HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Spotted Owl (Re: The Human Niche
Date: 27 Sep 1992 02:49:30 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <43202@ogicse.ogi.edu>, jhurst@amb4.ccalmr.ogi.edu (James Hurst) writes:
>Second, I reject the validity of your metric.  There is no question that 
>biodiversity is valuable, but we are in little position now to assign a
>concrete value to any specific piece of it, due to our ignorance of the 
>technology of molecular biology.  I suspect that most of the combinations
>of genes present in wildland ecosystems will have little or no value to 
>our economic system, just as the tailing of diamond mining are worthless.

That's odd.  I thought coal was considered to be a valuable resource.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Definition of growth rate
Date: 27 Sep 1992 15:45:20 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep27.150854.28456@news.acns.nwu.edu>, len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
>It might also be possible to define growth rate in the following way.
>Assume  x = f(t) = e^{r(t) t}, i.e., take  r(t) = (ln f(t))/t.   This
>gives a different answer from  (dx/dt)/x  in general.   I don't remember
>seeing that defintion anywhere except in a posting in this news group.
>I don't believe it is common, but perhaps I am wrong.

I doubt that it's common.  I used that definition as an attempt to make sense
of the claim that you can have an exponential function in which the growth rate
varies.  I don't believe that such a definition of an exponential function is
common, but perhaps I am wrong.  Or, as they say in the trade, GIGO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Distribution: na
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:49:09 GMT

In <1992Oct2.183458.2087@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.113017.4473@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	A solution, if you are interested in charging per mile driven to gauge
>>wear and tear, is to add a little more functionality to the current computers
>>in cars.  

>Could you tell me where I find the computer in my 85 Civic ? 

How about the one in my '66 Corvair or in my '64 Econoline.  And what about
the next step.  "where you on the night of the anti war demonstration?  Your
car computer shows you drove 50 miles that night and ...."

>-- paul


>-- 
>There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
>little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
>price only are this man's lawful prey.
>						John Raskin
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:10:58 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   6 Oct 92 02:49:18 GMT
>FROM:   John McCarthy <jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>
>In article <1992Oct5.222329.15554@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
[material deleted]
>   -- paul
>
>   -- 
>   There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
>   little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
>   price only are this man's lawful prey.
>						   John Raskin
>
>The fellow's name was John Ruskin, and he was quite a creative snob.
>He invented and popularized whole new categories of snobbery.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Now I've seen it all. Poor John Ruskin, dead these hundred years, flamed 
on the net. And he didn't even post!

--Michael Smith
From: kachun@delphinus.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: George Will's "Global Cooling"
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:48:02 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

So can anyone send me info on George Will's argument against global warming:
that those atmospheric scientists don't know what they're doing since they
were predicting global cooling not too long ago?  I remember seeing some sort
of rebuttal several months back on another newsgroup but didn't save the post.
I already have info on Will's selective use of a Gallup poll so I don't need
that.  Thanks.


--
*Ka Chun Yu                * "I'm going down to Cowtown, the cow's a friend of *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu     *  me; he lives beneath the ocean and that's where  *
*But you should reply to:  *  I will be.  Beneath the waves, the waves..."     *
*kachun@vela.Colorado.EDU  *                                      --Cowtown    *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:26:11

Any technology that requires government promotion on the scale
that solar water heating does is a priori dubious.

I have a solar water heater that was installed when I bought
the house.  Whether it heats the water I have no idea, because
it is backed up with gas.  The company that installed it during
the previous fit of enthusiasm for solar hot water is out of
business.  It was quite hard to get it fixed when it leaked.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:11643 alt.education.distance:375
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.education.distance
Subject: Re: PBS offers Environmental Compendium
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:56:42 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <JMC.92Sep23172228@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Why should I have to pay taxes to fund propaganda I disagree with when
>I have to make voluntary contributions to fund propaganda I agree
>with?

Somebody's got to do it?  :-)

The government seems fond of using *our* money for purposes that we
don't find suitable. Yet we keep re-electing the weasels.

Gary
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:14:48 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <6429@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>Well, I have never felt that full of myself, but can imagine that Charming
>Billy did.
>
>The options were not lying or dying.  They were:
>
>   a.  Serving
>   b.  Being up front and honest.  Go to jail as an evader, try to be a
>       conscientious objector, go to Canada, etc.
>   c.  Lying and deceiving. (Bill's way....)

How would you characterize the actions of such suppporters of the war
as Danny, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanon who managed to cheer from afar.
At least Bill was against the war -- he didn't ask others to go in his
place.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:21:43 GMT

In article <lcbvdoINN3d@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>What commonly used sources of energy have not been promoted by government?
>Surely not nuclear and hydro which exist only because of massive government 
>spending. 

I'll agree govn't played a big role in starting nuclear, but hydro
was privately developed for nearly 50 years (100's of years if we
count non-electric hydro) before govn't butted in.  The first dam on
the Columbia was private, and still provides the cheapest electricity
in the world.  After the govn't took over the dam efficiency didn't
fare so well, although by its nature the Columbia dams still produce 
much cheaper than any other method of generation.

(Albeit, the recent huge salmon lawsuits, the hyper-regulation of
nuclear power that drove WPSS out of business, etc. have sent our
ratings soaring. We used to have the lowest rates in the world; still 
would if it weren't for all the eco-crap).


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:07:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester


In article <JMC.92Sep27102611@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>Any technology that requires government promotion on the scale
>that solar water heating does is a priori dubious.
>
>I have a solar water heater that was installed when I bought
>the house.  Whether it heats the water I have no idea, because
>it is backed up with gas.


Well, let's inject some numbers here.

Real Goods sells a water heater called the Copper Cricket.  The unit
with installation kit costs $2,330.  Now, Real Goods has a mark up,
but this figure ignores shipping and installation costs, so let's use
it.  The unit is rated at 22,000 BTU/day (not clear where, or with
what weather, but let's use that number).

Over a year, the unit would produce about 8.5 GJ of heat.  This is
2350 kWh.  At $.08/kWh, this is $188/year in avoided cost.  The
cost/annual savings ratio is about 12.  This is beyond the typical
consumer's maximum acceptable payback time.

What if the unit is replacing a gas heater?  Let's say the heater
being replaced burns natural gas at 80% efficiency, and the gas costs
$.50/therm (10^5 BTU).  It displaces 100 therms/year, or about
$50/year.  The cost/savings ratio rises to 46 years.  Because the life
expectancy of the collector is only promised to be around 30 years,
and because of interest costs, the solar collector is a net loss.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:44:33 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 <53997@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.211703.7138@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>You don't know the units of measurement. 

>>Nope.  Don't have them memorized.  Do you?

>>>You don't know the numbers.

>>Nope.  don't have them memorized.  I can look them up.  Are you
>>claiming you have them memorized?

>>>You are completely ignorant about the, well documented, history
>>>of Windscale/Sellafield. 

>>Which is irrelevant to this particular argument.

>>>Your argumentation is based entirely on an
>>>uninformed idea of what is "reasonable".

>>Are you more informed?  If so, please inform me.  How is it reasonable
>>that a nuclear installation will deliberatedly release half as much
>>radiation each year as the Chernobyl disaster did?

>It's no more reasonable than the possibility that an installation will
>store nuclear waste in unlined trenches,

Actually, I find that perfectly reasonable, at least for some kinds of
nuclear waste.  A lot depends on the type of waste - both how
radioactive it is and how chemically inert it is.

>cover up the results of a
>Chernobyl style graphite reactor fire

You are right.  That's totally unreasonable.  If nothing else, the
radiation measured by neighboring countries would let the cat out of
the bag ASAP.  The only people stupid enough to try something like
that were the Soviets.  Of course, a graphite reactor fire that wasn't
Chernobyl style is a different matter, but the nuclear Chicken Littles
don't seem to be able to conceive of a nuclear accident that isn't
like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

>build a pipline into the
>sea to pour in "low activity" wastes

What's unreasonable about that?  Doesn't it all depend on how "low
activity" the wastes are?  And why the quotes?

>vent Cesium directly into
>the atmosphere

Again, perfectly reasonable as long as there isn't too much.

>and put 1/2 million curies of Pu241 into the Irish Sea.

What't wrong with that?  Isn't the important thing how much people are
exposed to?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:26:28 GMT

Josh Rovero (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) wrote:

:    a.  Serving
:    b.  Being up front and honest.  Go to jail as an evader, try to be a
:        conscientious objector, go to Canada, etc.
:    c.  Lying and deceiving. (Bill's way....)

	True.  However, I don't equate cowardice with this type of behavior,
especially with regard to Vietnam.
	The ROTC fiasco, which it was, was an attempt to preserve his "record"
for later political service.  Putting myself in a hypothetical situation,
I'd have pulled every legal string before going to illegal/questionable 
means.  But I sure would have tried not to go.  Cowardice?  Perhaps.
Not wanting to get killed unnecessarily?  Absolutely.
	BTW, I am being hit with a major wave of empathy for all the
reservists who went to Kuwait (and sure didn't plan on going).  Great job,
guys.  I guess that returns us to an obligatory sci.enviroment comment -
how much of that war was fought to continue the supply of cheap oil to the
U.S. and allies?  (I'd lean about 70% oil, 30% keeping the world safe
from insane dictators.)

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

	(Are there any people out there who avoided the Vietnam draft,
for whatever reason and by whatever means, who care to comment on this?)

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism,fl.general,sci.engr.civil,alt.hurricane.andrew
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 10:39:39 CET
From: <MKHAN@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Recyle your paper - burn it!
 <1992Sep21.142510.28938@cs.ucf.edu> <1acrtdINNhfr@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>

Good point you make about REUSING instead of recycling beverage containers.
The thing is that the manufacturers save money by transferring the costs of
the disposal of the empty containers to the tax-payer, including many people
who like myself never drink Coke, Pepsi etc. but still have to help finance
land fills, garbage incinerators, recycling plants and so forth. By reverting
to the reuseable containers, the cost would be retransferred to those
drawing a benefit from the product, those who produce and market it and those
who consume it.

The way to get there is easy: slap a compulsory refund on beverage containers.
Some will argue that this is a regulatory policy. My answer: Yep. So?

As for the convenience of non-reuseable containers: The average consumer,
especially in the USA, drives everywhere and does not normally have to carry
his groceries further than from the shopping cart to the trunk of his car
and then again from his garage to his kitchen. The additional weight of
reuseable (mostly glass) containers does not strike me as all that important
under the circumstances.

Anyway, people are spending $$$ for work-outs in fitness studios. Instead,
they could do tote crates of glass Coke bottle. Seems to me there is a great
untapped potential for savings here :-)
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:39:12 GMT

Subject:  AUTOMATED CLINTON/GORE MAIL SERVICE
 
 Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans 
 into the American political process -- for the good of our country.  
 At this critical time in our country's history it is imperative that 
 we all do everything in our power to make our system work.  
 
 We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century 
 democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the 
 internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send 
 your comments and ideas back to us.
 

 To learn more, send mail to the automated Clinton/Gore mail server 
 
    clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org



 RECEIVE THE LATEST SPEECHES:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info speeches" to the mail server, 
 you will receive all the latest Clinton/Gore speeches as soon as 
 they come on-line.


 RECEIVE ALL AVAILABLE POSITION PAPERS:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info all" to the mail server at, 
 you will receive the full set of Clinton/Gore position papers.


 QUERY THE CANIDATES -- INTERNET POLL:
 
 If you have a question for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 question to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "question propose".  

 Send the Subject line "question get" to get the current numbered 
 list of questions.  

 Send the Subject line "question vote <X Y>" to vote for questions 
 number <X> and <Y>.  For example, you would send the SUBJECT line 
 "question vote 3" to vote for question number 3.

 Each week the questions with the most votes will be forwarded to 
 Little Rock.

 
 SEND YOUR SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS

 If you have a suggestion for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 suggestion to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "suggest propose".  

 Send the Subject line "suggest get" to get the current numbered 
 list of suggestions.  

 Send the Subject line "suggest vote <a b c>" to vote for suggestions 
 number <a>, <b>, and <c>.  For example, you would send the Subject 
 line "suggest vote 18 4" to vote for suggestions 18 and 4.
 

 The questions, suggestions, and the campaign's responses will be 
 posted to the network.  You can help redistribute this and other 
 information by sending the Subject line "volunteer email distr" 
 to the mail server at

 clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
 


 Clinton/Gore '92
 Volunteer Email Effort


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:58:45 GMT

In article <1a2rgrINNku8@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1466601764@igc.apc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>=SMUD's plans, the article said, include:
>=
>=o    Seeking to replace 59,000 electric water heaters in its
>=     service territory with solar models.  The utility is
>=     developing a consumer's guide to help homeowners select a
>=     system and will also provide a list of qualified contractors. 
>=     In addition, SMUD will provide rebates of $400 to $1,400 and
>=     low-interest loans to some purchasers of solar systems, which
>=     cost between $2,500 and $3,000.
>=
>=o    Supplying technical assistance and financial incentives to
>=     housing developers who incorporate solar features in new
>=     homes.  Among technical information items, to be developed in
>=     cooperation with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
>=     (NREL), will be workshops and a handbook for builders. 
>=     Demonstration homes are also planned.
>
>Gee.  And here we've had people telling us in this newsgroup that solar energy
>is cost-competitive.  I guess SMUD hasn't heard these claims.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


In the long run it will save money.  Solar water heaters usually pay for
themselves in 5 to 10 years, which will be significantly shortened for
these consumers due to the subsidization by SMUD.  For SMUD, the subsidizing
of energy efficiency is cheaper than building new capacity.  In the
_long run_, everyone will save.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:00:10 GMT

In article <790002@hplred.HP.COM> curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry) writes:

> Some varieties of western grasses concentrate actinides
> (Th, U, Pu, Am, Cm) by factors of ~1000, while other closely related species
> don't seem to take them up at all.

This is very interesting, and potentially very useful.

If the grasses really *do* concentrate uranium to the level of 1000x
that in the soil (which is typically a few ppm), then the grasses
would end up being several tenths of a percent uranium by weight.
That's high enough to be worth mining, especially when the biomass can
be burned off to concentrate the uranium in the ash.  The energy in
the U-235 content of the biomass would be roughly 100x its chemical
energy content.  This would provide enough uranium to operate today's
population of reactors for many centuries, even without reprocessing,
if these grasses or similar plants were used to strip the soil of the
world's arable lands of uranium.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu