HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Plastic or Paper...which is environmentally correct?
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:06:49 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Aug14.212623.11292@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe) writes:
>
>Michael  <MKHAN@ESOC.BITNET> says
>Mark Wilson states that the fiber length degrades in the recycling process
>thus precluding a closed paper loop.
>I concur but would like to point out that a prime market for recycled paper
>would be applications like tissues, napkins, toilet paper etc where the waste
>product is not fed back into the loop and quality or appearance of the product
>are not of prime importance. 
> 
>As one who worked in this area for years, I would suggest some real-world
>experience. Try telling the chemists and engineers at Procter and Gamble, 
>Kimberly-Clark, or Scott Paper that "quality is not important".
>Try telling their customers. Better yet, try selling some of that
>European trash in the U. S and try losing your shirt.!
> -Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org

You can get adequate quality with recycled and non-chlorine bleached
(even non-bleached, but then its not white and some consumers don't
understand that not white toilet paper is just as clean and good, but that's
another matter). You can get good enough quality most people wouldn't be
able to tell the difference. Beyond that, I have word that Procter and Gamble
is presently developing (and supposedly close to test marketing) recycled
and not-chlorine bleached paper products (paper towels, toilet paper, lots
of others). I don't know about other companies, but I expect after P&G's
stuff sells well a few years down the line, they'll start doing the same.

One factor involved is that the technology for making recycled paper products
of high quality without great expense is fairly new (they could be made for
lower quality or at great expense for quite some time now) and the investment
involved in having a plant do this is large in both $$ and time, which is
why most such products are still in the development stage. From another post
to the group, it sounds like the German businesses invested in this area 
before those in the U.S. did, so they have a head start and are already in
production.

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Subject: The NIMBY and his LULU
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 03:43:42 GMT


LULU dear,  it's been a year
     since I protested your
     existence.
NIMBY love, you are a dove,
     and complaints galore
     comprise your love.
But LULU dear, please decline
     to disappear for good
     'ere I'll pine....
Since that event
     would prevent
     another hundred letters to the president.

NIMBY = not in my backyard'er    LULU = locally unwanted land use
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
From: Wanda Ballentine <wandab@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:07 PDT
Subject: Biggest ozone killer?
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601738:000:312
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!wandab    Aug 16 22:07:00 1992


We are interested in getting information from scientists in other
countries as to what THEY find to be the major causes of ozone
depletion.  Are CFCs the major culprit?  What about methyl
bromide?  Do you have percentages and amounts?  Or is everyone
getting their information from NASA?

Operation Ozone Shield
From: jhurst@amb4.ese.ogi.edu (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: USGS stream gauging data
Summary: Check the USGS ftp site
Keywords: If fools are outlawed, only outlaws will have fools?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:40:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.41678
Organization: Center for Coastal and Land-Margin Research

Bob Harrington writes:

>Does anyone out there know if USGS stream gauging
>data is available via anonymous ftp? I'm interested
>in data for the western US in particular.

You might check the USGS ftp site, at glis.cr.usgs.gov  (192.41.204.54).

GLIS is the global land information system, designed to let users come and 
browse datasets.  They have some procedure for for searching their inventory,
and for ordering data.

					Cheers,

					Jim
From: mcmahon@tgv.com (John 'Fast-Eddie/FuzzFace' McMahon)
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Reply-To: mcmahon@tgv.com
Organization: TGV Incorporated (Tech Support) in Santa Cruz, CA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:28:41 GMT


In article <1992Aug15.032831.18159@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

(about the I-880 section along Cypress in Oakland...)

=
=	Now, it will be rebuilt, as I have learned from recent
=newspaper stories (for example, _The San Francisco Examiner_, Aug. 13,
=1991, p. A4)
=
=	The original 1.25 mi. stretch will be rebuilt for about $695
=million. The job will be started in January 1994, and the rebuilt
=freeway segment should open in 1998.

I suspect those folks who were forced onto other routes because of the
loss of I-880 will be happy to hear it's on the way back.  I doubt the
folks in that Oakland neighborhood will be happy, I think the area
looks and sounds a lot nicer without I-880 going through it.

However, they called a smog alert for the Silicon Valley today and
I begin to wonder whether or not that $700 million should have
been used to improve public transit in that region and get
more people out of their cars.

--
John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon    ()
TGV, Incorporated            () "Any networking problem can be solved by
603 Mission Street           ()  the application of 33 miles of Unshielded 
Santa Cruz, California 95060 ()  Twisted Pair (UTP)"   
408-427-4366 or 800-TGV-3440 ()                      [InterOp Spring 1992]
E-Mail: MCMAHON@TGV.COM      ()

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10677 sci.energy:4007
From: mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Date: 15 Aug 1992 02:33:33 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug14.185818.11788@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com>, c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
 
> Hi folks,
 
> a while back we discussed (too civil a word :-)) whether cars pay their
> fair share of using roads and other public facilities (bridges, police,
> environmental, etc). Tollways were considered a way in which to get cars
> to pay for some of that. 
 
> On a trip to Chicago a couple of weeks ago, I noticed the following while
> on 294 north, A 3+3 lane highway. Traffic would flow quite well, and then,
> every few miles, a TOLL PLAZA... 
 
> We had to go thru four of these each way. Each time, before the TOLL
> PLAZA we'd be driving along quite well. Then, a 15 - 20 minute stop'n'go
> session to pay tolls. A few miles of faster driving, and ad nauseaum.
 
> 1 hour for the trip and 1 hour for the delay in the toll plazas. A sub
> story here was that the plazas had both automated and manual stations.
> Most people would go thru the automated booths and thus wait even
> LONGER there, while the manual lanes were noticeably faster.

> Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
> Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
> GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]

  This is an example of poor toll collection, but it cannot be used
against ALL toll collection.  Go take a trip on the New Jersey turnpike.
When you get on, regardless of exit, you are handed a cardboard card
that shows your current exit and a table of prices you will pay to reach
each of the other exits.  You then see no toll booths, none, until you
exit the turnpike.  You then present your card and pay the amount shown.
You have been traveling ~55 mph for the entire trip.
  I don't know why more roads don't use this method.  I've seen both,
and this is far more efficient.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Suggestibility of environmentalists
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:01:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.090154.3231@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>The point is that even professionals, the people we expect to provide
>the expertise to guide wise environmental choices, are easily swayed
>by green propaganda rather than by objective evaluation of risks on
>their own merits. This has important public policy implications. It
>means that public officials are receiving advice from people who are
>as subject to hysteria as you so obviously are.
>
>Gary

Until we know specifically what information was provided to them about
the substances or materials they were evaluating, this is just an
assumption.  Maybe these professionals knew more about the material
than they were told.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:07:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Aug19.150702.29920
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Just for interest, Vancouver has faced lawn-watering bans this 
year. The states have a lot of water, but a lot of it is wasted.
Some of the dam projects in Alberta(such as the OLDMAN river) 
seem to make more sense for setting up a large-scale water-
diversion system to the states. The premier of Quebec has
long been associated with the grand-canal scheme: to dam up
Hudson's bay and blast a canal down to the great lakes for 
US water usage. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to conserve
our resources than mutilate our watersheds?###
####
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10705 ba.transportation:2016 rec.railroad:6551
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:10:46 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Aug16.222841.23030@news.arc.nasa.gov> mcmahon@tgv.com writes:
>I suspect those folks who were forced onto other routes because of the
>loss of I-880 will be happy to hear it's on the way back.  I doubt the
>folks in that Oakland neighborhood will be happy, I think the area
>looks and sounds a lot nicer without I-880 going through it.

The new route is farther west--through a primarliy industrial area
(though that's actually true of a lot of the old route as well).

>However, they called a smog alert for the Silicon Valley today and
>I begin to wonder whether or not that $700 million should have
>been used to improve public transit in that region and get
>more people out of their cars.

I doubt that I-880 will have much of an effect on the So. Bay's air.

On the general topic . . .  Am I the only one that noticed that the
predictions of air quality data were consistnely worse that the actual
measurements?  Last week the Chron was prediciting worse air quality
than actually happened.

	--Hal
>--
>John 'Fast-Eddie' McMahon    ()
>TGV, Incorporated            () "Any networking problem can be solved by
>603 Mission Street           ()  the application of 33 miles of Unshielded 
>Santa Cruz, California 95060 ()  Twisted Pair (UTP)"   
>408-427-4366 or 800-TGV-3440 ()                      [InterOp Spring 1992]
>E-Mail: MCMAHON@TGV.COM      ()


-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10623 sci.psychology:3475 sci.misc:1475
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Suggestibility of environmentalists
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:11:15 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <10AUG199222570475@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:

>A study has shown that professional environmentalists
>are more likely to assign a high hazard quotient
>to a substance when they are told what the substance is,
>compared to when they are told only its biological
>effects.

>A sample of 1461 toxicologists and epidemiologists was given a

Since these were people with professional expertise it seems _very_
likely that at least some of them either knew more effects than were
listed in the question, or would have considered that the question, in
their opinion, downplayed the effects. The quoted survey result means
nothing unless this simple obvious cause of the effect was controlled
for.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:17:58 GMT

In article <JMC.92Aug19185443@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.150702.29920@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
>
>
>   Just for interest, Vancouver has faced lawn-watering bans this 
>   year. The states have a lot of water, but a lot of it is wasted.
>   Some of the dam projects in Alberta(such as the OLDMAN river) 
>   seem to make more sense for setting up a large-scale water-
>   diversion system to the states. The premier of Quebec has
>   long been associated with the grand-canal scheme: to dam up
>   Hudson's bay and blast a canal down to the great lakes for 
>   US water usage. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to conserve
>   our resources than mutilate our watersheds?###
>   ####
>
>Mr. Tarasov likes words like "mutilate" that prejudice the issues he
>purports to discuss.
>
>How about "develop" instead?  Then the answer wouldn't be obvious
>and would actually be subject to discussion.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

Dams do tend to flood an area and drive out all of the wildlife in the
area.  I would suggest that mutilate would be more descriptive, and
accurate, than develop.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 21:28:52 GMT

c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:


>Hi folks,

>a while back we discussed (too civil a word :-)) whether cars pay their
>fair share of using roads and other public facilities (bridges, police,
>environmental, etc). Tollways were considered a way in which to get cars
>to pay for some of that. 

>On a trip to Chicago a couple of weeks ago, I noticed the following while
>on 294 north, A 3+3 lane highway. Traffic would flow quite well, and then,
>every few miles, a TOLL PLAZA... 

>We had to go thru four of these each way. Each time, before the TOLL
>PLAZA we'd be driving along quite well. Then, a 15 - 20 minute stop'n'go
>session to pay tolls. A few miles of faster driving, and ad nauseaum.

>1 hour for the trip and 1 hour for the delay in the toll plazas. A sub
>story here was that the plazas had both automated and manual stations.
>Most people would go thru the automated booths and thus wait even
>LONGER there, while the manual lanes were noticeably faster.

>Why the tolls were collected, I don't know. All I can tell is that 
>the road quality was reminiscent of Bagdhat (sp?) AFTER the war, 
>and lots and lots of narrow lanes/construction zones/.... 

>I can see the state getting a double homer on this. First tolls are
>collected, and second, lots more gasoline has to be burned in order to
>collect the tolls (while waiting, hence more state tax). The motorists
>get hit by a double homer also, paying for the tolls and getting
>crappy roads, wasting time (LOTS of IT), gasoline (Ditto), ...

>And for the sci.environment crowd. Is the benefit from collecting what
>MAY amount to fair share of road cost worth the environmental cost of
>having 3 miles' worth of trafic jam every few miles? 

I know also the pitiable state of the "toll roads" around Chicago.
I guess this time you pay so that they can start filling the potholes.

However, isn't the purpose of the toll roads to get the motorists to
*pay* for the road construction itself? Somebody made that road (probably
not always the state/city but maybe some private company) and now wants you to 
pay for using it. Isn't that fair? I cannot see an enviromental issue 
here at all.

It is true that around NYC and Chicago they still tax people on 
*paid* roads. But these roads have to be kept up somehow. 

The fact that the city/community is not prepared/able to pay for a free
road means that you sit on the toll plaza (cf. waiting time for the
NYC tunnels vs. time to drive through them). This is of course a 
tax-issue and is a hot potato for all politicians (even on a non-election
year) but not an enviromental issue. Are you prepared to pay more $$$ in 
taxes in order not to wait in line at the toll booth? Most people aren't!

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:58:32 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU


        [sci.energy removed from Newsgroups line]

abrown@hpcvcaj.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
>[E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM]
>> ...  Then ask yourself two questions:
>> 1)  Who has the best Army in the world that money can buy?

>The USA.

Okay.

>> 2)  Who wants to buy that Army to keep themselves safe, powerful, and
>> rich?

>Nobody, when they can get it for free.  If we are going to the the
>policemen of the world, we should be charging for the service.  And we
>should *not* be selling (or worse yet giving away) the military
>technology that was developed at great public expense.

I see the point, but there are some side issues.
1. What happens when it turns out that Europe and Japan don't
   want to pay for any services by that Army?  Will it refuse
   to do anything?
2. What happens when it turns out that the countries that *do*
   want to pay for that Army are conservative dictatorships,
   standing for anything but Truth, Justice, and The American Way?
3. What happens when another country, that happens to have lots
   of fissile material, becomes so desperate for cash reserves
   that it enters the free market for Armies, weapons, and the
   like?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug14.212852.10235@csrd.uiuc.edu>
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:53:24

The original purpose of the tolls was to pay off the bonds that were
used to finance the construction of the road and bridges.  Almost all
the bonds for almost all the toll roads have been paid off, but the
road authorities and the states can always find uses for the money.
Therefore, they celebrate the paying off of the bonds by raising
the tolls.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.politics.clinton
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Subject: [bags] Re: Plastic or Paper...which is environmentally suitable?
Followup-To: soc.culture.usa,sci.environment,soc.culture.esperanto
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:49:49 GMT


     [Estas en Anglolingvo, sed Esperanta traduko estas haveble.] --
Irrel@v@nt to English speakers.

     I have seen people take new bags each time, whether paper or plastic.
Even if they take paper bag, they save a whole pile fo them and say that
they will "recycle" them.  Why don't they think of *re-using* them?
In my experience, a plastic bag and a double-layered paper bag can be
used up to five or even ten times.  What a saving!

     Any European or Asian or African or Oceanian or South American opinion?

				*Zhong* Qi-Iao, San Francisco Bay Area
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hsaiah@ul9000.unil.ch
Subject: URGENT!!! EPA medium formula
Organization: University of Lausanne CH (Switzerland)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:06:26 GMT

Hello I have a small problem, big for me. Is anyone could help me?
I need URGENTLY the composition of a medium for ecotoxicological test on
      ^^^^^^^^^^^
crustacean.  I lost the formula and I have actually experiments running with
this medium. The book were I could find the formula does'nt exist in
Switzerland.
 I wonder if someone could just look to the original book where is
describe the formula for the  moderately hard synthetic freshwater EPA medium:
                              `^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 (EPA= Environmental Protection Agency)

what I need:
NaHCO3......??  mg/l
MgSO4......??   mg/l
CaCl2.......?? mg/l
KCl..........?? mg/l                (ph = 7,6 +- 02,  Hardness 80-100mg/l CaCO3)

The book is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title:         Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents to
                 freshwater and marine organisms / edited by William H. Peltier
                 and Cornelius I. Weber. 3rd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio :
                 Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Office of
                 Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
                 Agency, 1985.
Description:   xv, 216 p. : ill., forms ; 28 cm.

Doc Numbers:   Govt Doc No.:  EP 1.23/5:600/4-85-013
               Report No.:    EPA/600/4-85/013

Notes:         "March 1985."
               "EPA/600/4-85/013."
               Includes bibliographies.

Subjects:      Water quality bioassay -- United States.
               Water -- Pollution -- United States -- Measurement.

Other entries: Weber, Cornelius I.
               Peltier, William.
               Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati,
                 Ohio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks in advance for your help. Mail directly to me the answer please. 
					bye,        Henni

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Henni SAIAH , Lausanne University, Switzerland  :
Email:    Hsaiah@ulys.unil.ch	(internet)      :
	  Hsaiah@clsuni51.bitnet  (Bitnet)      :
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::		


Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy