From jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu Wed Mar 2 10:57:56 EST 1994 Article: 22250 of sci.energy Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.energy:22250 sci.med.physics:1902 Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.med.physics Subject: Occupations radiation & cancer (new analysis) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 10:50:21 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 57 Message-ID: <9403011050.AA21069@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Summary: new analysis of cancer in radiation workers published Keywords: radiation, cancer, occupational exposure X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.2 For those of you interested in radiation carcinogenesis, Radiation Research just published a combined analysis of the occupational mortality data from Hanford, Oak Ridge and Rocky Flats ES Gilbert et al, "Updated analysis of combined mortality data for workers at the Hanford site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Rock Flats Weapons plant. Radiat Res 136:408-421, 1993. Adress for reprints: ES Gilbert Epidemiology and Biometry Department Pacific Northwest Laboratory Richmond, Washington 99352 >From authors abstract: "For leukemia, the combined excess relative risk estimate was negative (-1.0 per Sv), and confidence limits excluded risks that were more than slightly larger than those forming the basis of ICRP recommendations. For all cancer except leukemia, the excess relative risk was 0.0 per Sv, but confidence limits indicated consistency with estimates several times those forming the basis of ICRP recommendations" Some notes: 1) Average lifetime doses: 22 to 41 mSv (2.2 - 4.1 rem) 2) maximum life-time doses: about 400 deaths in workers receiving doses over 100 mSv, and about 200 with doses over 200 mSv. 3) Workers overwhelmingly male, with a wide age-range at exposure ICRP risk estimates for low dose and low dose-rate exposure of adult males, based on high dose exposure (principally A-bomb survivors) leukemia: 1.9/Sv all cancer except leukemia: 0.12/Sv This analysis (with 90% confidence intervals): Leukemia: -1.0 (<-2.0 to +2.0) Sv all cancer except leukemia: 0.0 (-0.7 to +0.9) Authors conclusions: 1) "the possibility of not risk at low doses and dose rates cannot be excluded" 2) "claims are sometimes made that the extrapolation process used by ICRP and BIER V has underestimated the risks of low-level exposure. . . This result . . . provides some confirmation that leukemia risks have not been seriously underestimated by the ICRP. . .[however] for all cancer except leukemia . . . confidence limits indicate that estimates several times the ICRP value of 0.12 per Sv are consistent with the worker data" 3) "Caution is required in interpreting these comparisons as confidence intervals do not include uncertainty resulting from confounding. . . biases . . . uncertainty in dosimetry" John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Voice: 414-266-4670 Radiation Biology Group FAX: 414-257-2466 Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee From jgd@dixie.com Sun Mar 13 18:55:32 EST 1994 Article: 22487 of sci.energy Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.energy:22487 sci.electronics:71536 misc.consumers.house:54646 Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,misc.consumers.house Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!holos0!rsiatl!jgd From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) Subject: Green Plug 1, Refrigerator 0 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Mar 94 07:46:34 GMT Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South. Keywords: smoke, flames Lines: 60 Back in November I posted some preliminary results of my testing under actual conditions, a Green Plug with a 1977 yearmodel Hotpoint Model CTF18C refrigerator and some squirrel-cage fans. I promised that I would post the long term tests on the refrigerator when they were completed. The long term energy consumption tests were complete in February but I decided to wait until now to post so as to let a process I saw developing run to completion. The process was the destruction of the compressor in this refrigerator. The refrigerator fired back by destroying the green plug. The process started back in January when I started seeing on the attached recording ammeter an increased duration of starting current. This increase appeared to be caused by the "soft start" feature (sic) of the green plug that is supposed to limit inrush current. At the time I got the green plug, I thought it foolhardy, because limiting starting current drags out the starting process which actually subjects the motor winding to MORE heat. Shortly after I noted this increased starting duration, the refrigerator tripped the GFI on the circuit it was plugged into. Prime evidence that the winding insulation in the compressor was degrading. I decided to let this play itself out so I plugged the refrig and green plug into a non-GFI outlet. The refrigerator continued maintaining the temperature setpoint as indicated by the digital thermocouple meter attached to the refrig. I noticed, however, that the compressor overload would occasionally trip on excess temperature. And the total current draw continued to creep up as the leakage current continued to increase. This afternoon the process ended. I heard the thermostat on the refrig turn on and a moment later, the green plug erupted in a pleasing ball of smoke and flame. I checked resistance between the refrigerator cord prongs and ground. Dead short. I cracked the service fitting on the compressor and was greeted by what is probably the worst compressor burnout I've ever seen. This was a long term roast and not a quick failure. After I replace the compressor, I plan to open the shell of the old one to inspect the damage and make sure it wasn't a tight bearing or something else mechanical. But based on the electrical history I have, I'm pretty positive that the green plug took out this refrigerator. I plan on sending this device along with a letter asking them to pay for the compressor to the factory to see what kind of reaction I get. So the final score is this. The green plug was "saving" electricity at the rate of about a dollar a month. Meanwhile, the replacement compressor will cost me about $80 plus the better part of a day to replace it and flush all the contamination out of the freon system. I think that extra buck a month for power without the Plug was a bargain. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA jgd@dixie.com Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion Tonight, suppose Washington were nuked to atoms. Ask yourself, would you be better or worse off. This graphically frames the role of the federal government in destroying the American way of life. From baez@guitar.ucr.edu Wed Apr 6 02:28:10 EDT 1994 Article: 67793 of sci.physics Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca alt.folklore.science:9793 sci.physics:67793 sci.chem:20450 Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!guitar!baez From: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics,sci.chem Subject: Re: Properties of Neutronium Date: 6 Apr 1994 03:24:18 GMT Organization: University of California, Riverside Lines: 39 Message-ID: <2nta12$b9g@galaxy.ucr.edu> References: <2nqj5dINNigt@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: guitar.ucr.edu Status: O In article neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes: >In article <2nqj5dINNigt@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>, >Paul Moyland wrote: >>In article max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes: >>>dbd@martha.utcc.utk.edu (David DeLaney) writes: >>>> Para-, ferro-, and dia-magnetism are right out, as are conductivity and >>>> superconductivity, because those all rely on electrons, which >>>>neutronium has not got. >>>Though, as I understand, superfluidity _is_ possible in neutron star >>>cores, which is an analogous process to superconductivity. >>Since when does superconductivity depend on electrons? All you need is >>something that forms bosons ( pairs of electrons for conventional >>superconductors ) or is a boson ( like 4He ). > No, superconductivity also requires that the bosonic quasi-particles >carry a net charge. Without that you have no superconductivity, though >you can still have condensation into a superfluid state. I'm no expert on this but I recently asked about superfluidity and superconductivity on sci.physics.research, and it appears that neutron star cores are both superfluid and superconductive. As Neufeld noted, there are plenty of protons and electrons in neutron star cores to serve as charge carriers. Even better, the angular momentum of the neutron star is carried by quantized vortices, as usual for a superfluid, each of which has angular momentum given by a multiple of Planck's constant, while the magnetic fields are confined to quantized flux tubes, as usual for a type II superconductor. These vortices should be imagined as long thin tubes threading the core, packed in a roughly hexagonal array. For the Crab Nebula pulsar, the spacing between the superfluid vortices can be calculated as about ~ 10^{-2} cm, while for a magnetic field of 10^{12} Gauss the spacing between the superconducting vortices is ~ 10^{-9} cm. (Thanks to folks who sent me email on this.) From whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 9 11:10:04 EDT 1994 Article: 24269 of sci.energy Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.energy:24269 Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!rutgers!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!mcshub!muss.cis.mcmaster.ca!mcmail!whitlock From: whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) Newsgroups: sci.energy Subject: Re: CANDU Can Do!!! Message-ID: <1994Jun8.223909.1116@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca> Date: 8 Jun 94 22:39:09 GMT References: <2svf5j$l1u@bbs.pnl.gov> <1994Jun7.171753.17292@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca> <2t4dbc$chp@daisy.pgh.wec.com> Sender: usenet@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca (News Database) Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Lines: 18 Nntp-Posting-Host: mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca zcrah2@carnegie.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes: >Personally, I think the CANDU is wonderful. However, didn't India use it to >develop their bomb? Is this a misconception? Yes, it is a misconception. The Indians used a research reactor to make the plutonium for their "device" :-). The research reactor, a clone of the NRX reactor at Chalk River, is also Canadian, which is where the misconception comes from. (Note: Nuclear cooperation was cut off with India following their entry into the nuclear club, and over the 25 years since then they have built a fleet of PHWR's based on the 250 MW CANDU prototype that Canada did sell them. They are not, however, CANDU's.) -- Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whitlock@mcmaster.ca Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140 McMaster University, 1280 Main West Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's" From rap@efn.org Fri Jun 17 12:27:52 EDT 1994 Article: 138892 of alt.folklore.urban Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca alt.folklore.urban:138892 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!insosf1.infonet.net!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!efn!rap From: rap@efn.org (Robert Paschelke) Subject: Re: Railroad track as an antenna? Message-ID: Organization: Prototype Eugene Free Net X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] References: <1994Jun16.062332.25932@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> <2tpeh1$jtr@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 19:50:45 GMT Lines: 39 William VanHorne (wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote: : In article <1994Jun16.062332.25932@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, : STORM JAMES wrote: : >I have heard a legend that a college radio station (either at MIT, Tufts, : >or Swarthmore) welded antenna to railroad tracks, and peeved the FCC by : >broadcasting nationwide. Is this true? If anyone knows, please email me : >(or post here) If you do know, could you please direct me to some : >documentation regarding this legend if you can. Damn, I finally found a way to apply the precious knowledge I gathered as a railroad signal worker for the benefit of mankind (or womankind or personkind or whatever...). Making a rail track into an RF antenna is flatly impossible. It is due to the significant cross sectional area of the conductor (the rail). This results in high self-inductance. This effect is exploited by use of AC signals in the rails to detect trains for crossing gates. A signal in the low to medium audio range is significantly attentuated over a predictable distance and electronic equipment uses this to determine how far a very heavy shunt across the conductors (i.e., a train on the tracks) is from the crossing. This allows both the transmitter and the receiver of the signal to be placed in the same location near the crossing. Very handy. A 200-300 Hz (well below middle A) signal can be propagated a half mile or so. A 2000-3000 Hz signal will extend only about 100 feet or so. A signal of this type is used for so-called "island" circuits which cause the crossing gates to lower and stay down when a train is stationary. Farther than a hundred feet or so, the gates will stay up. So imagine how far your typical 1000 KHz signal would extend!! -- *----------------------------------------------------* * Virtual Bob : "Live to net, net to live" * *----------------------------------------------------* Robert A. Paschelke rap@efn.org 370 River Road (503) 689-7284 Eugene, OR 97404 From ez001932@chip.ucdavis.edu Mon Jun 20 20:08:50 EDT 1994 Article: 76128 of sci.skeptic Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.skeptic:76128 sci.med:78451 alt.folklore.urban:139339 Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med,alt.folklore.urban Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!chip.ucdavis.edu!ez001932 From: ez001932@chip.ucdavis.edu (John M Price) Subject: Re: Lorenzo's Oil Message-ID: Followup-To: sci.skeptic,sci.med,alt.folklore.urban Sender: usenet@ucdavis.edu (News Guru) Organization: University of California, Davis X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] References: <2toh6r$3el@news1.digex.net>, <2tt20j$n9s@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 1994 23:37:45 GMT Lines: 190 Len Babin (lbabin@superior.carleton.ca) wrote: : Hey, c'mon guys. I didn't see the movie either. What is Lorenzo's oil? It is a dietary treatment for a degenerative genetic disorder. I'll stick a list of references here. : Len Babin Cyberspelunker >From MELVYL@UCCMVSA.UCOP.EDU Sat Jun 18 16:34:52 1994 Date: Sat, 18 Jun 94 16:31:56 PDT From: Melvyl System To: jmprice@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Subject: (id: ZXK15719) MELVYL system mail result Search request: F KW LORENZO OIL Search result: 14 citations in the Medline database Display: SHO ABS 1. Poulos A; Robertson EF. Lorenzo's oil: a reassessment. Medical Journal of Australia, 1994 Mar 21, 160(6):315-7. (UI: 94180821) Pub type: Journal Article; Review; Review, Tutorial. 2. Merminod A; Lemieux B. [From Lorenzo's oil to myelin]. Union Medicale du Canada, 1994 Jan, 123(1):36. Language: French. (UI: 94152055) 3. Unkrig CJ; Schroder R; Scharf RE. Lorenzo's oil and lymphocytopenia [letter]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994 Feb 24, 330(8):577. (UI: 94134136) Pub type: Letter. 4. Chai BC; Siminoski K. Thrombocytopenia associated with use of Lorenzo's oil [letter]. American Journal of Hematology, 1993 Dec, 44(4):290-1. (UI: 94056394) Pub type: Letter. 5. Aubourg P; Adamsbaum C; Lavallard-Rousseau MC; Rocchiccioli F; Cartier N; Jambaque I; Jakobezak C; Lemaitre A; Boureau F; Wolf C; et al. A two-year trial of oleic and erucic acids ("Lorenzo's oil") as treatment for adrenomyeloneuropathy [see comments]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993 Sep 9, 329(11):745-52. (UI: 93354397) Pub type: Clinical Trial; Journal Article. Abstract: BACKGROUND. Adrenomyeloneuropathy is an X-linked recessive disorder characterized by myelopathy, peripheral neuropathy, and cerebral demyelination, which develop in association with the accumulation of very-long-chain fatty acids. The administration of oleic and erucic acids inhibits the synthesis of very-long-chain fatty acids. Recently such dietary treatment has been widely publicized as a possible cure for this disease. METHODS. We conducted an open trial in 14 men with adrenomyeloneuropathy, 5 symptomatic heterozygous women, and 5 boys (mean age, 13 years) with preclinical adrenomyeloneuropathy. The patients ate a low-fat diet and received daily doses of glycerol trioleate oil (1.7 g per kilogram of body weight) and glycerol trierucate oil (0.3 g per kilogram). Clinical manifestations, cerebral and spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, nerve conduction, and brain-stem auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials were studied prospectively over 18 to 48 months. Plasma levels of very-long-chain fatty acids and the side effects of erucic acid were monitored monthly. RESULTS. By week 10, plasma very-long-chain fatty acid levels declined nearly to normal. Nonetheless, over a mean follow-up of 33 months none of the 14 men with adrenomyeloneuropathy improved. In nine men there was functional deterioration, coincident in four with new cerebral lesions on MRI. In a single patient there was a reduction in cerebellar demyelination, but without clinical improvement. In one of the five asymptomatic boys signs of myelopathy developed. There were no changes in the symptomatic heterozygous women. There was some improvement in peroneal-nerve conduction, but no detectable clinical improvement. Conduction to the parietal cortex (T12-P37 interpeak latency) worsened in both the symptomatic men and the boys with preclinical adrenomyeloneuropathy. There was no change in other somatosensory evoked potentials or in brain-stem auditory evoked potentials. Asymptomatic thrombocytopenia (< 100,000 cells per cubic millimeter) was noted in six patients. CONCLUSIONS. In this open trial we found no evidence of a clinically relevant benefit from dietary treatment with oleic and erucic acids ("Lorenzo's oil") in patients with adrenomyeloneuropathy. 6. Rizzo WB. Lorenzo's oil--hope and disappointment [editorial; comment]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993 Sep 9, 329(11):801-2. (UI: 93354406) Pub type: Comment; Editorial. 7. Moser HW. Lorenzo oil therapy for adrenoleukodystrophy: a prematurely amplified hope [editorial; comment]. Annals of Neurology, 1993 Aug, 34(2):121-2. (UI: 93332378) Pub type: Comment; Editorial. 8. Kaplan PW; Tusa RJ; Shankroff J; Heller J; Moser HW. Visual evoked potentials in adrenoleukodystrophy: a trial with glycerol trioleate and Lorenzo oil [see comments]. Annals of Neurology, 1993 Aug, 34(2):169-74. (UI: 93332387) Pub type: Clinical Trial; Journal Article. Abstract: Adrenoleukodystrophy is an X-linked metabolic disorder with very-long-chain fatty acid (VLCFA) accumulation and multifocal nervous system demyelination, often with early involvement of visual pathways. Dietary therapy with glycerol trioleate and glycerol trierucate (Lorenzo oil) diminishes VLCFA levels. In a study of patients with the adrenomyeloneuropathy phenotype of adrenoleukodystrophy, we used pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials to evaluate visual pathways before and after treatment. Of 108 patients tested, all 26 women and 68 of the 82 men had normal potentials at baseline. Seventy patients were retested at 1 year, at which time VLCFA levels were markedly diminished. Of them, the responses in the 10 men who showed abnormalities at baseline remained abnormal; the latencies in 4 men with initially normal responses became abnormal. No patients improved. There were no correlations between disease duration prior to treatment, baseline P100 latencies, VLCFA levels, or the change in P100 latencies and VLCFA levels after dietary treatment for 1 year. Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials were abnormal in 17% of the men with adrenoleukodystrophy, and there was no evidence that reduction of VLCFA levels improved or retarded visual pathway demyelination. 9. Soderfeldt B. [Lorenzo's oil. A realistic presentation of two parents' fight against adrenoleukodystrophy]. Lakartidningen, 1993 May 19, 90(20):1969-72. Language: Swedish. (UI: 93275015) 10. Zinkham WH; Kickler T; Borel J; Moser HW. Lorenzo's oil and thrombocytopenia in patients with adrenoleukodystrophy [letter]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993 Apr 15, 328(15):1126-7. (UI: 93205068) Pub type: Letter. 11. Barth PG. ['Lorenzo's oil']. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 1993 Mar 27, 137(13):640-1. Language: Dutch. (UI: 93226056) 12. Moser HW. Lorenzo's oil. Lancet, 1993 Feb 27, 341(8844):544. (UI: 93172824) 13. Maeda K; Suzuki Y; Yajima S; Asano J; Yamaguchi S; Matsumoto N; Borel J; Moser HW; Orii T. Improvement of clinical and MRI findings in a boy with adrenoleukodystrophy by dietary erucic acid therapy. Brain and Development, 1992 Nov, 14(6):409-12. (UI: 93151412) Abstract: A 5-year-old boy with adrenoleukodystrophy, with clinical symptoms of visual, mental and motor disturbances which progressed rapidly, was treated with Lorenzo's oil consisting 1 volume of glyceryl trierucate and 4 volumes of glyceryl trioleate. Five months after initiation of this therapy, ability to swallow was enhanced and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed regression of high intensity area of the parieto-occipital white matter. 14. Wong V. Adrenoleukodystrophy in a Chinese boy. Brain and Development, 1992 Jul, 14(4):276-7. (UI: 93072688) Abstract: We report the first Chinese boy with adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) who presented with hyperpigmentation, behavioral change and demyelination shown in magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. ALD was confirmed by the elevation of very long chain fatty acid in the serum and biochemical evidence of adrenal insufficiency. A trial of special diet with restriction of very long chain fatty acid and addition of glyceryl trierucate/glycerol trioleate oil (GTEO or Lorenzo's oil) failed to prevent clinical deterioration. The child had progressive visual loss and spastic tetraparesis despite dietary manipulation, adrenal steroid replacement and intravenous gammaglobulin treatment. -- ____________________________________________________________________________ John M. Price, Ph.C.(ABD)| Physiological Emphasis - Likes machines too! Psychology Department | finger ez001932@othello.ucdavis.edu for PGP Key University of California | or send email request. Privacy IS freedom. Davis, CA 95616 | Ask the Chancellor to speak for this place! From henry@zoo.toronto.edu Thu Jun 30 19:58:46 EDT 1994 Article: 77656 of sci.skeptic Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.skeptic:77656 Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Outrider Report -- Japan's ICBM Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 20:11:59 GMT References: <2un1tm$l9a@search01.news.aol.com> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology (I don't normally read this group -- no time -- but a friend pointed this one out to me...) In article <2un1tm$l9a@search01.news.aol.com> jimwils@aol.com (JimWils) writes: >NOTE TO READERS: Here is a preview of next week's Outrider Report, >titled "Japan's ICBM"... My, what an... uh... interesting article. Don't quit your day job yet. >.... Japan has built an intercontinental ballistic missile >(ICBM) with a multiple independent re-entry vehicle (MIRV) warhead. Well, aside from the fact that it's too big -- bigger than the biggest ICBMs ever built -- and the wrong shape, and uses the wrong fuels, and the wrong engine technology... >From the start the $2.5-billion H-2 program has been an enigma. >Unlike previous Japanese rocketry efforts which used U.S. licensed >technology, H-2 contains only Japanese designed parts. I wouldn't call this "an enigma". The Japanese have always resented paying royalties to US manufacturers, all the more so when the licensing agreements prohibited any attempt at commercial use. And they've also been unhappy that their own rocket technology wasn't up to building a large launcher without such demeaning help. They deliberately did the H-2 the hard way, developing the most advanced engine technology they thought they could manage (unlike the more practical Europeans, who specified a much less sophisticated engine for their Ariane 5). >The expense entailed in mating satellites to specific rockets, makes >the telecommunications companies that buy most launch services loyal >customers... Ho ho. Mr. Wilson demonstrates that he doesn't follow the launcher market news at all. In fact, the comsat companies can and will switch from one launcher to the next on the slightest excuse, be it lower price, earlier delivery, more convenient politics, or perceived higher reliability. Only a few months ago, when Ariane had a launch failure, Hughes decided to move one of its comsats -- slated for launch this summer -- to Atlas. It is now quite routine to build comsats to be compatible with several possible launchers, and even to split the launches of a comsat batch over two or more. The Iridium consortium has booked launches on Delta, Proton, and Long March for their initial constellation. >At $145-million per launch, using H-2 will cost twice as >much as flying with Arianespace, four times as much as with Russia. It's really not fair to compare the H-2 price to Russian prices, because the program was started long before it became clear that the Russians were going to become serious competitors. The new Ariane 5 is facing the same problem: it was designed to be a little bit cheaper than the older Arianes, and with Proton now available, that's not good enough. And my memory may be leaky, but I didn't think you could book the largest Ariane configuration for $72M. $100M would be more like it. Yes, the Japanese are still the high bidders, and in fact they're not happy about this. To some extent, it happened because they didn't expect the yen to steadily climb in value the way it has. They've been hoping to pick up some sales -- particularly in the Japanese market -- by pushing reliability and Japanese workmanship as major selling points, but that doesn't seem to be working out. They're now talking about re-engineering some of the H-2 hardware to reduce costs. >H-2's design prevents Japan from competing in the most profitable >part of the launching business. This is the unglamorous work of >"parking" multi-ton communications satellites in geostationary orbits... Mr. Wilson doesn't seem to be keeping track of the H-2 launch manifest either. Its very next flight will carry an experimental comsat into geostationary orbit. The H-2 is quite capable in that area -- certainly just as capable as Ariane or Atlas, and almost as good as Proton. >Japan's National Space Development Agency boast H-2 could carry a >10-ton payload have been revealed as somewhat of an exaggeration. >Tomifumi Godai, executive director of the agency's Launch Vehicle >Development and Operation Division, said H-2's actual maximum payload >for geostationary orbits is far lighter, a scant two-tons. Mr. Wilson doesn't seem to understand launches to geostationary orbit. A two-ton payload to transfer orbit (the usual destination for the launcher itself, with an auxiliary rocket stage taking the satellite the rest of the way) would be a little small -- about that of the low-end Ariane model -- but in fact the H-2's payload to transfer orbit is four tons, roughly that of the high-end Ariane. Ariane can't take a payload all the way to geostationary orbit at all. Proton can, delivering 2.6 tons there, making it the heavyweight of the current commercial launchers. >H-2's heavy lifting is limited to low earth orbits. These have little >commercial value. Satellites parked in them soon fall back to earth... Mr. Wilson doesn't understand satellites. Satellites in low orbit have not had great *commercial* value to date, but the low orbits are very heavily used for government and scientific missions. And commercial interest is heating up -- the Iridium launches I mentioned earlier are all to low orbit, as is one of the commercial Proton bookings. >Low earth orbits are however ideal for testing ICBMs. Mr. Wilson doesn't understand ICBMs. ICBMs do not enter orbit at all, ever. The way to test an ICBM is with a long, high lob that ends in an ocean or a desert. Several of the capabilities needed for orbit are quite irrelevant to ICBM use, such as the in-space engine restart demonstrated on the first H-2 mission. >The OREX test resembled experiments U.S. and Soviets scientists >performed to develop the "bus" or weapons-carrying portion of MIRV >warheads... Mr. Wilson apparently doesn't understand how MIRV works. The bus of a MIRV system does *not* carry the weapons; it carries the reentry vehicles, which carry the weapons. The bus burns up on reentry, having placed the reentry vehicles into the desired trajectories. It does not have a heatshield. (And the heatshields of the reentry vehicles do not look like OREX's heatshield.) >[OREX's] sole purpose, says Minister Eda, was to help design a heat shield >for an unmanned space shuttle. Although Japan's space agency has >often discussed launching an unmanned shuttle sometime in the 21st >century, its government has yet to approved the project's budget... Mr. Wilson hasn't been following the Japanese space program. The Japanese government *has* approved a single test flight of HOPE (the unmanned spaceplane), although it has not approved any follow-on program leading to an operational vehicle. The Japanese could undoubtedly build quite a respectable ICBM if they really wanted to. It wouldn't look anything like the H-2. -- "All I really want is a rich uncle." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Wernher von Braun | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry From ug837@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA Wed Aug 3 11:32:54 EDT 1994 Article: 25922 of sci.energy Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.energy:25922 Newsgroups: sci.energy Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!suncad.camosun.bc.ca!freenet.victoria.bc.ca!freenet.Victoria.BC.CA!ug837 From: ug837@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Karl F. Johanson) Subject: Re: Chernobyl killed coal miners Message-ID: <1994Aug3.040956.23465@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> Sender: news@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (News Manager) Reply-To: ug837@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Karl F. Johanson) Organization: The Victoria Freenet Association (VIFA), Victoria, B.C., Canada References: <31kuej$fht@euas20.eua.ericsson.se> <31jdsk$ll6@daisy.pgh.wec.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 04:09:56 GMT Lines: 59 In a previous article, kondol@eua.ericsson.se (Olov Ostlund) says: >stuff deleted >> >as dangerous as US mines, but four times safer than the rest of soviet >> >industry was. This would give an accident rate at Chernobyl of 1 death for >> >every 500 MWH produced. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> Chernobyl-4 was rated at something like 1000 MW(e). If it has having an >> accident rate of 1 death per 500 MWH, then it would be having two deaths >> per hour, or over 16,000/year (assuming 100% capacity factor). >> >> >> >> >> -- >> B. Alan Guthrie, III | Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin >> zcbag@octopus.pgh.wec.com | >> > >I read that about 300 000 Russians should die of 'chernobyl effects' in 20 years. >That is ~ 15 000 /year ! >The figure two deaths per hour seems to be in the right domain. > >The opinion above is my own etc. >/oo What, is communist radiation somehow more deadly than normal radiation? According to World Health Organization reports the death rates around Chernobyl are significantly lower than the (former) national averages for people within those age groups. Another important point about coal. Every year your average 1,000 megawatt plant emits 7.4 tons of uranium, 35 tons of thorium, several hundread tons of radioactive potassium as well as lesser amounts of many other radio active material. As well as the radioactives they emit 750,000 tons of toxic ash (including several thousand tons of heavy metals), 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 120,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 7,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide. (Sources, Atomic Energy Canada and the Canadian National Research Council) The Chernobyl facility had four units making it close to 4,000 megawatts. (The undamaged reactors were still producing power, last I heard.) If it had been a coal plant you could multiply the above figures by 4 & come out pretty close to the annual emisions one could expect. I seriously doubt that any deaths attributable to those emissions would ever make the news, however. -- (*Insert really cool quote here*) Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada The other Co-editor of "Under The Ozone Hole" Please let me know if you didn't get this. From jnovosel@aol.com Sat Sep 10 16:48:41 EDT 1994 Article: 90859 of sci.electronics Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.electronics:90859 Path: helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: jnovosel@aol.com (Jnovosel) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: CALLER ID INFO Date: 8 Sep 1994 19:12:01 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 203 Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com Message-ID: <34o5o1$c25@search01.news.aol.com> References: <1994Sep8.181139.29328@cronkite.res.utc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com In article <1994Sep8.181139.29328@cronkite.res.utc.com>, sikjes@rcinet.res.utc.com writes: Here is a copy of the caller ID spec. Hope it helps. From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Caller-ID Specifications Message-ID: Date: 1 Dec 91 01:30:39 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Cal State Long Beach Lines: 181 This is a copy of the data sheet picked up at the Rockwell booth at the COMDEX show. INTRODUCTION Calling Number Delivery (CND), better known as Caller ID, is a telephone service intended for residential and small business customers. It allows the called Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) to receive a calling party's directory number and the date and time of the call during the first four second silent interval in the ringing cycle. The customer must contact a Bellcore Client Company to initiate CND service. According to Pacific Bell representatives, the following states and district currently support CND service: Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. The following states are scheduled to support CND service by April, 1992: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. PARAMETERS The data signalling interface has the following characteristics: Link Type: 2-wire, simplex Transmission Scheme: Analog, phase-coherent FSK Logical 1 (mark) 1200 +/- 12 Hz Logical 0 (space) 2200 +/- 22 Hz Transmission Rate: 1200 bps Transmission Level: 13.5 +/- dBm into 900 ohm load (I have copied this data as presented. I believe the transmission level is meant to be -13.5 dBm.) PROTOCOL The protocol uses 8-bit data words (bytes), each bounded by a start bit and a stop bit. The CND message uses the Single Data Message format shown below. Channel Carrier Message Message Data Checksum Seizure Signal Type Length Word(s) Word Signal Word Word CHANNEL SEIZURE SIGNAL The channel seizure is 30 continuous bytes of 55h (01010101) providing a detectable alternating function to the CPE (i.e. the modem data pump). CARRIER SIGNAL The carrier signal consists of 130 +/- 25 mS of mark (1200 Hz) to condition the receiver for data. MESSAGE TYPE WORD The message type word indicates the service and capability associated with the data message. The message type word for CND is 04h (00000100). MESSAGE LENGTH WORD The message length word specifies the total number of data words to follow. DATA WORDS The data words are encoded in ASCII and represent the following information: o The first two words represent the month o The next two words represent the day of the month o The next two words represent the hour in local military time o The next two words represent the minute after the hour o The calling party's directory number is represented by the remaining words in the data word field If the calling party's directory number is not available to the terminating central office, the data word field contains an ASCII "O". If the calling party invokes the privacy capability, the data word field contains an ASCII "P". CHECKSUM WORD The Checksum Word contains the twos complement of the modulo 256 sum of the other words in the data message (i.e., message type, message length, and data words). The receiving equipment may calculate the modulo 256 sum of the received words and add this sum to the reveived checksum word. A result of zero generally indicates that the message was correctly received. Message retransmission is not supported. EXAMPLE CND SINGLE DATA MESSAGE An example of a received CND message, beginning with the message type word, follows: 04 12 30 39 33 30 31 32 32 34 36 30 39 35 35 35 31 32 31 32 51 04h= Calling number delivery information code (message type word) 12h= 18 decimal; Number of data words (date,time, and directory number words) ASCII 30,39= 09; September ASCII 33,30= 30; 30th day ASCII 31,32= 12; 12:00 PM ASCII 32,34= 24; 24 minutes (i.e., 12:24 PM) ASCII 36,30,39,35,35,35,31,32,31,32= (609) 555-1212; calling party's directory number 51h= Checksum Word DATA ACCESS ARRANGEMENT (DAA) REQUIREMENTS To receive CND information, the modem monitors the phone line between the first and second ring bursts without causing the DAA to go off hook in the conventional sense, which would inhibit the transmission of CND by the local central office. A simple modification to an existing DAA circuit easily accomplishes the task. (I will mail the Rockwell data sheet, which includes the suggested schematic diagram.) MODEM REQUIREMENTS Although the data signalling interface parameters match those of a Bell 202 modem, the receiving CPE need not be a Bell 202 modem. A V.23 1200 bps modem receiver may be used to demodulate the Bell 202 signal. The ring indicate bit (RI) may be used on a modem to indicate when to monitor the phone line for CND information. After the RI bit sets, indicating the first ring burst, the host waits for the RI bit to reset. The host then configures the modem to monitor the phone line for CND information. (I'm skipping some Rockwell-specific information here.) According to Bellcore specifications, CND signalling starts as early as 300 mS after the first ring burst and ends at least 475 mS before the second ring burst. APPLICATIONS Modem manufacturers will soon be implementing new modem features based on CND information as this service becomes widely available. Once CND information is received the user may process the information in a number of ways. 1. The date, time, and calling party's directory number can be displayed. 2. Using a look-up table, the calling party's directory number can be correlated with his or her name and the name displayed. 3. CND information can also be used in additional ways such as for: a. Bulletin board applications b. Black-listing applications c. Keeping logs of system user calls, or d. Implementing a telemarketing data base REFERENCES For more information on Calling Number Delivery (CND), refer to Bellcore publications TR-TSY-000030 and TR-TSY-000031. To obtain Bellcore documents contact: Bellcore Customer Service 60 New England Avenue, Room 1B252 Piscataway, NJ 08834-4196 (201) 699-5800 [Moderator's Note: This article will also be filed in the Telecom Archives (lcs.mit.edu) as a separate article in a couple days. PAT]  From larrys@pentagon.io.com Mon Oct 3 22:15:59 EDT 1994 Article: 48326 of sci.environment Xref: info.physics.utoronto.ca sci.environment:48326 Path: info.physics.utoronto.ca!cannon.ecf!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!newsfeed.ACO.net!Austria.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!illuminati.io.com!nobody From: larrys@pentagon.io.com (Larry Smith) Newsgroups: sci.environment Subject: Re: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY Date: 3 Oct 1994 14:20:40 -0500 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 664 Message-ID: <36pli8$qhp@pentagon.io.com> References: <35ka2s$nb2@pentagon.io.com> <3690ua$j1m@pdx1.i.net> <369bn3$702@pentagon.io.com> <36lvk2$igk@pdx1.i.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pentagon.io.com In article <36lvk2$igk@pdx1.i.net>, Barry Smith wrote: >In article <369bn3$702@pentagon.io.com> >larrys@pentagon.io.com (Larry Smith) writes: >> In article <3690ua$j1m@pdx1.i.net>, Barry Smith wrote: >> >In article <3671gm$6cc@pentagon.io.com> >> >FWIW, my principal long-term concern is improving our economic >> >communication so as to more equitably manage indirect, social, >> >and "external" costs. As (and if) we improve the economic system >> >> This is a laudable goal in and of itself, provided the implementation >> of it relies on a free market, not gov't intervention and control. >> "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?" > >Guess we'll have to see if I float, eh? It's a fair court. >In your terms (which I find rigidly ideological, btw), I'm a rational >free-market advocate. I recognize, however, that there _are_ no free >markets, perfect knowledge being somewhat scarce these days, and that >even ideal free markets can resolve only a certain limited class of >decision problems. I believe it's a legitimate function of government >to _improve_ markets. I don't normally stick my neck out this far in this newsgroup, because there are some _real_ rigid idealogies to be found here. But I will note this: completely free markets can show a tendency to become unfree - while anyone can theoretically compete with a monopoly if the market is free, it can also come to pass that a monopoly can obtain enforcement power by controlling all means of competition. One such means that has become very popular of late is the idea of "intellectual property", but other, purely physical means, also exist. It _is_ a legitimate function of gov't to see to it that markets remain free to "stir the pot" every now and then - smart ones will also fund basic research or some large program that will spur development, such a space program, to help seed new markets. But this is very, VERY different from the kind of central- control paradigms that are the steady diet in this newsgroup. Cars are the continuing best case in point. While it might be argued that the initial controls were a "quick fix" for a problem that was not clearly articulated soon enough for a free market to handle it (since the means for doing so requires education of the consumers) it "set in" mechanims that have since been used again and again to the detriment of the free market and have now all but closed the autombile market completely, freeing it from competition outside of the current participants and, in essence, freezing it in amber. Not a good thing when we want the auto to completely re-invent itself. >> >If other states are picking >> >up the ZEV approach, I'll cheer personally, but only slightly >> >because of its direct effect on noxious emissions. >> >> Why cheer? What is there to cheer about when NY and Mass decide >> what's good for California is good for New England, and pushes >> EV's in an area where most power comes from coal? It will run >> up the prices of cars _and_ power _and_ increase pollution overall. >> What kind of a solution is that? > >As I see it, the principal short-term benefit of the ZEV program is to >direct investment capital into areas of research and development that >I believe will prove (in the long run) to be of high public value. That _would_ be a benefit, but that _isn't_ what the ZEV program will do. The ZEV program _mandates_ sales of electrics, and on a very, very short timetable by the standards of the industry. Did you know that the ZEV law has already caused the cancellation of most the advanced battery programs in the auto industry? Simple economics: lead acid is the best we have _now_ so it is the _de_facto_ battery that will be used, and all funds are now earmarked for further work on lead acid. If lead acid turns out to be not the best choice, well, that's too bad. It wins by default. Not the right way to run any kind of a research effort, I think. >At the 2% level, the program will have negligible effects (positive 2% in 1996. It rises rapidly to 10% by 2004, less than two full cycles of development. As I said, the emphasis has shifted from "blue sky" research that _might_ find a good long-term solution, with better power, faster recharge, and less toxic materials with lower environ- mental impact, and gone to lead acid. And for what? To take cars that are 99.5% clean and replace them with cars that are 100% clean _at_the_tailpipe_. Never mind the source of that electricity, even if we grant that EV's are God's gift to bunny rabbits, we are still talking less than half a percentage point improvement. Less with 1997 models. >_or_ negative) on pollution, fleet operating costs, etc., etc., >regardless of geographical area, but it _will_ have a dramatic effect >on development of technology in areas such as electrical storage, >electronic motor controls, electric motor efficiency, etc., not to >mention the necessary infrastructure. And, the program ensures that That's the point, if we build an electric infrastructure now we will be building it around lead acid batteries, with all the toxic materials and environmental impact that that implies, and we will be _closing_ the_door_ on newer solutions. Once this is done there will be just as much momentum against, say, liquid sulphur batteries as there is today against electrics in general - car companies will not, cannot, invest in them while they are paying off the amortization of the lead acid technology we are _forcing_ to market now - it would be expensive if the market was demanding electrics, but by fiat it will be ten times as expensive, and every penny will count _against_ any successor technol- ogy. >much of this technology will not remain "in the lab" but _will_ make >it out to the street. I make no argument that the ZEV program >is perfect, as no such thing is possible, but I feel that it makes >a reasonable allocation of costs with a reasonable expectation >of return on what are, in my opinion, significant social goals. >Viewed solely as a short-run pollution solution, the ZEV program >is difficult to justify, IMHO, but as a technology and market >forcing action I think it's brilliant. But it was _sold_ as a short-term pollution solution, and people _believe_ it is a pollution solution, and are _voting_ for it as a pollution solution, and they are going to be a whole lot less inclined toward "environmental" legislation in the future when they find out the program has pushed up the price of cars by 50% (the most conservative estimate of the impact of 10% electrics in 2004 - CARB's). They won't be able to _afford_ new "environmental" legislation when a Ford Taurus costs $24,000 in 1994 dollars for a stripped model. That's $16,000 for the Taurus and $8,000 to help buy down the price of somebody _else's_ electric car! And _no_ one has an estimate for the cost of dealing with all that lead. Look what we went through in the 70's to get rid of the comparatively miniscule lead in gasoline! >One could ask, quite reasonably, why the private investment markets >would not make such choices if they were in fact a good investment. >I think there are many reasonable answers here, but I'd venture that >the sheer size of the investment (and risk) is far beyond the market's >ability to allocate. This is not a small short-run investment here, >and even optimistically it won't necessarily pay off in private gain, >nor in less than (say) 20 years or so. "BZZZZZZT! Nope, but thanks for playing." Private investment _cannot_ start a new car company, no matter _what_ the propulsion, the moment they exceed some small number of cars they become liable for the same regulations that made the new Taurus from Ford cost over $5 billion to develop. EPA certification and crash tests and all _kinds_ of internal stuff to get the liability insurance down. The liability insurance problem _alone_ sees to it that no car that is greatly different from any other can reach the mainstream market. It was almost ten years before ABS could move from Europe to the USA, because installing them implied there was something wrong with the old brakes so old cars would have liability problems, and new ones might have them fail and the decade-long record in Europe was needed to help defend them in court. This should not be under-estimated. It was liability laws that virtually _killed_ production of single and two-place airplanes for personal use in this country. Cessna, I think it was, promised the gov't to reenter the business if only they would not continue to be held liable for planes built more than 20 years ago under the then-current standards, and were refused. You can't get a plane like that any more unless you build it, or buy it from someone who did, or you get one built before the market was closed down. _Anyone_ could start a new car company if the EPA were removed from the loop and liability laws reformed. _I_ have enough money to found a new car company, and would, I'd _love_ to bring an ultra-light composite-body hybrid to market, and I have enough in savings to build a prototype or two and put together a business plan, and there _are_ investors who love to underwrite the effort. But I could _not_ even _dream_ of affording EPA certification, NHTSA certification, SEC dealer rules or - the 6,000 pound albatross of the car industry - liability insurance. A Ford Taurus carries almost $3500 in liability insurance premiums _alone_, how could someone who isn't building hundreds of thousands of cars afford that? >One could also ask, similarly, why is not the government financing >and controlling the development directly, but I trust that the >undesirability of _that_ is obvious to free-market advocates. :) > >> >[Y]ou're making the (common) mistake of >> >equating "a car" in 1970 with "a car" in 1994. The 1994 car >> >is measured by different metrics, and could not have been had >> >_at any price_ in 1970. >> >> Well, this is quaint. Well, I can buy a computer in 1994 that >> could not be had at _any_ price in 1970, and it's _cheaper_, >> too. Why? Because computers are a free market and cars are >> not, it's that simple. More on this below. > >Simple? If you believe this ideological nostrum, you're simple-minded. >Tell me, Larry, has the free market in wheat given us kernels the size >of Texas selling for a penny a pound? Has the free market in housing >given us each palaces to live in for $100/year? The free market for wheat has given us heaps of grain the size of a house and selling for far less than before. Houses are too intimately tied into the price of land to make comparison easy, but in terms of labor now cost about half of what they did before WW II - including all the nifty new features that could not be had before WW II. Simple-minded? I wish. No, I've _priced_ what it would cost to build a car _company_. I could buy a farm and a housing company for less than 100th of what it would cost to even start. Oh, yes, as long as you keep the price of a car high and the numbers very low, you can hang on. Kit cars are still out there. But none of them can go big-time, because the bars are set too high - bars that are not so high for houses or wheat. Though they _are_ present, take a look at the wheat-support price and cost of licensing electricians and plumbers. Those are the same sort of tools gov't used to make it impossible to compete with GM, but they have not been applied so lavishly. >To address the specific comparison: profit in computer markets is >_directly_ related to technical progress; profit in automobiles is >only very weakly related to technical developments, hence economic >forces will only weakly encourage automotive technology. And it is my contention that over-regulation and unintended conseq- uences are _why_ they are only "weakly related" and that we can solve these problems by making profits for cars as strongly related to technical progress as computer markets are. >> >Here again, economics wins over politics; the automobile industry >> >(correctly :) doesn't _want_ cheaper cars: they're low-profit. >> >> Of course they don't "want" cheaper cars. Companies don't >> _want_ free markets, free markets admit of the possibility of >> not making money, even of crashing and burning in chapter 13. >> Controlled markets are much safer, and management can screw >> up big time and the company just goes on. Oh, sometimes we >> need a bailout from uncle sugar, but in general it's a very >> comfortable arrangement. > >I'm sympathetic with this argument; have a good solution? :) Yes. De-control the market. The two factors: - Double jeopardy: EPA certification accomplishes _nothing_ that is not handled by your annual inspection. We should have one or the other, not both. Since people could otherwise let cars go to hell, we should simply require every car pass an annual ins- pection and get the EPA out of the loop. Let them set the standards and stay out of the way. - Safety: let consumers decide how safe they want to be. Air bags are been shown to only shift the type of injuries, not reduce them, over seat belts, let them be optional. - Liability: the liability law system in this country has been completely gutted by the "deep pockets" theory that demands that every time someone is hurt, even if it is their own damn fault, someone else should pay, and lawyers get the cream - more than half of all liability settlements go to lawyers. Liability must take contributory negligence into account. It must take into account that engineering is an exercise in _judgement_, and that trade-offs are a fact of life, courts should not second-guess engineering decisions. And since everyone is fond of gov't regulation, how's this for regulating: regulate lawyers fees and require they account by hour, not by case. In short: if a company sells a car they know is dangerous, they should be liable. If they sell a car someone misuses, they should not be, if they sell a car that someone won't use properly or needs training to use and doesn't get it, they should not be, and liability trials should not be like lotteries and set someone up for life if they "hit", people should get medical and lost pay, not more than an equal amount for pain and suffering, where appropriate, and lawyers should get $50 a hour like any other professional performing a similar service. There are other things that could be done. Eliminating sales taxes on cars from companies that make fewer than 10,000 a year. Eliminate the protectionist legislation that bars imports. Lots of other things besides. If computers were held to the same liability standard as cars, a 286 machine would cost more than a Lincoln. >no one with less than, say, ten billion in capital can start a new >competitive auto company. (And that cuts out most of us... :) >This is what's known as a market with high costs of entry. And _why_ are those costs high? Are they because cars are so vastly different from any other manufactured product? >> Because the tradeoffs that _must_ be offered to >> customers in order to accomplish that are illegal. Customers >> cannot, for example, decide to buy a car that is a little less >> safe than "normal" to get better mileage. They cannot decide >> the airbag is worth the $1,000 it adds to the price of a car >> for the tiny advantage it _might_ provide over 3-pt seat belts. >> A new company cannot forego EPA-certification, even though >> every car it makes must pass emissions tests every year, nor >> can they avoid the safety testing, nor the liability insurance. > >And this is a market with high fixed costs, indeed some imposed by >government regulation. We could quibble over what's appropriate to >impose for bona-fide social benefits, but more seriously I think these >costs are pretty small in comparison to the costs of capital for mass >production, which is _essential_ for low cost, which makes high volume >essential, which makes the whole thing very risky indeed. Not so. If this were the case, IBM would be outselling any other computer maker, instead we have fifteen startups in this city alone, and all the major corporate accounts except Digital, for obvious reasons, buy locally, from "assembly lines" in back rooms. Size isn't always an advantage. As companies grow they develop more and more overhead. Once the volume purchases of raw materials reach a certain level, size does _nothing_ to help and costs a lot to maintain. Why _else_ would car companies now be shrinking so fast while production is going up? >So I take it you're in favor of government intervention and regulation >that has the effect of reducing market entry costs? ;-) Perhaps. Let's try removing gov't intervention and regulation and see if the market entry cost is still too high. >a fascinating topic, but it's irrelevant (and largely an impediment) >to their technological development. M. Veblen would have enjoyed >tail fins, I think. Fashion is a fascinating topic. In the 1960's transmissions were placed behind the engine, in the hump between the front seats, since most cars were front-engine, rear-wheel drive. So how was it controlled? >From a stick on the steering wheel linking to belts or rods in a complex arrangement to the transmission. Nowadays most cars are front-wheel drive, with an east-west engine that puts the transmission right at the base of the steering wheel. So how is it controlled? By a complex arrangement of belts or rods from a stick between the seats. In the 1950's and 60's we had aerodynamic bricks with big tailfins. In the 1990's we have slippery little eggmobiles that could _use_ a stabilizing fin or two, but can't get one because they are not in fashion. >> I agree. But that choice should be up to the consumer. > >And here I agree, which is another reason I'm in favor of the ZEV >program: it makes that choice _possible_ for the individual consumer >by _creating_ the market. We could _create_ electric markets and hybrid markets and hydrogen markets and whatever else you want to do cheaper and easier. In- dividuals _already_ have the choice of electrics. Read Solo by Noel Perrin. >Speaking personally: I've recently been car-shopping, and would have >been willing to pay an extra 25%, maybe more, for a car that was clean, >quiet, and efficient, "environmentally friendly" if you will. My market >choices did not include electric vehicles of any form whatsoever, since >I don't consider boutique vehicles a rational choice for my situation. Are you willing to make everyone else pay an additional 25% as well? 25%. Be still my beating heart. I wish 25% was _all_ it was. >> The fundamental principle is that the to mechanical >> to electric to wire to battery to mechanical conversion is >> more complex and less efficient overall than the simple chemical >> to mechanical conversion of car engine, and that _huge_ gains >> in all conversions must be posted to affect the end result - and >> that those gains could just as easily be applied to the car engine >> in the first place. > >Here, perhaps, we can make some technical progress! > >You suggest a fundamental principle: "In general, energy transforms >are lossy, so that reducing the number of transforms will produce >a more efficient system." Fair enough? > >Allow me to suggest a principle that I find less general, but more >important numerically: "Energy transforms have distinct characteristic >(first law) efficiencies". Here I draw your attention to two transforms: >Carnot heat engine to motion, where the characteristic efficiency derives from >the temperature difference, source to sink; and electro-magnetic >field to motion, with characteristic efficiency of 100 percent, >i.e., not lossy at all, in contradiction to your "fundamental principle". >(NOTE that I speak here of characteristic efficiency only, and that I am >_well_ aware that practical details will intrude! :) Heat engines are >_fundamentally_ inefficient (and in practice grossly so); electric >generation, transmission, storage, and conversion to _and from_ motion >are each fundamentally loss-free (first law) and in practice technologies >exist for each of these transforms with efficiencies in excess >of 90 percent. (Portable electric storage being the most problematic.) This is most impressive double-speak but it ignores that inconvenient heat engine that is the _start_ of all your electric efficiency. That's the way most power is created in this country, it's all downhill from there. And while you can talk about "theoretical" efficiency to your heart's content, as much _practical_ efficiency as we are going to get has already been achieved, and cannot be improved until we re-invent or re-implement the entire national power grid. Furthermore, while I can put X number of gallons of gas into a pipeline and get X number of gallons out, that does not hold true for electricity, it degrades, and rapidly, and even if you get it down to 2-5%, which it is, that more than overpowers the marginal efficiency of a 99.5% clean gas car and a "100% clean" electric right there. And even ignoring all the foregoing, as is frequently the case, you _can't_ build a 100% efficient battery, even exotics only run 90% and lead-acid is much, _much_ worse. Now if the country went to all-nuclear or geothermal coretap or tidal or _anything_ that didn't star a glorified car engine in the first place, you would have a point. I never denied it. But we haven't, and we won't, mostly because environmentalists won't allow it. >Again, I do not pretend that perfect technologies exist, or are cost-free I don't care about perfect. All I demand - and I think I am justified in doing so - is that they be _at_least_no_worse_ than the technology we are proposing to replace. Is that so unreasonable? That we not go backwards in cleanliness and air quality? I would also require the replacement technology be affordable. I could build a "perfect" gasoline car with no tailpipe, too, but what good is it if it costs $50,000 and needs a huge market of other types to subsidize it? >(and in any case second-law losses are inevitable); also, many economic >trade-offs will result in less-than-optimally efficient components. >No doubt we can debate endlessly the actual efficiencies of the various >stages of the process. Here, though, is the gleam in the eye of >advocates of electric vehicles: energy in the form of electricity, >to motion, _and back_ to electricity with only small losses appears >to be within our technological grasp. Even the once-through path >dissipating in air and bearing and brake friction offers the prospect >of _real_ efficiency gains; the closed loop of regeneration much more so. This is just blue-sky dreaming. Even the most efficient regenerative braking system can't recover more than 50 to 75%, even the most efficient battery cannot deliver the full amount of power that was put into it. When you are down to tenths of a percent comparisons for gas cars, this kind of gap is just too wide to even be considered in the running. >(Nor are electrics the only possibilities. :) They are under the California EV law. No other type has been certified by CARB as compliant. Hybrids were considered and _rejected_. >> GM's Impact made 100 miles or so, tops, in >> range on a full charge - a full charge was equivalent to 1 gallon >> of gas. If the same lightness and engineering was applied to >> a gasoline car - as a hybrid, for example - it could get 100 miles >> per gallon PLUS - the plus being that it has no need to lug the >> heavy batteries around. The _exact_same_technology_ applied to a >> hybrid, with a gas tank equal is weight to the battery rack, would >> produce a car that could drive coast-to-coast without refueling. > >There's a paradox here: if IC engines could be made as efficient as, >say, coal-fired turbines, then (due to mass production) it would make >sense to distribute the generating capacity instead of centralizing >it as we do. (Don't think it'll happen, though. :) Try doing the math by adding in a use for the waste heat and you'll find we have already reached that point. Utilities are fighting the potential for co-generation because they fear it will reduce them to simply caretaking of the power grid, instead of making the power. >> God damn it, I _read_ the engineering specs on the Impact! 90 is >> the actual max range on the EPA highway cycles, you won't get it >> in real life unless your batteries are broken in, but not too broken >> in, the weather is moderate, you drive at the slowest possible legal >> rate, etc, etc, etc. Don't tell me that number is something I _know_ >> it isn't! You won't get that in real life more than one in ten times - >> maybe 2 in ten in California, but I doubt it, traffic jams have less >> impact in mileage for electrics but they don't have _none_. > >You're driveling again, Larry, and your level of emotion doesn't help >your argument in a .sci group. Read it one more time, and consider that Despite it's placement in sci.*, please do not try to tell me this socialist forum is a "sci" group. It isn't. It probably should be, but it isn't, and there is no point in wishing it was. >_my_ car "driving downhill ... with a favoring tailwind" gets _infinite_ >range. I don't have any particular attachment to the CARB figures >(I note that Bruce Hamilton suggests that GM now says "70-90" miles with >allocation for heating and A/C, which I can accept), but if you want >us to believe that we should derate the manufacturer's specs by 50-75% >then you should offer something other than a wave of your hand. Read Solo by Noel Perrin for an object lesson in manufacturer _estimates_ and "real life experience" and why they do not match. The Impact mileage rating is an "estimate" under ideal circumstances, not a "spec". _No_ electric can consistantly deliver full range because they are far more sensitive to driving style, weather, temperature, condition of batteries, load, tires and braking, and all other factors than a gasoline car. And _all_ of this is discussed at length in every article, report, or paper that doesn't _assume_ electrics are wonderful at the outset. Car and Driver reported on the Impact, and noted that the "effective" range _is_ about 75 miles tops on average - that's GM, _not_ C&D, they just reported it. But Pop Mechanics is gaga over electrics, they are going to save the world, so the range is listed as 125 miles, the maximum theoretical range on GM's closed, flat, test track with no braking, no cornering, constant speed, temperature 70+, with batteries with more than 5,000 miles of use and less than 10,000, with a nominal 125 pound driver with _no_ luggage or other load, and they _never_mentioned_ the average effective range. Automobile reported the effective range. Car and Track didn't, nor did Reader's Digest. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both reported the effective range, the Post, Newsday and the NY Daily News did not. The number is _there_, it has far more meaning to any discussion of electric cars than the theoretical maximum, and no amount of complaining about my hand-waving is going to change it. Try reading something _critical_ of some of your cherished theories if you want to see the other side of the argument. Or read Solo, Perrin is a raving mad greenie, but at least he has a streak of honesty. On the basis of the "maximum mileage" claim, _he_ decided to drive his new electric car home from the manufacturer in California to Vermont. A week later, and still less than 200 miles from the factory, he _bought_ a gasoline-powered pickup to finish towing it home. That's how he gets it to shows, now, too. He brings it to Boston for the electric car show that way. Go ahead! Don't take my word for it. Perrin also discusses the efficiency question. Go to a show. Ask him why he spent $15,000 for photovoltaics - hint: it wasn't to make the car cheaper to run. He spent over $35,000 to drive a used Ford Escort electric. Read the book. Ask him yourself. >> >if manufacturers can't achieve _actual_ ranges of, say, 100mi/charge, >> >they won't sell many, but I don't think that's how it will happen. >> >> They _know_ they won't sell any, why do you think they are dragging >> their feet? The gov't is offering to subsidize the whole thing with >> _our_ tax money and they are _still_ dragging their feet! GM has already >> _cancelled_ the Impact, they are planning to meet the 1995 requirement in >> California with converted vehicles sold to fleets - which are being req- >> uired to buy them by law. The same law that will require _you_ to buy >> them no matter what mileage they get, if the EV yahoos get their way. > >There's a lot of opinion here, could you offer some basis for any of it? Opinion? Call GM and ask them if they are going to build the Impact. Every car magazine reported it, so did NYT and WSJ. The plans for converted cars came from the same source. >Which manufacturers _know_ they won't sell any? (I offered Bruce, All of them. And all gave the same reason: too short a range. The gov't is offering to use our tax money to buy down the price, money is no object, the most the merrier. But not one car company wants to try to sell a car that can't get 100 miles without a four to six hour recharge. >who can serve as a model of probity here ;), a bet that at least one >major would sell their quota in the first half of 1998; he refused, >seemed to think it was easy money for me.) What tax subsidies do you >refer to? GM has cancelled the Impact? Hadn't heard the news. >What 1995 requirement for ZEVs? What law requires me to buy them? The California EV law mandates that 2% of all vehicles sold in California in 1995 be electric. It rises until, I believe 10% in 2004. They are proposing to "phase in" a tax on all non-electrics to help cover the cost of the electrics to those who buy them, they will get preferred parking and free recharges from employers. They need at least that much to leap the range hurdle. >> >(As I've posted before, I believe hybrid technology can produce >> >cars with range and acceleration that _exceed_ current vehicles, >> >for those buyers who take those points as critical.) >> >> _Exactly_. That is _exactly_ right. A hybrid ultralight could >> best 100 mpg _today_ - even converted hybrids have done so. Ahhhh, >> but a hybrid _isn't_ "zero emissions" - it may be even lower than >> a modern car by virtue of using much less gas, but it isn't "zero" >> and so doesn't qualify. Only _electric_ cars have been certified >> as "zero" as far as CARB is concerned. You won't see hybrids so >> long as this kind of thinking is forcing work into electrics. > >Let's back up here for a second. Remember, my interest is in technology >development (and deployment); consider that a major fraction of ZEV >technology is directly applicable to hybrids, and vice-versa. I don't Really. Like what? Electric cars need better batteries, hybrids don't, lead acid is fine. Oh, exotics would be better, but lead acids can do the job without too much weight. So what else is going to help hybrids? >rule out the possibility that some hybrid fuel systems may qualify as >ZEVs, although I don't think it'll happen in 1998. CARB has already ruled out hybrids, forever. >If you wanted to do something _politically_ significant, perhaps you >should argue in favor of _extending_ the ZEV program to include hybrids >that meet some particular performance standards. It's interesting to >speculate as to the _political_ difficulties thereof; I've also thought >that CARB themselves might bring the idea up at program review time. You need to read up on this stuff before you bother replying. >> This is what drives me nuts in this newsgroup. I am not, nor have I >> ever, argued we "can't afford" clean energy systems. We can. We need >> to. What we cannot afford to do is tilt at every environmental windmill >> we meet while we have not _yet_ put such systems in place. Electric >> cars are going to be so hideously expensive that the mere _attempt_ >> to use them to "replace" the IC engine will leave us with _no_other_ >> options_ - most especially, we will not be able to afford hybrids, >> because even if they are developed, they will still have to carry >> inflated price tags to help pay for the electric debacle. > >Give me an effing break. You're whining as if the ZEV program >mandated replacement of every vehicle in 1998, by a program that 10% by 2004. More later, obviously. >was not subject to political review and modification. It's tough How much review was it given in Mass or NY? It was rubberstamped in one of their periodic salaams toward California. >to see the ZEV program as an economic dislocation of more than >about a billion per year, if that; compared to GM's or Toyota's >profits, that's spare change. We aren't comparing it to GM's or Toyota's profits, we are comparing it to what a 99.5% clean car costs _today_ and we are asking if that that .5% is worth the increase in other forms of pollution elsewhere, if it is worth the money it will cost, and why we can't shave it down another .4 with hybrids instead. CARB itself admits the final phase of the law may add as much as $8,000 to the price of an average car, is _that_ "spare change"?! Private think-tanks, several of which with a proven track record of estimates of this type in defense and other industries, have reported estimates as high as $20,000 - that's a $20,000 tax bill added to a gas car to buy an electric down in the same range. That's using the "foreseeable future" numbers from CARB's own estimates, never mind what would happen once we pass the 10% level and continue trying to tax gas cars to fund electrics. It will be Social Security all over again, works fine so long as most people drive gas cars, goes completely to hell as more and more don't. Spare change? This spare change issue will make or break the next generation of cars, we won't _get_ another chance, a wrong decision here will leave us holding a bill we cannot afford to pay and still try again. _Somebody_ is going to be hurt, very, very, very badly. >> If we went the way _I_ wish we would, we'd remove the restraints against >> starting a new car company and let the industry compete again, we'd see >> 200 mpg hybrids within a few years and that would go a _long_ way toward >> reducing CO2 emissions. But wrong-headed gov't mandated "solutions" like >> electric cars will waste so much money that hybrids, when they come - IF >> they come - will cost $50,000 a piece instead of $15,000 because so much >> money was wasted on electrics and they have to be paid for one way or >> another. That will _force_ people to keep running their current gasoline >> cars and _increase_ the amount of time we spend putting CO2 into the air. > >"Let the industry compete again"? Rolling on the floor here, Larry... Not "the" industry. "The" industry is all the companies that have already paid their entrance fee. We need a "new" industry, to deal with new technology. IBM didn't bring the micro to the world, why should we expect GM to bring us the next generation car? >> Damn it, I don't necessarily disagree with the goals, it's this short- >> sighted "greenthink" that substitutes mindless feelgoods for real logic >> that are bugging me. If the _goal_ is to reduce CO2, _fine_, let's choose >> some solutions that will address that. But spare me some socialist >> nostrum that will actually make the problem worse and tell me we are >> reducing CO2. The _real_ reason why greenies want electric cars is >> because they know full well that they will only be viable if the market >> is "adjusted" with huge taxes on gas cars to subsidize electrics, which >> will drive up the price of _all_ private transportation. This is not >> a solution, it's a trojan horse. > >Your willingness to attribute malice and bad faith to others is >not the most attractive aspect of your personality. I do not ascribe to malice or bad faith what is so easily explained by simple stupidity. Go do your homework. Post a review of Solo, then we'll talk. -- Larry Smith - My opinions alone. larrys@io.com/thesmiths@mv.mv.com A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. -- Barry Goldwater. Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want, it is the freedom to do whatever we are able. -- Me. From whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Oct 7 17:27:18 EDT 1994 Article: 48489 of sci.environment Xref: info.physics.utoronto.ca sci.energy:27448 sci.environment:48489 Path: info.physics.utoronto.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!mcshub!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA!not-for-mail From: whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment Subject: Uranium Released by Coal Exceeds Nuclear Usage. Date: 6 Oct 1994 14:01:00 -0400 Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Lines: 62 Message-ID: <371e0s$ear@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> NNTP-Posting-Host: mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Found on the ans-l listserv: ------- begin article -------- Worry about the release and accumulation of radioactive materials in the environment has led to much hand wringing over the risks of accidents at nuclear power plants and weapons facilities. But what about radioactivity released from burning coal? W. Alex Gabbard, a nuclear physicist at the Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory, did a little calculating. According to Environmental Protection Agency figures, an average ton of coal contains 1.3 parts per million of uranium and 3.2 parts per million of thorium. Both naturally occurring trace metals are radioactive. Of the uranium, roughly 0.71 percent is U-235, the fissionable variety used by nuclear power plants. Thus in 1982, he estimates, U.S. coal-burning power plants, which collectively consumed 616 million tons of coal, released 801 tons of uranium and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment virtually unnoticed. Roughly 11,371 pounds of the uranium was U-235. Moreover, global combustion of 2,800 million tons of coal that year released 8,960 tons of thorium and 3,640 tons of uranium, of which 51,700 pounds was U-235. Ironically, in 1982, 111 U.S. nuclear power plants used 540 tons of nuclear fuel to generate electricity. Thus, "the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels," Gabbard notes in the fall issue of the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY REVIEW. Gabbard then calculated the energy value of the lost radioactive materials. He found that the nuclear fuel released by burning coal has one and a half times more energy than the coal itself. Because electric utilities are not perceived to be as hazardous as nuclear power plants, "large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste," Gabbard says. "These products emit low-level radiation. But because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities," he adds. "Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner," Gabbard concludes. Such wastes accumulate on electric utility sites and are "not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain." ------ end article ------- -- Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whitlock@mcmaster.ca Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140 McMaster University, 1280 Main West Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's" From tcora@pica.army.mil Tue May 16 12:10:20 EDT 1995 Article: 4474 of sci.physics.electromag Xref: info.physics.utoronto.ca sci.physics.electromag:4474 Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag Path: info.physics.utoronto.ca!cannon.ecf!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!admii!ovation!k-whiner.pica.army.mil!user From: tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) Subject: Re: Railguns, Coilguns, Electromagnetic launchers, etc. Message-ID: Sender: usenet@pica.army.mil (USENET Special Account ) Nntp-Posting-Host: k-whiner.pica.army.mil Organization: Electric Armaments Division, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b24.0+ References: <1737F10B24S86.CVARNER@utcvm.utc.edu> Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 15:39:26 GMT Lines: 32 R.J.KITA wrote: >DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON >HOMOPOLAR GENERATORS. Here's my "standard" EML bibliography. There are lots of articles on HPGs in the older issues. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics: Vol. MAG-18, No. 1, January 1982 1980 Conference on Electromagnetic Guns and Launchers Vol. MAG-20, No. 2, March 1984 2nd Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology Vol. MAG-22, No. 6, November 1986 3rd Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology Vol. 25, No. 1, January 1989 4th Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology Vol. 27, No. 1, January 1991 5th Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology Vol. 29, No. 1, January 1993 6th Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology Vol. 31, No. 1, January 1995 7th Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/ From MSA@SSC.SE Mon Sep 30 17:14:12 EDT 1996 Article: 111552 of sci.environment Xref: info.physics.utoronto.ca sci.energy:57396 sci.environment:111552 Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment Path: info.physics.utoronto.ca!info.ecf!utcsri!rutgers!news.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!pacbell.com!amdahl.com!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!svri.com!usenet From: M Sandberg Subject: Re: effects of radiation (long) (and digressing) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: dan.evens@hydro.on.ca Message-ID: <32503213.67A1@SSC.SE> Sender: usenet@svri.com (USENET news maint) Nntp-Posting-Host: 193.14.110.39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: unorganized, very References: <51utck$156@linet06.li.net> <51q2jo$94r@linet06.li.net> < <324AD516.30F9@SSC.SE> <324A9F76.2D2A@hydro.on.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 20:48:19 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) Lines: 250 Dan Evens wrote: > > M Sandberg wrote: > > When you add to that that > > cancer and mutations are generally down among the survivors of Hiroshima > > and Nagasaki you can start to suspect that something is wrong with the > > linear hypothesis. > > It is in fact true that the survivors of Hiroshima are living longer > than > the national average of Japan. However, the lesson here is almost > certainly > not that radiation is good for people. The survivors are in fact being > followed very carefully by a range and variety of medical people. They > are > very frequently reminded of their experience, and are quite > understandably > aware of the potential consequences. This combination probably means > they > take better than average care of their health. They probably do things > like > getting enough exercise and sleep, getting a balanced diet, avoiding > smoking > and avoiding excessive drinking. Plus, since the doctors want to poke > and snoop > in their bodily cavities frequently, any medical problems that develop > are > likely caught earlier than for the average citizen. Maybe that they are caught earlier than for the average citizen, but that would mean higher registered rate, not lower since those who would have had spontaneous remission (a very smal portion indeed) and those who would have died from other reasons before being diagnosed are counted. That goes doubble for birth defects. > However: They are getting more cancers than the background population. > (See _The Anti-Nuclear Game_ by Gordon Simms, University of Ottawa > Press, 1990, page 70.) It's just that other effects, particularly > heart disease, are killing them less quickly. That is NOT what is reported in the statistics that I have seen, but these statistics could be wrongly referenced since I have only seen them reprinted in the newspapers. The few times that I have bothered to follow up the reports of high incidents of cancer due to nuclear radiation (I lost patience after about ten times) what I have found is that they have found some subgroup that have shown some rise, like northen Scotland where in one district around the fast breeder they had a full case instead of the expected quarter case. (Long digression about why I have little interest in following up every report of the dangers of nuclear power. On case that went its rounds during the Swedish nuclear election was where one person had put the decimal point tree steps wrong and overreported by 1000 the incidence of Leukemia in one district around one power station in USA. All the other surrounding districts had lower rates than average, including that surrounding the station and those downwind. At first in the debate the proponents just pointed out that it was just one district around one power station but then one suspicious journalist (he said he had been burned before with false data) checked with the source in USA. When he got the right figures he did not imediately accuse the anti nuke people of forgery, he started tracing the route and found the report where the mistake was made, and the later correction blaming a typist (probaply an honest mistake). BTW that report was in a referenced journal and the report claimed that his data (including the wrong datapoint) prowed no messaurable danger >from nuclear power. [DIGRESSION: This shows what referenced publications are about, not that they are always right but that *all* relevant data with source are published and that all clear errors that other workers can find will be reported and, usually, also if no other can repeat the data when trying, that is also reported. The result is that rubbish may be published in referenced journals but it is usually corrected] In the public debate they were told off and did not use the argument any more but in the street debates it was still used. I happened to hear the same agitator twice using that argument, the firrst time I got him to admit that he had heard that it was a misprint but he maintained that it showed the danger of nuclear even if just that example was wrong. when I next heard him using the same example I just asked why he still used a "by him known wrong example" and when he just sputtered that I was unfairely destroying the debate I kind of lost interest in debating any more.) > (As to mutation rates, well, I'd like to see a reference.) My source is the same as for cancer, a press conference after a big conference about radiation dangers. ( In reality it was two press conferences a coupple of years apart. I never saw the proceedings, specially not the ones with the debate included.) The conferences was of the type where they tried to collect many wiews to consolidate the stand of the field. It was before they tried to publish consensus, before they thought that you could wote about science. They just published individual reports and the consolidated data and allowed averybody to draw theiur own conclusions. > No, the lesson here is not that radiation is good for health, but that > these > other factors make a bigger difference (on average, note) than the > effects > of the radiation exposure. I never claimed that it was helthy, I just noted that there was no case for claiming that low doses where unhealty. You smipped my case about India where they had a background radiation over that allowed in nuclear work. My reference for that was an aside in a report about allowable limits for radiation workers which said "in one place in India the background radiation is higher than allowed. The decision IAEA handed down is that only the exposure from work shall be counted. In cases where the background is high the background shall be subtracted from exposure. Dosiometers shall not be carried after work, neither shall they be carried if you are X-rayed at work." This is from instructions for use of dosiometers which i received when doing a labwork in the University. The leaflet continued telling that the reason was Thorium in the ground and that the health was better than surroundings and thet there was no sign of elevated radiaton related diseases in the historical record. I have croschecked some and have not found any contradicting evidence. My sources are not strong enough to be evidence, they are only indicium. The sources are like the man I met who had worked with health education in India who said that as far as he remembered it was only one of the poor districts with good helth so he was not interested in it. As for your second point, it is true. One example is danger of Radon, Asbest, coal dust, rock dust. The case of Asbestosis is the "best". The smokers working with Asbest in the railway workshops in Sweden all died within 20 years but there were some that survived longer among the nonsmokers. Regarding Radon there was a big study in Sweden a few years back. They stated that it was difficult to estimate exposure since there was almost no messaurements from before the energy crisis, but using the best independent estimate they had they found a very strong correlation between Randon and cancer in smokers (above the cancer rate in smokers not exposed to Radon). They found a week correlation in those exposed to secondary smoke (with the disclaimer that there they had two week estimates, smoke and Radon). They could find no messaurable correlation above random among nonsmokers. The case of coal and stone dust is in between, the correlation with smoking is so strong that it is possible to blame it all on smoking, that is sif you are willing to misssuse statistics somewhat. I have seen it in another way, a coupple of times i have been in groups where we had the assignment to compute the expected rate of cancer from background radiation. In every case where we did that, using Swedish figures from the 50's the estimated rate of cancer was clearly higher than recorded. The higher the background the bigger the mismatch. You could find a good correlation though between sales of cigarettes and lung cancer, and between sales of wodka and stomac cancer. I Have also seen it in the maps of cancer rates that I have seen (most have been USA but a few Europa, Sweden, Australia. Criteria is that I can only consider areas where I have a fair knowledge of background radiation.) They almost all have anticorrelation between background radiation and cancer. Just compare Denver, Colorado with Florida. Watch out for things like Salt Lake City which stands out due to the Mormons not smoking and not drinking. (Not even coffe if I heard right.) Bearing on this is my observation that if you follow the newspapers and the official danger reports they almost always err on the alarmist side. If there is one report saying that something is unsafe it will get into the newspapers and quite oftern generate a pressrelease from some deppartement saying that they are doing something about it, quite often setting some limits on it too. If there is a report that they could not find any danger it may be reported in a newspaper, usually followed by a retort by somebody claiming that it is a cover up. In a way I can understand that reaction. There is plenty of evidence that there exists coverups: just look at the Mad Cow Disease. I read about 5 years ago in New Scientist reports about all the dangers they are talking about now. The only new thing they mention now is that they have proven that it can infect apes, an test that was started about 5 years ago that being the incubation time from infection to certain detection if infection. Still, you get denials from the Enflish that it may infect hunmans, You get denials that it will propagate exept by feed etc, etc. Most of those claims were clearly contraindicated already 1990 but the English still try to peddle them. { A big aside. As i write this i read in Dagens Nyheter Mon 30 Sept 1996 p C2 about summer time: (translated to english) Header _Time is out of wack._ (About win95 comming preloaded with change to wintertime 29 Sep) "But since Sweden joined Common Market it changed." "Since the other Common Market countries keep summertime until 27 October Sweden will do the same." This is factually wrong. Sweden has kept the same summertime as the rest of West Continental Europe since they started with summertime. There is no change that Sweden now have joined Common Market. What have happened is that Common Market (and AFAIK Switzerland) decided to follow England ( a decission that Sweden is supporting) which have changed over one month later all the time. This later change have been troubblesome all the time and in the end Europe decided to follow England since England would not follow Europe. ( The funny thing is that England once decided to follow the rest of Europe. The summer before Europe started witn summertime England never went to wintertime just to be in the same timezone as the rest of Europe. When the rest of Europe started with summertime England went back to changing, BUT, probably since they got mad they went to summertime before the rest of Europe and went back to wintertime after the rest of Europe. ) The interesting thing is that the reporter is blaming something he dislikes for something else, something that is not responsible for the thing it is blamed. You see the same thing time and time again, specially if they can get somebody with an impressing title to say something that can be taken as supporting your case, even if he denies supporting your case. When he wants space for a rebuttal to save his reputation he usually is told that he has no case, he is not defamed just because he is cited as supporting something he poses. This habit of blaming things on things not responsible and never correcdting the facts leaves the impression that all concur. It is an old tactic, used by both Stalin and Hitler just to mention two famos opposing big men. > > ( As an interesting aside: Greenpeace (If i remember correctly, it was one > > of the anti nuclear organisations) reported that exposure was underestimated > > a factor 10 in H&N. They used that as a damaging fact against radiation. > > IF exposure was underestimated but results not that would mean that > > radiation was safer than estimated, NOT the opposite as was claimed.) > > I think you've got this backwards. Various anti-nuclear groups claim > that > the dose for people at Hiroshima was less by a factor of 10 than the > usual estimate used in dose effect calculations. This is part of the > basis they use to claim that radiation is approximately 10 times as > damaging as the consensus figures used by most researchers in the field > of radiation effects. You may be right, I never saw the original report, I only saw some articles that using that report (cited as claiming 10 times higher radiation) claimed that nuclear wepons were more dangerous than claimed. After seeing what they cited as cause for changing the estimate I realised that they (again acording to the articles) had not considered the messaurable traces of neutron recoil they had found at ground zero or the radiation messaurement that they had taken as fast as they could after the occupation. The americans was wery interested to see what happened after a nuclear blast so there was quite some messaurements taken, not enough and late, but you can not ignore what was done. I am not shure what is the truth but I will ignore everybody who ignores what messaurements there is. The point is: those articles argued that since there was more radiation than reported nuclear weapons were more dangerous than reported, not the opposite. It may be true that they had misread the report and had not realized that as reported was unlogical but it ewas what was argued. I Just shaked my head and ignored the rest. SAG From pjreid@mi.net Tue Oct 22 10:37:39 EDT 1996 Article: 113020 of sci.environment Xref: info.physics.utoronto.ca sci.environment:113020 Path: info.physics.utoronto.ca!info.ecf!utcsri!rutgers!news.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hookup!news.nstn.ca!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!news.unb.ca!scratchy.mis.ca!news From: pjreid@mi.net (Patrick Reid) Newsgroups: sci.environment Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:56:01 GMT Organization: ALARA Research, Inc Lines: 238 Message-ID: <3275a913.12828260@news.mi.net> References: <545blc$hr1@linet06.li.net> <546shd$65q@linet06.li.net> Reply-To: pjreid@mi.net NNTP-Posting-Host: pjreid.mis.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 Instead of replying to the many posts in this thread, I will just summarize my thoughts on the key issues which I have seen come up here. The 3 concerns which I would like to address are: - The "Extremely Safe" Nature of Nuclear Power - The Human Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident - Radiation-Induced Cancer at Low Doses (the "Linear, No-Threshold" Model) Note that almost always, when I refer to the nuclear industry, I refer to the Canadian industry. Levels of safety consciousness and regulation are similar in all Western nations, but as I work in the Canadian industry, I can more easily cite specific examples for Canada. 1) The "Extremely Safe" Nature of Nuclear Power "Safe" is a relative word. My job includes doing safety analysis of CANDU nuclear power plants in order to maintain their license to operate. I do not think you will find anyone involved in nuclear safety who will say that accidents can't happen, or that people haven't died due to nuclear power, or that people will never die due to nuclear power. What you will find is people (like myself) who say that, TWh for TWh, nuclear power results in less detrimental human health and environmental impact than its major alternatives for the large scale production of electricity; namely coal, oil, natural gas and hydro-electric power. Aaahhh, I hear people saying, but what about Chernobyl? I will discuss the human health effects below. As regards environmental impact, wildlife in the contaminated region around Chernobyl is thriving. Despite the significant doses suffered amongst the animal and plant populations, they are now healthy and there are no apparent long-term adverse health effects on these populations due to the accident. There are restrictions of human use of some of the animals and plants, but as far as effect on the populations themselves, the damage which occurred appears to be healing. In some cases, these restrictions are based on the "no threshold" assumption which is often used in estimating the health effect of a dose and so are really unnecessary to protect the health of people. More on this in item 3. Note also that the environmental damage due to Chernobyl is the only significant environmental impact of nuclear. Uranium mining has very little impact, in part due to the small amount of material which must be mined in order to generate nuclear power. High level nuclear waste disposal in stable geologic rock formations reduces the concerns about later damage to near-zero levels. (Actually, I don't think we should do this to fuel; within a century or so, we are going to want that "waste" to produce power). Two accidents which are often discussed when the "safe" or "unsafe" nature of nuclear power is discussed are TMI and Chernobyl. These were accidents in which a combination of erroneous operator actions and design flaws combined. Chernobyl was by far the worst. In fact, no member of the general public can be shown to have suffered negative health effects due to radiation exposure due to TMI, and a class action suit was recently quashed in court for lack of evidence. All this does not mean that the nuclear industry has the attitude "oh well, those accidents happened, but no-one (or few people) was hurt, so we'll just go merrily along." Both accidents resulted in design modifications of existing plants and changes to emergency planning and operator training. The nuclear industry has performed extensive post-test analysis of both the physical plant response and the human factors which went into the operator response, so as to increase the understanding of the events and hence allow safer operation of the plants to be possible. Note that Canadian nuclear operators must undergo eight years of specialized training before they are allowed to be in charge of a reactor. If we were complacent, such stringent requirements would not be in place. The simple fact is that, with thousands of reactor-years of operating experience, nuclear has _shown_ itself to result in fewer deaths and/or illnesses per TWh than any other form of energy currently used on this planet to generate electricity on a large scale. This is including the impact of the fact that people make mistakes in design and operation of reactors. Nuclear could definitely be safer, as could any power generating technology. My job is oriented towards continually making nuclear safer, and the Canadian nuclear industry spends many millions of dollars every year to improve the safety of its nuclear plants. Therefore, I would say that "Nuclear power is extremely safe." If someone would prefer that I say that "Every other large scale power source is more dangerous than nuclear," that's fine by me; to me they mean the same thing. 2) The Human Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident I refer the reader to http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl.html which contains a report by the NEA summarizing the radiological and health impact of the worst civilian nuclear power accident in human history. In summary, 31 people died immediately because of Chernobyl, 28 of which deaths were due to radiation (the other three died of thermal burns, a heart attack and one due to the explosion). Since then, 3 children have died due to thyroid cancer out of about 600 "excess" cases in the general population. More thyroid cancers are expected, and there will probably be more deaths due to the small mortality rate associated with this disease. There has been no evidence of increased cancer of any kind in any other population, including the "liquidators" (the people involved in the cleanup operations). If there were to be any effect in the general population, it would show up in this population first. It has not, as of ten years after. Using ICRP dose-repsonse curves, a poster has stated that 30,000 cancers are expected due to Chernobyl. However, this dose response curve does not reflect the fact that there appears to be a threshold below which doses do not have any adverse health effect. (see item 3 below) Note that, if the ICRP curves were right, excess leukaemia rates would have been observed in the liquidator population by now (since leukaemia has a latency period of ~5 years). These leukaemias have not been observed. There is no evidence of congenital abnormalities or adverse pregnancy outcomes due to Chernobyl (unless you count the many abortions which here done because people were afraid their children would suffer congenital abnormalities -- a fear which was unfounded.) Many thousands of people were evacuated due to Chernobyl. However, most of these evacuations were unnecessary. The average dose rate in the evacuated regions is _less_ than the average in Sweden, and about the same as the average in France and Spain. These evacuations, combined with people's fear over radiation, has resulted in stress-related health problems for many people. As I have stated in an earlier post, it is possible that another cancer, with a greater latency period, may turn up in the affected populations. However, it is also possible (and more likely) that this will not happen, due to the low doses which were received, even in the "liquidator" population. 3) Radiation-Induced Cancer at Low Doses (the "Linear, No-Threshold" Model) The ICRP dose response curve has been mentioned in this thread, with the statement that it predicts ~30,000 excess cancers due to Chernobyl. The ICRP dose response curve is often referred to as a "Linear, No-Threshold" dose response curve. This is a bit of a misnomer, since the ICRP curve uses dose weighting factors to reduce the predicted cancer response at low doses, making it non-linear. However, the key criticism of the ICRP dose response curve is that it has no low dose threshold below which no effect of radiation exists. We live in a radioactive world. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the clothes we wear, even our own bodies, are all radioactive. The human body has evolved in a radioactive environment and the body has defense mechanisms to protect against radiogenic cancer. Radiation induces cancer by damaging cells' DNA in such a way that, when the cells reproduce, they are cancerous. The human body repairs radiation damaged cells every single day due to background radiation. Low level radiation can be handled by the body in the same way. In fact, there is some evidence for hormesis, which means that at low doses, the stimulation of the body's repair mechanisms results in a lower cancer rate, since the larger amount of naturally-induced DNA damage is repaired along with that induced by low level radiation from some other source of exposure. If there was not a low level dose threshold, one would expect higher cancer rates in areas with higher background radiation levels. This is not the case. Studies of populations which have received low doses in excess of background have also shown no adverse health impact. Such studies include studies of nuclear shipyard workers, radium watch dial painters and atomic bomb survivors who received low doses. Some of these populations had lower cancer rates than unexposed populations. The American Health Physics Society (_not_ the Radiological Society, as I mistakenly said in an earlier post) recently released a position statement which said: "Radiogenic health effects (primarily cancer) are observed in humans only at doses in excess of 10 rem delivered at high dose rates. ... "In view of the above, the Society has concluded that estimates of risk should be limited to individuals receiving a dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem in addition to natural background. Below these doses, risk estimates should not be used; expressions of risk should only be qualitative emphasizing the inability to detect any increased health detriment (i.e., zero health effects is the most likely outcome). ... "for a population in which all individuals receive lifetime doses of less than 10 rem above background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk and should not be quantified for the purposes of estimating population health risks." In fact, many scientists argue that the threshold is more like 30 to 50 rem. (note 10 rem = 100 mSv). However, the Health Physics Society has a responsibility to be very careful in defining these thresholds. Application of the ICRP dose response curve and coming up with a cancer rate of 30,000 involves using collective dose on a population which has received less than 10 rem above background, and is hence invalid. People may wonder why the ICRP dose response curve was developed, if it is wrong. Well, these dose response curves are designed for use in safety analysis done to convince a regulatory body to issue a license to a nuclear power plant. At the time that these regulations were being first written, there was a paucity of evidence regarding response at low doses, so a conservative approach was taken in which no low dose threshold was assumed to exist. Now that there is good evidence for a threshold, there is resistance to changing the regulatory approach because regulators are reluctant to appear to be easing constraints on an industry which is often viewed as being dangerous. However, the above position statement shows that attitudes are changing. In fact the US NRC has recently commissioned a study examining the appropriateness of the no threshold model, with a view to eliminating it if it can be shown to be inappropriate. This makes good sense from a safety perspective, since it allows the nuclear industry to focus efforts on reducing doses in regimes in which they truly are significant, instead of wasting effort on reducing doses when that reduction results in no true safety improvement. I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to be thorough and cover the points with some care. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Patrick Reid | e-mail: pjreid@mi.net | | ALARA Research, Incorporated | Voice: (506) 674-9099 | | Saint John, NB, Canada | Fax: (506) 674-9197 | |--------------------------------------------------------------------| | - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - | | - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From mpainter@maxinet.com Tue Oct 28 09:50:36 EST 1997 Article: 303304 of sci.skeptic Xref: info.physics.utoronto.ca sci.geo.geology:49786 sci.geo.petroleum:11800 sci.physics:265620 sci.skeptic:303304 Path: info.physics.utoronto.ca!info.ecf!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!zdc!szdc!newsp.zippo.com!snews2 From: "Mike Painter" Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.petroleum Subject: Re: Divining Rods - They Do Work - But HOW ??? Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:19:59 -0700 Organization: None Lines: 69 Message-ID: <62roh5$qdr@snews2.zippo.com> References: <33edd769.10161441@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com> <19970812022801.WAA02236@ladder01.news.aol.com> <5sv90k$4d7$1@news.fsu.edu> <33f7daee.31754526@news.erols.com> <01bcc430$58802a40$LocalHost@default> <342A335E.26 <6255nh$r8b$4@thorn.cc.usm.edu> <62dd2p$mql@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <62p80b$h111@dragon.sk.sympatico.ca> <62q6gr$ljv$1@thorn.cc.usm.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-801.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Andras Szilagyi wrote in message ... >On 24 Oct 1997 13:06:35 GMT, Lawrence R. Mead wrote: >> > > >Please name a double blind study that was not done by Randi but somebody >else, independently. Can you name any? I've never heard a skeptic >referring to a study on dowsing that was not done by Randi. Maybe the >whole skeptic opinion is based on Randi's two studies alone? > >Andras Szilagyi Randi is mentioned frrequently because he has been offereing 1.1 million dollars to anyone who, in a mutually agreed upon double blind study, can demonstrate this ability. He is also mentioned because he is the first to admit he is NOT a scientist, but a magician. Scienctists have frequently ben fooled by other magicians and he is very good at showing the tricks. To date noone has tried..... As for other studies what follows is from another post put here not to long ago. In article , Andras Szilagyi writes >OK. At last an informed answer. I appreciate it. Could you give the exact >reference of this pamphlet? It is called simply 'Water Dowsing' and was available from: US Geological Survey, Branch of Distribution, P. O. Box 25286, Denver, CCO 80225 > Where did you find it? It was in my dowsing file :-) I also have a panphlet published by the Water Resources Commission, N.S.W., Australia. It is called 'Water Divining: Fact or Fiction?' by W. H. Williamson, M.Sc. a Senior Hydrogeologist. It is a reprint from "Power Farming & Better Farming Digest". A couple of quotes: "Scientists the world over are agreed, as a result of numerous investigations over the years, that the practice of divining has no relationship to underground water. Furthermore they are agreed that the many and varied concepts diviners have of groundwater occurrence and movement, particularly with regard to so-called 'undeground streams' are usually quite misleading.' A table of bores constructed between 1918 and 1945 is included, with the following comment: "The table summarises the results of the 3,638 bores constructed by Commission boring plants between 1918 and 1945, the last year in which such records were maintained. In approximately half of thse cases the landholder required the bore to be constructed on a divined site. "It will be noted that the figures show that the results of drilling on sites not divined have been much more favourable than those having the 'advantage' of being divined. In fact, the percentage of failure bores on divined sites is about twice that for sites not divined. "It is pointed out also that prior to the introduction of new regulations in 1947 the Commission was committed to boring on whatever site the landholder stipulated, and many of the undivined sites were unfavourably located. Since then, however, the Commission has constructed bores only where hyrdogeological assessment indicated that there were reasonable prospects of obtaining water, so that today, failures are rare "And this without the aid of a diviner to trace the elusive 'stream'" End of quotes. The table mentioned can also be found in the best book on dowsing, "Water Witching U.S.A" by Evon Z. Vogt and Ray Hyman. A must read for anyone really researching the subject and possibly still available from Chicago University Press even though it was last published in 1979.