant and it goes like this; 
The Uxtali was given to mankind by a great, toucan-headed god called 
Acachuate when an Indian warrior save hsi daughter from drowning. 
 Investigators from the Agricultural University of Peten, Guatemala, say they 
are excited by the find. 
 "We think it probably has some kind of action in the pituitary system," said 
Dr Marco Chaviz. I inhibits the release of enzymes that tell the body to 
age. In essence, the substance produced by Uxtali fools the body into 
thinking it has already aged enough. 
 Local officials are eager to see the plant grown on a mass scale, hoping its 
sale will alleviate the shocking poverty in the region. If this stuff can do 
for other people what it has obviously done for Delmy, it will be the 
ultimate cash crop according to Dr Omar Tedaldo, a professor of agriculture 
at the university. The planat can halt and even reverse the aging process so 
when Delmy told Antonio that if he would drink the Uxtali faithully he would 
stay like she was. he ssid. "Please pass the potion".
Source of information: Dec. 19, 1989, National Examiner.
John Winston.
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Request for FAQ list
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:28:42 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <79337@ut-emx.uucp> steppe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Top Changwatchai) writes:
>Could someone please send me the FAQ list for this newsgroup?
>
Which group are you talking about.  The sci.skepticers don't have a FAQ.  I 
think.  We're having a debate about it, I know that.

Big Al.  It's hard to get everybody on sci.skeptic to agree on anything.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:4287 alt.consciousness:461 alt.dreams:3049 alt.drugs:15533 alt.mindcontrol:121 alt.psychoactives:1169
From: vmf@acpub.duke.edu (Virginia Fleming)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.consciousness,alt.dreams,alt.drugs,alt.mindcontrol,alt.psychoactives
Subject: Re: chrysalis by Peter Reich
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:21:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.newage
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Sep8.144936.6553@cs.umb.edu> pbreton@cs.umb.edu (Peter Breton) writes:
>
>  Also curious if anyone's built any orgone boxes, Hieronymous devices, 
>or anything else besides the typical light-and-sound fare. AND, what's 

Well, since you asked, I thought I would mention that I have used a
home-made DOR-buster (deadly orgaone radiation).  Eight or so
years ago I dated a man who had made two.  One was simply pipes,
I think common plumbing pipes about 2 to 2 1/2 feet long, bound
together with duct tape, and he would place them in a large sink
and as he ran water through the sink would stand on a chair or
ladder to have the pipes aimed at the parts of his body he felt
were blocked.  He did this for me a number of times as well.  He
had fashioned a similar device of fexible pipes, and often
would sleep with the end of the pipes pointed toward areas of his
body.

He claimed that the large one that he had used while sleeping had
cured him of schizophrenea, and this seemed to be true.  (I had 
good reason to believe that he was very nonfunctional for a while
and when I knew him he was functioning very well.)

My personal experience was that I felt _something_ when the device
was pointed at me, and felt more energetic for days afterward, and
acted much more agressively in general.  At that time I was ver
skeptical, and kept wanting to find explanations why this nothing
kind of experience actually seemed capable of changing me.  He liked
the effects on me less than I did, and so didn't cooperate in 
helping me try it more than a couple of times.  

I've been thinking for the past few months that I would like to 
make one for myself, now that I've used other methods to convince
myself that energetics are real and powerful forces.  If I do,
I'll get back to you.


Virginia
>  Peter
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.self-improve,alt.meditation.transcendental
From: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: Scientology
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:47:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.120651.16234@hellgate.utah.edu> llarsen%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Loren Larsen) writes:
>I am curious about people's experience with Scientology/Dianetics.  Maybe
>someone can explain the difference between the two.  I have a number of
>questions.
>
>1) What are people's direct experience?  Good or bad?  Don't bother to respond
>  with what you have read in the media I've seen that too.

I've only been handed pamphlets in the street and seen their ads.  Needless to
say, I was not impressed.

>2) Why are engrams only formed in a state of unconsciousness?  Why do they
>  always have a negative effect?

Because, judging from the literature, they are targeting people who are feeling
bad about themselves for some reason.  :)  Honest.  Have you ever seen one of
their "free personality tests" published in a newspaper?  Some of the questions
are quite blatantly targeted.

>3) Why has the Church of Scientology been so aggressive in "recruiting"
>  celebrities?  Tom Cruise claims that he has totally overcome dyslexia and
>  can read at an incredible rate with superb comprehension now.  Other 
>  celebs like Anne Archer are also members.  

Celebrities are free press, obviously.  I'm not sure how many celebrities they
recruited before Shirley MacLaine became popular.

>4) Why is it considered a religion?

They claim to be one.  Did you read of the recent trial in Canada where some
members were found guilty of spying on several government services (they were
apparently interested in what the government had on them)?  The lawyer said he
planned to appeal, claiming it was religious persecution, among other things.
He also said they should have charged CoS in California, not CoS in Toronto.
Why the California chapter (which printed the literature I was handed) should
be interested in what the Canadian government thinks about them is unknown to
me.

>5) What about L. Ron Hubbard?  I've heard alot of nasty things about him.
>  Just judging from the back of the "Dianetics" book, he looks like a 
>  gangster.

He also wrote science fiction.  There is an apocryphal story about him where he
once said something like (loose paraphrasing) if he were to make a scam, it
would be in the form of a religion.  Whatever his faults, his arguably best
legacy is the annual competition for science-fiction talent.  Writers of the
Future, I believe it's called.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Humboldt County Redwoods on the Chopping Block
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:39:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article (EcoNet via Jym Dyer) writes:
<On March 6, 1991, the California Board of Forestry voted to ...
<
<Help save the last redwood wilderness!  Come to Humboldt County
<and take a stand for the last unprotected stands.

If someone came, would they be 18 months too late?
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3649 sci.environment:11246
From: shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:06:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Earth_Sciences_Dept.,_LLNL


In article <135926@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> I wrote:

 HS> when the earth accreted about 4.55 billion years ago) Pu-239 left in
 HS> the earth today.  One can place constraints on the initial Pu-239
 HS> content of the meteoritic material that accreted to form the earth by
 HS> looking at Xe isotopes in meteorites.  If you do the calculation for
 HS> how much has decayed since the earth`s formation, you find that there
 HS> are still a significant number of atoms left in the earth.  They are
 HS> suficiently "diluted" by other atoms that their detection would be
 HS> impossible, however.  (I got asked the question of whether there was
 HS> any primordial Pu left on earth in by graduate orals exam.  I got the
 HS> answer wrong.)

Paul Dietz was kind enough to point out in e-mail that I flunked that question again:


 PD> You got it wrong again.  Pu-239 has a halflife in the tens of thousands
 PD> of years.  I forget the exact number; let's say 20,000 years.
 PD> 4 billion years is therefore 200,000 halflives.  The earth
 PD> did not start with 2^200,000 atoms of Pu-239!

 PD> You no doubt meant to say Pu-244 (I think that's the isotope), which
 PD> has a halflife in the tens of millions of years.  Its non-detection in
 PD> the K/T boundary layer ruled out the "Supernova killed the dinosaurs"
 PD> theory.

 PD>	Paul F. Dietz
 PD>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu


Paul is quite correct;  I wasn't thinking clearly and confused Pu-244 and Pu-239.
 
-- 
Henry Shaw, Earth Sciences Dept., LLNL |    All opinions are my own.
Internet: shaw4@llnl.gov               |  
CIS: 76347,2523                        |
Fidonet: Henry Shaw at 1:161/55        |
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Virginia Attorney General Files Suit in Hazardous Waste Storage Case
Organization: NDA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:24:57 GMT

Here is a press release from the Attorney General of Virginia.

 Virginia Attorney General Files Suit in Hazardous Waste Storage Case
 To: City Desk
 Contact: David A. Parsons of the Office of the Attorney General,
          804-786-2435

   RICHMOND, Sept. 14  -- Attorney General Mary Sue Terry
 today announced that she has filed suit on behalf of the
Virginia Waste Management Board against an abandoned electroplating
facility in Hampton for unlawful storage and management of hazardous
waste.
   In suit papers mailed today to the Hampton Circuit Court, Terry
demands that Wayne D. Franklin, Franklin Machinery Co. Inc., Basic
Tool Co. and JC Manufacturing of Virginia Inc. immediately remove
cyanide and chromium bearing hazardous waste from the facility at
2133 56th St.  The suit also seeks a permanent injunction to clean up
the facility and civil penalties.
   The electroplating facility was closed by Hampton building
officials in October 1991 for building code and fire code violations.
   According to the suit, "The facility presents an immediate hazard
to public health and the environment.  There are leaks of hazardous
waste within the facility that have received only preliminary
attention; there are further potential leaks of hazardous waste that
are not being dealt with....In the event of a fire or a water leak,
the cyanide compounds and other hazardous waste in the facility can
be released into the environment."
   Upon filing the suit, Terry said, "The situation at the facility
presents a real risk to the surrounding community and is clearly
intolerable.  My office will be working closely with the EPA and
other agencies to ensure the site is cleaned up without further
delay."
   Because of leaking drums of chemicals discovered on Sept. 1 and
Sept. 9 by city and state officials, Environmental Protection Agency
personnel are scheduled to visit the facility at 9 a.m. Tuesday to
decide whether a "Superfund" cleanup should be instituted.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "Global Warming"
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:46:43 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: -Unknown-@iphase.UUCP's message of 11 Sep 92  16:08:00 EST

> Organization: University of Lowell
>
> I wish the enviromental nutcases would get there [sic] crises
> straight.  [Goes on about global cooling and warming.]

=-= Maybe if you walked right into your University of Lowell
library there, you'd find an explanation for *both* the cooling
and warming hypotheses.  I know I did.
    <_Jym_>

P.S.:  Your college is surrounded by a few hundred toxic waste
dumps.  If it weren't for us "environmental nutcases," at least
half of them wouldn't have even been discovered.  You might have
been living on top of one.  Why not find out what we're *really*
up to instead of just flaming about us?
From: -Unknown-@iphase.UUCP (-Unknown-)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 11 Sep 92  02:21:21 EST

Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Sep10.055251.23318@edsi.plexus.COM>, grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing) writes...
>Plutonium is a man-made element.  It does not exist naturally 
>anywhere on earth.  If it is indeed plutonium, it was put there by 
>man.

Actually a small amount of Pu-239 can be detected in uranium ore from the
spontaneous fission of uranium which releases neutrons that convert some U-238
atoms to Pu-239, the same process that occurs in a nuclear reactor.  Also
according to the CRC a small amount of Pu-244 has been detected in some other
ore.  I don't know what the origin of this (half-life of millions of years,
perhaps it was originally a large deposit of plutonium ore that decayed away
except a few atoms?)

>  Other radioactive elements with the exception of amercium 
>either self-decompose so rapidly they have no practical life, or 
>exist naturally in nature.

This is totally untrue, unless by "self-decompose so rapidly they have no
practical life" you mean anything with a half-life under 500 million years
or so.  Every single element has at least one known radioactive isotope,
and the half-lives of them range from nanoseconds to billions of years.
There are many with half-lives in the thousands or millions of years that are
not found in nature, if there ever was any it has decayed away.

There is nothing special about plutonium compared to other radioactives,
a similar amount of activity of any alpha-emitter if ground into dust and
breathed into the lungs stands a good chance of causing cancer.  One theory
behind _how_ smoking causes lung cancer is the tobacco plant tends to absorb
natural radioactives which get breathed into the lungs when it is smoked.

-Mike
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Xref: sparky talk.environment:3664 sci.environment:11272 alt.activism:16160 talk.politics.misc:44851
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:06:20 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 <1992Sep11.001725.18336@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>>>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>>>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. 

>>How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>>levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.

>>>Up to 27.5 million curies of radioactivity will then be 
>>>released annually.  This may be compared with 
>>>the approximately 50 million curies which, according to 
>>>official data, were released at Chernobyl during the 
>>>accident. 

>Gee, Michael, why do you ask questions that are answered below ?

Because it isn't answered.  Greenpeace is claiming that the area
arround the reprocessing site will be contaminated.  I could release
really impressive amounts of tritium, for example, without even
slightly contaminating the ground arround me.

>>Now why do I think that something in that paragraph smells fishy?

>Because you read it with blinders on.

I think the blinders are over your eyes instead.  Do you really find
it believable that someone is planning on building a nuclear facility
that under normal use will release half as much radiation every year
as Chernobyl did in its accident?

>-- richard
>
>-- 
>=====
>-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
>         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
>                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3719 sci.environment:11365 pnw.general:2091
From: ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Defenders of Wildlife responds to Bush's speech
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:28:20 GMT
Organization: CDAC, WA

In article <1992Sep15.181212.20691@nwnexus.WA.COM> guru@halcyon.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.160747.4455@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>>It isn't only the Bush administration.  Clinton and all the other
>>``major'' canditates I've heard are pandering to whatever group
>>they're talking to at any given time, but what's new about that?
>
>I couldn't have said it better myself. 
>
>Vote NO on Bush/Clinton!

 That should be:

 Vote NOE on Bush/Clinton!

 -S
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Sep10.145413.13950@pmafire.inel.gov>
	<Jym.14Sep1992.2313@naughty-peahen.org>
	<1992Sep15.161348.3445@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:40:33

Jym Dyer said:

>=o= The underlying concern is that the vast majority of the
>biosphere has had no contact with plutonium, and thus has not
>developed ways to deal with it.

However, plutonium is like other heavy metals biochemically and
produces alpha radiation just like many other elements.  The
effects of the kinds of radiation plutonium produces are well
understood.

The real underlying concern is that the vast majority of the
sociosphere has had no contact with Greenhype, and thus has not
developed ways to deal with it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
From: mark@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Mark Webster)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Originator: mark@morningstar
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:27:13 GMT


In article <1992Sep9.234602.16498@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep9.153215.4126@fylz.wa.com>, fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:
|> >	The worldwide inventory of plutonium is manmade.  It was
|> > 	viturally nonexistent in the earth's crust before the U.S.
|> >	atomic bomb program was initiated.  By far the major use of
|> >	plutonium today is in the manufacture of nuclear bombs.
|> 
|> OK, so, under ideal conditions, an ounce of plutonium can produce 10^13 such
|> particles.  How many such particles are likely to be produced under the
|> conditions in which the plutonium in question was released?  In what form was
|> the plutonium in question, anyway, at the time it was released?  Elemental
|> plutonium (which your "analysis" above assumes)?  Compounded with something
|> other than oxygen?  Plutonium oxide?  Leave it to yet another ecoterrorist to
|> take a situation and analyze it given worst-case assumptions, ignoring actual
|> conditions.
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

All you anti-environmentalists are really picking the wrong thing to use
as a rant against "eco-terrorists".  All of you are focussing on a "few millirems
of harmless radiation".  Even trace amounts of plutonium are dangerous. 
Plutonium oxide in particular was mentioned as a dangerous form.  This stuff is sitting on a beach with the wind blowing and people are lying on the sand with their faces just a few inches away from the sand.  Sounds like a very good way
to breathe the stuff in.  Better stick with those harmless accidental releases
of gas/water from nuclear power plants and processing facilities for your reactionary, anti-environmentalist, tunnel visioned, short term thinking, outmoded, corporations can do no wrong, rantings. 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: "Global Warming"
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:08:00 GMT

I wish the enviromental nutcases would get there crises straight.  Not so long
ago we were told of the impending "New Ice Age." This was because temperatures
around the globe showed a steady decline.  Then in the 70's the temperature
started going up.  Now everyone's concerned about global warming.  So which one
is it, ice age or global warming?  In case you were wondering, CO2 emissions
from people, industry, etc., are negligible compared to those produced by
volcanoes.  Even if we eradicated every source of non-volcano CO2 emissions we
wouldn't change the "global warming" trend one iota.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3652 sci.environment:11254 alt.activism:16144 talk.politics.misc:44701