Environmental Doomsayers
Scott M. Kozel
I saw a good editorial in yesterday's local newspaper.
The title is "The Doomsayers - Wrong So Very Often, But Lionized
Nonetheless".
The editorial is written by syndicated columnist Walter Williams
(http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/williams.htm). Dr. Walter E. Williams
is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia.
I found it on the Internet
(http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/wew_envo.htm) and here it is verbatim:
Walter Williams
Wednesday February 18, 1998
Dire prediction after dire prediction, environmentalists are usually
wrong.
Few groups have been so consistently wrong yet so revered by the
political, intellectual and media elite as have environmentalists.
They've been predicting that the world's going to run out of coal, oil,
gas, food, arable land and you name it for decades. If anything, the
world's known supply of things environmentalists said we're running out
of has increased. Let's look at it.
In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted our oil reserves would last
10 years. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil
would last 13 years; it made the same prediction in 1951. In 1972, the
Club of Rome's report "Limits to Growth" said total oil reserves totaled
550 billion barrels. With the report in hand, President Carter said,
"We could use up all proven reserves in the entire world by the next
decade." Between 1970 and 1990, the world used up 600 billion barrels
but, as of 1990, the world had 1.5 trillion barrels of known,
unexploited oil reserves.
In the 1970s, Lester Brown of Worldwatch Institute started predicting
population growth would outstrip food production. His mentor, Paul
Ehrlich, in his 1968 best selling book _Population Bomb_, predicted that
by 1999 the U.S. population would starve back to 22 million. Since
1961, world population has doubled; food production has more than
doubled, even in many poor countries. The Food and Agriculture
Organization reports that calories consumed per person in Third World
countries are 27 percent higher now than in 1961.
What about the 1980s forest-destroying acid-rain scare? According to a
$700 million official study, "There is no evidence of a general or
unusual decline of forests in the U.S. or Canada due to acid rain." As
for environmentalists' pressures to come to a panicky conclusion, one of
the study's authors said: "Yes, there were political pressures. Acid
rain had to be an environmental catastrophe, no matter what the facts
revealed."
There are other false environmentalist claims, like "urban sprawl is
paving over vital cropland." Fact: Farmland lying fallow in the United
States and Argentina alone could feed 1.4 billion people. Claim: Soil
erosion will lead to new dust bowls. Fact: The percentage of cropland
lost through soil erosion has dropped by two-thirds since the 1950s.
Claim: Nuclear power is dangerous. Fact: Generating all of our
electricity by nuclear power has the risk-equivalent of raising the
highway speed limit by 0.006.
In his book, _State of Humanity_, as well as his many articles, the late
University of Maryland Professor Julian Simon presents one fact after
another that totally demolishes environmentalist claims of coming
disaster. People like Simon, who brought truth and reason to
environmental hype and deliberate lies, are routinely dismissed as
right-wing cranks and ignored by the media. The media treat
environmentalists, who've been wrong time after time, as gods of the
truth. For Dr. Paul Ehrlich's work, the MacArthur Foundation bestowed
its "genius" award along with a handsome stipend for his "promoting
greater public understanding of environmental problems." Lester Brown,
who's been predicting global starvation for 40 years, also received the
MacArthur "genius" award along with a stipend.
Our continued belief in environmentalist mistakes, manipulation, lies
and fearmongering leads us to establish public policies that kill people
and reduce standards of living, such as CAFE standards that downsize
autos and cause unnecessary highway deaths, energy-saving regulations
that produce airtight sick buildings, and the international push for
birth control.
The next time an environmentalist warns us of disaster, we ought to ask:
When was the last time your prediction was right?
<end of editorial>
--
Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
PHL area http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
George Conklin
In article <34EF51...@richmond.infi.net>,
The demographic transition is also happening even in the
poorest of nations, lowering population projections by
another 600 million since 1990.
The next time urban planners state we must live in
apartments on rail lines to have 'sustainable development,'
just remember that the word sustainable is pure politics.
Ken Kifer
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> I saw a good editorial in yesterday's local newspaper.
>
> The title is "The Doomsayers - Wrong So Very Often, But Lionized
> Nonetheless".
>
> (http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/williams.htm). Dr. Walter E. Williams
> is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,
> Virginia.
>
> I found it on the Internet
> (http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/wew_envo.htm) and here it is verbatim:
>
I'm sure this post follows from an e-mail exchange with you, Scott,
because I used the word "doomsayers" in it.
Walter Williams made some good points, and as I said in my e-mail, I'm
going to have to study some of these matters more. However, he is wrong
about many of his statements about environmentalists:
1. Predictions of world starvation. These were true. Why then didn't
world starvation happen? One scientist, Normal Borlaug, probably
working with a large team of scientists and money from far-sighted
individuals and organizations and governments developed new, heartier,
disease-resistant varieties of food, with increased protein and vitamins
to boot. These new foods saved a hungry world and made it possible for
many third world countries to advance. This miracle was called "The
Green Revolution." You'd think that someone of that ilk would win world
recognition; he did: he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his
achievements, not long after those books predicting disaster had been
written. Future food disasters can still occur unless we discover new
methods or new varieties of plants.
Of course, the work he did was far more important than the work
environmentalists did, but what if no one had pointed out the problem?
2. Acid rain. This was also true. Lakes were being killed, forests
were sick or dying, and statues were being eaten away. What happened?
All power plants were required to install scrubbers, and other sources
of pollution were cleaned up. This clean-up doesn't receive the
attention that it once did, but every year the standards get more
tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
trees were alive and healthy in 1970. Another place in North Carolina
to visit is Ducktown. Everything within 50 miles was killed by the
pollution -- before some scientist pointed out that they could make more
money off of the sulfur than the copper. This disaster happened many
years earlier, before people even recognized that acid rain could be a
problem. But it's a good example of what acid rain can do.
3. Other predictions of problems and shortages. Often a prediction will
lead to actions that make the prediction untrue. Does that mean the
prediction was worthless. No. People predicted that the number of
traffic deaths would continue to climb. As a result, we designed safer
highways and vehicles and the idea of 100 mph speed limits was dropped.
In fact, we even dropped back a little in our maximum speeds. So,
instead of a rising death rate, we had a falling one (until the speed
limits started going back up). Recognizing a future shortage may result
in new exploration, more efficient recycling techniques, greater
recycling, and a reliance on other materials, all of which can prevent
the shortage from ever happening.
I'm not saying the opposite, that environmentalists are always right.
But even when they're dead wrong, they can serve a useful purpose by
causing a re-examination of the problem. And although some of them can
be alarmists, it sometimes takes some noise to get people to look at a
problem. For example, at Three Mile Island and at Brown's Ferry, we
came very close to major disaster. The Russians didn't have to worry
about environmentalists and whistle-blowers. As a result they created
the worst environmental disaster in modern times when they blew the roof
off at Chernobyl. They even lied to their own people _after_ the
disaster, which caused more deaths. But to some extent, all of Russia
is an environmental disaster because of gross mis-management.
The CO2 problem is one that has raised a lot of controversy. People are
saying that solving this problem with ruin our economy. That's odd,
because conserving energy and reducing waste allowed Japan to pass up up
economically a number of years ago. But cutting wastes, businesses saw
their profits soar. I'm pleased to see that BP has decided to cooperate
in every way.
So, anyone who thinks every environmental scare means the end of the
earth needs to be classed with Chicken Little, but anyone who thinks
everything environmentalists say is wrong needs to be classed with the
ostrich with its head in the sand. The healthy attitude is a concerned
desire to understand more.
By the way, my best friend in college was an evironmentalist. He now
works for the state of Alabama, doing his honest best to keep our
waterways clean. A lot of environmentally conscious people have gone
into various industries and have helped change attitudes from inside.
Many companies now exceed government standards.
------------------------------------------------------
My web page: http://www.simplecom.net/kenkifer/bike.htm
Scott M. Kozel
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
> Ken Kifer replies:
> I'm sure this post follows from an e-mail exchange with you, Scott,
> because I used the word "doomsayers" in it.
Actually this is a coincidence. I clipped the editorial yesterday, and
decided then to use it in the fashion that I used it. The paper
editorial has the title, "The Doomsayers - Wrong So Very Often, But
Lionized Nonetheless".
> Walter Williams made some good points, and as I said in my e-mail, I'm
> going to have to study some of these matters more. However, he is wrong
> about many of his statements about environmentalists:
I'm not saying that I agree with everything he said. But there has been
too much "scare environmentalism" in these newsgroups. I applaud the
U.S.'s major incremental improvements over the last 30-40 years in air
quality, transportation energy-efficiency, and resource management, to
name a few. And I want to see these improvements to continue. I like
enjoying nature as much as anyone.
But I don't agree with the thought that our society needs to immediately
radically change the way we do business, or face catastrophe.
Environmentalists have indeed forced society to examine things that
needed improvement. There are plenty of sound environmentalists that
have helped us greatly. But there also have been too many false
alarms. About 30 years ago, imminent global warming was being predicted
by some; 20 years ago, an imminent mini-Ice-Age was being predicted by
some; now it's global warming again. I've gotten a bit jaded to the
apocalyptic predictions of the radical environmentalists.
mowen
Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> I saw a good editorial in yesterday's local newspaper.
>
> Nonetheless".
> here it is verbatim:
>
> Walter Williams
>
> Wednesday February 18, 1998
>
> Dire prediction after dire prediction, environmentalists are usually
> wrong.
Not to say his examples are wrong, but do have some
stupid questions... (to either shorten or lengthen the list of ills):
So what is "usually" and
how is he defining environmentalist:
Is it any one or group who has a predictive opinion... ?
and/or of any particular professional persuasion... ?
and/or do only major predictions count?
and about anything in particular?
or does everything "you name it" under the sun qualify?
> Few groups have been so consistently wrong yet so revered by the
> political, intellectual and media elite as have environmentalists.
<snip of what seems to be a strange assortment of bedfellows>
surprised that commodity traders;
or H.G.Wells and Orson Welles didn't makethe list with
"The War of the Worlds" --- what could be more environmental? :)
> The next time an environmentalist warns us of disaster, we ought to ask:
shouldn't we ask that of anyone; don't we?
> When was the last time your prediction was right?
> <end of editorial>
last week...?
or don't the mudslides in CA count as environmental?
or don't meteorologists count as environmentalists?
or just if/when they are right, they don't count?
and the gypsy moths and Dutch Elm disease
did a pretty good job doing in trees hereabouts...
and that was predicted: if biologists count and trees
are environmental...
and the smog in the D.C. has been pretty bad some summer days over the past
several years and that was predicted by someone, my mother if I recall
correctly: does that count as a doomsayer or expert opinion or doesn't it
make any difference if she hasn't won any awards and isn't lionized by the
elite? ..:)
So how are we doing these days on radon and rain forests???
(just rhetorical, haven't been keeping up)
C. Patrick Zilliacus
>tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
>although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
>pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
>and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
>trees were alive and healthy in 1970. Another place in North Carolina
>to visit is Ducktown. Everything within 50 miles was killed by the
>pollution -- before some scientist pointed out that they could make more
>money off of the sulfur than the copper. This disaster happened many
>years earlier, before people even recognized that acid rain could be a
>problem. But it's a good example of what acid rain can do.
But the trees along the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline
Drive have been at least as badly damaged by the chestnut
blight (years ago), then by the gypsy moths (more
recently).
Brian Allardice
>Of course, the work he did was far more important than the work
>environmentalists did, but what if no one had pointed out the problem?
This gets to the heart of the matter. Nobody needs "environmentalists"
to point out the problems, they are often well known in scientific and
gov't circles years before they become the fashionable cause of the day.
Nor do environmentalists contribute to any solutions. That is done
quietly in thousands of classrooms and laboratories throughout the world.
As to the editorial itself, it sounds like a quasi verbatim lift of
something recent in what?? the Economist maybe... A bit of "me too"
fluffery......
Cheers,
dba
Krist van Besien
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:11:42 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
> I've gotten a bit jaded to the
>apocalyptic predictions of the radical environmentalists.
As I heard someone say recently: No predicted doom ever did happen.
But maybe that's because somebody predicted doom in the first place.
Don't forget that most environmentalist "doomsayers" don't wish to be
proven true. All they want is for a sollution to a problem to be
placed on the polictical agenda, and exageration might be the best
tool for this.
Krist
--------------------------------------------------------
Krist van Besien besien(at)casema.net
Delft, the Netherlands
--------------------------------------------------------
r...@inetworld.net
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:43:33 -0600, Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net>
wrote:
>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>> I saw a good editorial in yesterday's local newspaper.
>>
>> The title is "The Doomsayers - Wrong So Very Often, But Lionized
>> Nonetheless".
>>
>> It was written by syndicated columnist Walter Williams
>> (http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/williams.htm). Dr. Walter E. Williams
>> is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,
>> Virginia.
>>
>> I found it on the Internet
>> (http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/wew_envo.htm) and here it is verbatim:
>>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>I'm sure this post follows from an e-mail exchange with you, Scott,
>because I used the word "doomsayers" in it.
>
>Walter Williams made some good points, and as I said in my e-mail, I'm
>going to have to study some of these matters more. However, he is wrong
>about many of his statements about environmentalists:
I'll stipulate to your points that I've snipped. The problem is that
like any other movement, there are a few "doomsayers". I recall
hearing from some self-proclaimed "environmentalist" after Chernobyl,
that a "nuclear firestorm is bearing down on the United States".
Well, with statements like that, you's going to listen? So it's easy
for right-wing types to publish columns using only the most outrageous
statements and then claiming that all environmentalists believe that
way. It would be sort of like me taking something that a member of
Aryan Nations says and claiming that all Republicans think the same
thing.
>By the way, my best friend in college was an evironmentalist. He now
>works for the state of Alabama, doing his honest best to keep our
>waterways clean. A lot of environmentally conscious people have gone
>into various industries and have helped change attitudes from inside.
>Many companies now exceed government standards.
Agreed. A lot of companies keep environmental managers on the payroll
to avoid the nasty fines that can come from doing things incorrectly.
And in the meantime those managers manage to enlighten people a bit
about alternative ways of doing things. Until recently I worked for a
landfill system and it got to the point where people were checking
with me before they did things. In 90 percent of the cases I was able
to tell them to just go ahead and do it. But by checking, it gave
them a level of security from litigation and regulatory fines that
they otherwise wouldn't have had. And that's as important to business
as what some economist who probably understands nothing about the
environment has to say on the subject.
=Bob
Who knows what miracle tomorrow may bring?
r...@inetworld.net
On 22 Feb 1998 06:15:30 GMT, d...@uniserve.com (Brian Allardice) wrote:
>In article <34EF90D5...@simplecom.net>, Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> says:
>
>>Of course, the work he did was far more important than the work
>>environmentalists did, but what if no one had pointed out the problem?
>
>This gets to the heart of the matter. Nobody needs "environmentalists"
>to point out the problems, they are often well known in scientific and
>gov't circles years before they become the fashionable cause of the day.
>
>Nor do environmentalists contribute to any solutions. That is done
>quietly in thousands of classrooms and laboratories throughout the world.
>
>As to the editorial itself, it sounds like a quasi verbatim lift of
>something recent in what?? the Economist maybe... A bit of "me too"
>fluffery......
Perhaps you need to define what exactly you mean by the term,
"Environmentalist". Isn't someone working in a classroom or a lab on
a solution to an environmental problem an "environmentalist"?
See, this is the problem. The right-wing has managed to define the
term to a lot of people as meaning nobody but the most wacko of the
environmental movement. But for every person proclaiming that the
world will end tomorrow there are 3 or 4 who are saying that it may
not look different tomorrow, but by the time our grandkids are adults,
the world could well be a less desireable place to be.
But they are never attacked by these idiots because they can back up
their facts. It's a lot easier to go after the fringe in order to
make an ideological point.
r...@inetworld.net
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:11:07 GMT, n...@spam.plea.se (Krist van Besien)
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:11:42 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
><koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
>>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
>> I've gotten a bit jaded to the
>>apocalyptic predictions of the radical environmentalists.
>
>As I heard someone say recently: No predicted doom ever did happen.
>But maybe that's because somebody predicted doom in the first place.
>Don't forget that most environmentalist "doomsayers" don't wish to be
>proven true. All they want is for a sollution to a problem to be
>placed on the polictical agenda, and exageration might be the best
>tool for this.
Quite possibly the case. The sqeaky wheel always gets the grease and
you've got to get people's attention before you can sell anything to
them. And all that doomsaying has certainly gotten more reasonable
people to understand that the Earth is a closed system and that
environmental dangers can exist.
The problem comes when people see humans as being outside the
ecological system (the old "God gave man diminion over the Earth"
nonsense, for example) and therefore decide that humans aren't a
biological machine, just like every other species on this planet.
They decide that what may hurt other species won't hurt man, and
that's patent nonsense. It may not come as fast, but it does come.
And while every doomsayer may not be even close to correct, the fact
remains that there are environmental factors which can damage us and
that have to be taken into consideration, whether it's good for
business or not.
George Conklin
In article <34f041b4...@news.inetworld.net>, <r...@inetworld.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:11:07 GMT, n...@spam.plea.se (Krist van Besien)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:11:42 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
>><koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've gotten a bit jaded to the
>>>apocalyptic predictions of the radical environmentalists.
>>
>>As I heard someone say recently: No predicted doom ever did happen.
>>But maybe that's because somebody predicted doom in the first place.
>>Don't forget that most environmentalist "doomsayers" don't wish to be
>>proven true. All they want is for a sollution to a problem to be
>>placed on the polictical agenda, and exageration might be the best
>>tool for this.
>
>Quite possibly the case. The sqeaky wheel always gets the grease and
>you've got to get people's attention before you can sell anything to
>them. And all that doomsaying has certainly gotten more reasonable
>people to understand that the Earth is a closed system and that
>environmental dangers can exist.
>
>The problem comes when people see humans as being outside the
>ecological system (the old "God gave man diminion over the Earth"
>nonsense, for example) and therefore decide that humans aren't a
>biological machine, just like every other species on this planet.
There used to be a whole ecological school which found
that 'life makes life possible.' Thus the waste products of
one species becomes the building block of another. Oxygen
is thus a waste product, for example, but essential for
humans.
About every 10,000 years we have had an ice age, which
would make Europe a wasteland, and remember the Long Island
is a terminal moraine. We are due for another. If human
activity delays that ice age, then we are probably all
better off for it, at least right now.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>2. Acid rain. This was also true. Lakes were being killed, forests
>were sick or dying, and statues were being eaten away. What happened?
>All power plants were required to install scrubbers, and other sources
>of pollution were cleaned up. This clean-up doesn't receive the
>attention that it once did, but every year the standards get more
>tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
>although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
>pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
>and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
>trees were alive and healthy in 1970.
The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
trees itself.
> Another place in North Carolina
>to visit is Ducktown. Everything within 50 miles was killed by the
>pollution
Within 50 miles??? I drive that way every time I go back to Tennessee
to visit my parents, and the environmental damage, where visible, is
limited to the region immediately around the town and the mine, mostly
along the streams downstream of the stripmined area. Less than 30
miles away is the Ocoee River, where the Summer Olympics in Atlanta
held their whitewater competitions. The river certainly was not
sterilized from any of the runoff, and the land around it is
supporting life just like it always has.
Your last sentence is completely without substance or merit other than
to inflate your own claims.
> -- before some scientist pointed out that they could make more
>money off of the sulfur than the copper. This disaster happened many
>years earlier, before people even recognized that acid rain could be a
>problem. But it's a good example of what acid rain can do.
Comparing the damage to Ducktown, TENNESSEE, (not North Carolina)
caused by open pit copper mining and the irresponsible disposal of the
waste created by the mine, and acid rain, is a straw man argument.
While the two create similar effects, the highly concentrated acid
created by the waste from the open pit mine is hundreds of times more
powerful than the weak acidic effect that sulfuric compounds create
that is called "acid rain".
John Lansford, PE
Mark Klebanoff
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 15:10:18, r...@inetworld.net wrote:
> way. It would be sort of like me taking something that a member of
> Aryan Nations says and claiming that all Republicans think the same
> thing.
You mean they don't??????
>
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer wrote:
> . . . As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
> although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
> pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
> and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
> trees were alive and healthy in 1970. Another place in North Carolina
> to visit is Ducktown. Everything within 50 miles was killed by the
> pollution -- before some scientist pointed out that they could make more
> money off of the sulfur than the copper. This disaster happened many
> years earlier, before people even recognized that acid rain could be a
> problem. But it's a good example of what acid rain can do.
C. Patrick Zilliacus wrote:
> But the trees along the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline
> Drive have been at least as badly damaged by the chestnut
> blight (years ago), then by the gypsy moths (more
> recently).
Ken Kifer replies:
I don't see any dead chestnut trees; they mostly died before I was
born. But they are a perfect example of an environmental problem that
was ignored until it was too late. I don't know if we could have done
anything at that time anyway, except to keep non-American species of
chestnuts out. Even though the world has continued to revolve, the loss
of the chestnut trees was an enormous environmental disaster. Chestnut
wood was extremely durable in contact with the ground, providing a
perfect material for railroad ties, fence posts, telephone poles, etc.
The chestnut provided food for many birds and animals, and their numbers
declined after it was gone. And finally, I hear, it was a beautiful
tree. The Appalachians, especially, were full of chestnuts.
Right now a similar disaster is slowly taking place. On my own property
when I first bought it, I noticed that there were many dead elm trees.
While I have elms still, the number declines each year. Elm wood used
to be prized for its strength and durability, although it was very hard
to work (it is cross-grained). The 100-year shay, if you remember the
poem, was made partially of elm. It is a wonderful tree for bees
because it produces pollen before any other tree, thus helping
struggling colonies survive and also helping the many species of wild
bees as well. It is highly prized as a beautiful tree in the cities.
Speaking of bees, we could have prevented two disasters there that we
turned a blind eye to. The African (killer bees) could have easily been
stopped in Panama, where they had to pass through a strip that was just
100 miles wide, but we did nothing. I said to friends that with 10
million beehives operated by beekeepers between me and Mexico, I
wouldn't have to worry. However, we did far too little to stop the
spread of one bee mite and nothing to stop the spread of another,
possibly because authorities listened to one educated idiot who said
that the threat from these mites was a myth. As a result, the majority
of honey bees in the US have been destroyed. It is still possible to
keep bees, but only the best beekeepers have survived and have to treat
their bees with chemicals. Now the African bees have empty air-space
and beehives to colonize, and they are resistant to the mites. By the
way, there is only one difference between African bees and European bees
of any concern to a non-beekeeper. In protecting the hive, the European
bees send out a few stinging workers while the African bees send out
thousands. One person has survived nearly 5,000 bee stings. (Bees were
also nearly wiped out in the previous century by foulbrood and the wax
worm, which led to the modern beehive and the introduction of the
Italian bee.)
I see the destruction caused by the gypsy moths each time I tour the
Blue Ridge. While the threat is not gone, some good research has led to
useful control methods.
There are only a few kinds of disaster that threaten the survival of the
human race, and even with the worst nuclear, biological, or chemical
war, there will probably be survivors. But there are little creeping
problems that every day get a little worse that are in the long run more
likely and more menacing.
Although I don't expect to have performed great accomplishments in my
life, I hope that when I die I will have repaid the efforts that were
made for me by others and that in some tiny way I will have made the
world a better place to live in. And that should be the true goal of
our national efforts too. We should want the next generation to come
into a more desirable world. We can be proud of most of the things we
have done, and we should be ashamed of others and not try to pretend
that they didn't happen.
Brian Allardice
OK, so we are a way off topic....
In article <34f04052...@news.inetworld.net>, r...@inetworld.net says:
>Perhaps you need to define what exactly you mean by the term,
>"Environmentalist". Isn't someone working in a classroom or a lab on
>a solution to an environmental problem an "environmentalist"?
No. They would be professors or teachers or chemists or geneticists
or whatever...
>See, this is the problem. The right-wing has managed to define the
>term to a lot of people as meaning nobody but the most wacko of the
>environmental movement.
Nothing to do with the right wing. Loonies with no education, training,
experience or expertise, but capable of ill-informed emoting over cute
and furry animals have defined themselves as environmentalists, while
the real work of minimising the impact of human numbers is been carried
out by (e.g.) cigar smoking, scotch guzzling, son of a bitch engineers.
>But for every person proclaiming that the
>world will end tomorrow there are 3 or 4 who are saying that it may
>not look different tomorrow, but by the time our grandkids are adults,
>the world could well be a less desireable place to be.
Could well be indeed. But all this is driven by one factor, namely
population growth. Every step taken is merely mitigation of this.
You can't spend 30 years trying to save starving children and combat
disease in, say, Africa and then turn around surprised and innocent-like
and say "Gosh, where did all these peole come from, they're crowding out
the elephants". Cute baby seal pictures aren't even close to helping
sort that out.
Cheers,
dba
Scott M. Kozel
Krist van Besien <n...@spam.plea.se> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:11:42 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> > I've gotten a bit jaded to the
> >apocalyptic predictions of the radical environmentalists.
>
> As I heard someone say recently: No predicted doom ever did happen.
> But maybe that's because somebody predicted doom in the first place.
> Don't forget that most environmentalist "doomsayers" don't wish to be
> proven true. All they want is for a sollution to a problem to be
> placed on the polictical agenda, and exageration might be the best
> tool for this.
I agree that problems need to be pointed out. But dire predictions can
be counter-productive. For instance, if my car needed a collection of
repairs totaling $500-600, then I would like the mechanic to accurately
list them and present them to me. If instead he said things like, "The
motor's about to lock up, the transmission's shot, and the brakes are
about to fail", when in fact nothing of that magnitude existed, I would
want to go somewhere else for an opinion. The public by and large have
adult attitudes, and they need facts, not hyperbole.
ad...@interlog.com
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> I saw a good editorial in yesterday's local newspaper.
>
> The title is "The Doomsayers - Wrong So Very Often, But Lionized
> Nonetheless".
>
> The editorial is written by syndicated columnist Walter Williams
> (http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/williams.htm). Dr. Walter E. Williams
> is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,
> Virginia.
And for those of you too lazy to search the above link, may I post the
contents for you...
Dr. Walter E. Williams is a professor of Economics at Virginia's George
Mason University and a syndicated columnist. I have had the
opportunity to communicate with him several times via his
e-mail
address and he has given me permission to post his columns.
Here are a few of my favorites:
Is a Constitutional Carcass all we are left with?
Must Read==>> Here's a great article by Walter Williams regarding Morality.
The next two columns, "Ultimate resolution: Fire 'em all and "Congress
subverts the
Constitution", Williams makes some radical suggestions which would solve our
current
problems regarding the federal government and its unconstitutional
usurpation of power.
Williams on Environmentalists
One of Dr. William's most recent columns is "What Virginia once gave away,
it can also take
back", and is one of my new favorites. Here is an e-mail I sent to Dr.
Williams regarding this
column and here is his reply.
In this piece, "Politician is another name for Crook, Hustler and Tyrant",
Dr Williams gives us
his opinion of politicians.
Useful idiots' recruited to aid anti-gun advocates is a great article
wherein Dr. Williams
opines on the methods and motives of the anti-gun lobby.
Here's another one which made it on my all time favorites list. In this
column, Williams
proclaims that he is "An extremist; and extremely proud of it"
Check out Issues & Views, a black conservative quarterly newsletter, for
which Dr. William is
an advisor. Their site contains articles by Dr. Williams, Thomas
Sowell and others.
Click here to link to Walter Williams' web page at George Mason
University
.
Back to Dave and Kelly Kleber's main page.
Scott M. Kozel
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
> Walter Williams made some good points, and as I said in my e-mail, I'm
> going to have to study some of these matters more. However, he is wrong
> about many of his statements about environmentalists:
>
> 1. Predictions of world starvation. These were true. Why then didn't
> world starvation happen? One scientist, Normal Borlaug, probably
> working with a large team of scientists and money from far-sighted
> individuals and organizations and governments developed new, heartier,
> disease-resistant varieties of food, with increased protein and vitamins
> to boot.
I'm sure that the farming industry would want to take a lot of the
credit too. Their farming methods and productivity are vastly improved
from 50 years ago.
> 2. Acid rain. This was also true. Lakes were being killed, forests
> were sick or dying, and statues were being eaten away. What happened?
> All power plants were required to install scrubbers, and other sources
> of pollution were cleaned up. This clean-up doesn't receive the
> attention that it once did, but every year the standards get more
> tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
> although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
> pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
> and see whole dead forests.
Can you tell me what caused that? Another poster mentioned how the
trees along the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive in Virginia have
been badly damaged by the chestnut blight (years ago), then by the gypsy
moths (more recently). The portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains that
contains Skyline Drive comes within 60 miles of Washington, D.C. They
are much closer to major industry and large population centers than the
Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Matter of fact, the Blue Ridge
Mountains in North Carolina are rather remote from major industry and
large population centers. If air pollution is not a significant factor
in the Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains, then how did air pollution cause
those impacts in North Carolina? I don't see how it could.
> For example, at Three Mile Island and at Brown's Ferry, we
> came very close to major disaster. The Russians didn't have to worry
> about environmentalists and whistle-blowers. As a result they created
> the worst environmental disaster in modern times when they blew the roof
> off at Chernobyl. They even lied to their own people _after_ the
> disaster, which caused more deaths. But to some extent, all of Russia
> is an environmental disaster because of gross mis-management.
I agree, I've heard accounts of the enormous environmental problems in
the Former Soviet Union. They IMO are directly traceable to that former
type of government. Complain about your country and get shot or sent to
Siberia. Thankfully, Communism has been relegated to the scrap heap of
history.
Krist van Besien
>The public by and large have
>adult attitudes, and they need facts, not hyperbole.
Is that so?
Regretably politics is done not with facts, but with slogans.
Krist van Besien
On 22 Feb 1998 18:08:57 GMT, d...@uniserve.com (Brian Allardice) wrote:
>
>OK, so we are a way off topic....
>
>In article <34f04052...@news.inetworld.net>, r...@inetworld.net says:
>
>>Perhaps you need to define what exactly you mean by the term,
>>"Environmentalist". Isn't someone working in a classroom or a lab on
>>a solution to an environmental problem an "environmentalist"?
>
>No. They would be professors or teachers or chemists or geneticists
>or whatever...
So you're saying one can't have a profession and an opinion at the
same time?
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer wrote:
> 2. Acid rain. This was also true. Lakes were being killed, forests
> were sick or dying, and statues were being eaten away. What happened?
> All power plants were required to install scrubbers, and other sources
> of pollution were cleaned up. This clean-up doesn't receive the
> attention that it once did, but every year the standards get more
> tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
> although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
> pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
> and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
> trees were alive and healthy in 1970.
John Lansford wrote:
> The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
> blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
> Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
> defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
> their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
> trees itself.
Ken Kifer replies:
I did not say those trees were killed by acid rain, just that they were
killed by pollution. The trees were killed during a very short period
of time in the 1970's. They were very healthy when I visited in 1971 and
very dead when I returned in 1988. Air pollution was a major problem at
the time, and studies were made in those mountains that demonstrated
that the forests were being harmed. I read the exhibits on the parkway
as well. I know that if they had clearly stated that the trees had been
killed by parasites, I wouldn't be making these statements. I remember
them pointing to air pollution as the cause. I am also aware that many
people deny that pollution is, ever has been, or ever could be a major
problem. If you or anyone can provide a source of more information on
this topic, I will be glad to read it. I certainly don't want to make
incorrect statements.
Ken Kifer said:
> Another place in North Carolina
> to visit is Ducktown. Everything within 50 miles was killed by the
> pollution
John Lansford wrote:
> Within 50 miles??? I drive that way every time I go back to Tennessee
> to visit my parents, and the environmental damage, where visible, is
> limited to the region immediately around the town and the mine, mostly
> along the streams downstream of the stripmined area. Less than 30
> miles away is the Ocoee River, where the Summer Olympics in Atlanta
> held their whitewater competitions. The river certainly was not
> sterilized from any of the runoff, and the land around it is
> supporting life just like it always has.
> Your last sentence is completely without substance or merit other than
> to inflate your own claims.
Ken Kifer said:
> -- before some scientist pointed out that they could make more
> money off of the sulfur than the copper. This disaster happened many
> years earlier, before people even recognized that acid rain could be a
> problem. But it's a good example of what acid rain can do.
>
John Lansford wrote:
> Comparing the damage to Ducktown, TENNESSEE, (not North Carolina)
> caused by open pit copper mining and the irresponsible disposal of the
> waste created by the mine, and acid rain, is a straw man argument.
> While the two create similar effects, the highly concentrated acid
> created by the waste from the open pit mine is hundreds of times more
> powerful than the weak acidic effect that sulfuric compounds create
> that is called "acid rain".
Ken Kifer replies:
First of all, you have complained bitterly in e-mail of how I insulted
you and your profession. I have never insulted you or your profession,
but I have had to put up with insults from you. Every time I say
something you disagree with, you make wild charges against me. Then you
claim that I am "whining" or I consider all engineers evil or some such
nonsense. In this case, you accuse me of blatant falsehoods and of
inflating my claims. How would you like it if I treated your
statements that way? I don't mind your disagreeing with me, that's what
these discussion groups are for, but keep it civil. Besides that, every
time that you call me a fool, and I provide good evidence that shows
that I'm not, what does that make you look like?
Second of all, in regard to Ducktown, you are seeing a situation that
has had over a lifetime to heal. Only the places affected by ground and
water pollution still show signs of damage. Unfortunately, I could find
no source on the net for what I learned from chemistry books and geology
teachers 35 years ago, but the story goes like this. To get rid of the
sulfur dioxide from roasting the ores, a large chimney was constructed.
It reduced the local problems, but started killing trees and plant life
a larger distance away, and complaints came flooding back in. As a
result, a huge chimney was build that put the SO2 even higher into the
air, and forests over a vast area -- much farther than 50 miles -- were
affected. Finally, the right person showed up at the scene, and he
pointed out that the sulfur dioxide could be made into sulfuric acid and
sold for a profit. In fact, there was more profit from the acid than
there was from the copper.
I noticed that the information furnished at the Ducktown site mentioned
numerous problems, but did not mention the problem of acid rain, but the
chemistry books sure did. Of course, the acid rain problems all healed
up before you and I were born. Here is a report from a court case in
1907 where the state of Georgia was suing:
> It is a fair and reasonable demand on the part of a sovereign that the air
> over its territory should not be polluted on a great scale by sulphurous
> acid gas, that the forests on its mountains, be they better or worse,
> and whatever domestic destruction they have suffered, should not be further
> destroyed or threatened by the act of persons beyond its control, that the
> crops and orchards on its hills should not be endangered from the same source.
> If any such demand is to be enforced this must be notwithstanding the
> hesitation that we might feel if the suit were between private parties, and
> the doubt whether, for the injuries which they might be suffering to their
> property, they should not be left to an action at law.
> The proof requires but a few words. It is not denied that the defendants
> generate in their works near the Georgia line large quantities of sulphur
> dioxid which becomes sulphurous acid by its mixture with the air. It hardly
> is denied, and cannot be denied with success, that this gas often is carried
> by the wind great distances and over great tracts of Georgia land. On the
> evidence the pollution of the air and the magnitude of that pollution are
> not open to dispute. Without any attempt to go into details immaterial to
> the suit, it is proper to add that we are satisfied, by a preponderance of
> evidence, that the sulphurous fumes cause and threaten damage on so
> consider- [206 U.S. 230, 239] able a scale to the forests and vegetable
> life, if not to health, within the plaintiff state, as to make out a case
> within the requirements of Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 50 L. ed.
> 572, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268. Whether Georgia, by insisting upon this claim,
> is doing more harm than good to her own citizens, is for her to determine.
> The possible disaster to those outside the state must be accepted as a
> consequence of her standing upon her extreme rights.
Is the state of Georgia complaining about acid rain or not? Does "great
distances and great tracts of land" sound like 50 miles or more or not?
Of course, the amount of acid rain far exceeded that of any coal plant,
since SO2 was the principal byproduct of the roasting process and not
just an impurity.
I did make an error of fact in placing Ducktown in North Carolina. It
is very near the state line. I think of that whole region in the
mountains as being North Carolina.
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer wrote:
> 1. Predictions of world starvation. These were true. Why then didn't
> world starvation happen? One scientist, Normal Borlaug, probably
> working with a large team of scientists and money from far-sighted
> individuals and organizations and governments developed new, heartier,
> disease-resistant varieties of food, with increased protein and vitamins
> to boot.
> I'm sure that the farming industry would want to take a lot of the
> credit too. Their farming methods and productivity are vastly improved
> from 50 years ago.
Ken Kifer replies:
You're right. And did you know that some of the advances in the US were
made by "hippie" farmers? I'm exaggerating, but part of the
back-to-the-earth movement was the "no-till" method pushed very hard by
Robert Rodale. Farmers have caught on. They now drill seed for many
crops, use less fuel, produce two crops at the same time with less soil
erosion, and end up with more time to do other work.
A good bit of the credit goes to the federal government, which has been
teaching improved techniques for years. Lots of good people deserve
credit.
Ken Kifer said:
> . . . As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
> although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
> pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
> and see whole dead forests.
>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Can you tell me what caused that? Another poster mentioned how the
> trees along the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive in Virginia have
> been badly damaged by the chestnut blight (years ago), then by the gypsy
> moths (more recently). The portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains that
> contains Skyline Drive comes within 60 miles of Washington, D.C. They
> are much closer to major industry and large population centers than the
> Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Matter of fact, the Blue Ridge
> Mountains in North Carolina are rather remote from major industry and
> large population centers. If air pollution is not a significant factor
> in the Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains, then how did air pollution cause
> those impacts in North Carolina? I don't see how it could.
Ken Kifer replies:
Well, the chestnuts died long before we were born. And the gypsy moth
invasion has happened this decade. The trees I referred too died in the
1970's. It's rather dramatic when you see them because you literally
see a forest of dead trees.
The air pollution over cities is often trapped and produces smog and
local effects. But factory pollution is pumped high into the air in
high chimneys and travels hundreds and thousands of miles. The trees in
North Carolina are under greater stress because they are at higher
elevations and because they are at the limits of their range. Many of
the trees and plants found on the high mountains there have their
nearest surviving relatives living in Canada. I imagine that they are
also under greater stress from the thinning of the ozone layer, but I
haven't read anything about it.
When I lived in North Carolina, back in the late 60's, there was some
discussion of the balds -- mountain tops without anything living on
them. Other people were puzzled, but I was not. The top of a high
mountain is a tough environment for anything to live on. If a forest
fire occurred, the rest would heal much more quickly than the top. In
Spain, the mountains that were stripped bare of trees to build the
Armada in the 1500's are still bare today.
Acid rain most strongly affects soils and lakes that were already quite
acid to begin with. Many lakes in Canada were affected by acid rain
from the US even though they were farther from the pollution than lakes
that weren't affected.
If you want a weak analogy, if you are outside on a cold day, your
fingers will get coldest first.
Brian Allardice
In article <34F07A42...@interlog.com>, ad...@interlog.com says:
>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> The editorial is written by syndicated columnist Walter Williams
>> (http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/williams.htm). Dr. Walter E. Williams
>> is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,
>> Virginia.
>
>And for those of you too lazy to search the above link, may I post the
>contents for you...
When this was first posted, Wlliams' text (so called) had a familiar ring
to it, so, apart from checking
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/wew_envo.htm
I also dug into my pile of old Economists and came up with the
(never to be missed) double edition 97.12.20 -98.01.02 and the
article "Global Gloom"
From Mr. Williams, 98.02.18:
In 1972, the Club of Rome's report "Limits to Growth" said total oil
reserves totaled 550 billion barrels. With the report in hand, president
Carter said, "We could use up all proven reserves in the entire word by
the next decade." Between 1970 and 1990, the word used up 600 billion
barrels but, as of 1990, the word had 1.5 trillion barrels of known,
unexploited oil reserves.
From the Economist: Environmental Scares: Plenty of Gloom, 97.12.20
In 1972 the Club of Rome published a highly influential report called
"Limits to growth". To many in the environmental movement, that report
still stands as a beacon of sense in the foolish world of economics. But
were its predictions borne out?
"Limits to Growth" said total global oil reserves amounted to 550 billion
barrels. "We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire
world by the end of the next decade" said President Jimmy Carter shortly
afterwards. Sure enough, between 1970 and 1990 the world used 600 billion
barrels of oil. So according to the Club of Rome. reserves should have
been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990
unexploited reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels, not counting the
tar shales, of which a single deposit in Alberta contains more than 550
billion barrels.....
[whence Williams' 1.5 trillion]
The rest of the article is similar, with Williams condensing the
Economist text. From start to finish a re-write, with a bit of American
reference tossed in for local colour.
I am glad to see that Williams' practices conservation of effort, at
least. I wouldn't mind a job as a syndicated columnist and merely
rip off some of the Economists research for my pay. So this is the
standard expected in American Universities and Journals?
Most unimpressive; this Williams is a disgrace to Academia, if not
journalism.
Cheers,
dba
Ken Kifer
John Lansford wrote:
> The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
> blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
> Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
> defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
> their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
> trees itself.
Ken Kifer replies:
Excuse me for answering twice, but I just found a good URL:
http://www.lib.utk.edu/UTKgophers/UT-PRESS/Sampler/Frome/pref-Frome.html
[talking about pollution]
> Inevitably the consequences have become evident throughout the Appalachians.
> Visibility from overlooks on the Skyline Drive in Virginia that once
> extended more than eighty miles have diminished to about five miles;
> sometimes from Clingmans Dome in the Smokies visibility is down to two
> miles. Within thirty years visibility has been reduced by almost one-third.
> For years acid rain, or acid deposition (caused by excessive emissions of
> nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides), has been associated primarily with
> eastern Canada, New England, and the Adirondacks in upstate New York, but
> Southern Appalachia is a prime victim too. A victim not only of acid rain,
> but of ozone pollution (caused by hydrocarbons from tailpipes and
> smokestacks). While ozone high above the earth provides protection from
> ultraviolet rays, at ground level it deals a toxic hand to plants, animals,
> and humans.
> I learned that the Uplands Laboratory of the National Park Service at
> Gatlinburg has found ozone pollution affecting more than eighty plant
> species in the Smokies. I saw this for myself in the ghost forest of spruce
> and Fraser fir at Clingmans Dome. It reminded me of the Sterben Wald, the
> tragic "Dead forest," that I had witnessed in Germany. Here in Appalachia
> the Fraser fir is said to be affected primarily by infestation of the pesky
> balsam woolly aphid, from which spruce is immune. But with both species
> dying, the aphid may not be the only problem, or the root of the problem.
> Air pollution may have weakened the trees, inviting fungi to invade and
> conquer. More studies may be needed, but in the meantime there is scarcely a
> living mature tree on the crest of Mount Mitchell; forests of Fraser fir
> and red spruce on Heintooga, Waterock Knob and Richland Balsam, high points
> on the Blue Ridge Parkway, all have suffered dramatic decline. National
> parks and national forests in the highlands have become catch basins for
> dirty air, with high levels of ozone and toxic acids.
You notice that the spruce are also dying, even though they are not
bothered by the insect pest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott M. Kozel
Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> When this was first posted, Wlliams' text (so called) had a familiar ring
> to it, so, apart from checking
>
> http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/wew_envo.htm
>
> I also dug into my pile of old Economists and came up with the
> (never to be missed) double edition 97.12.20 -98.01.02 and the
> article "Global Gloom"
>
> From Mr. Williams, 98.02.18:
> From the Economist: Environmental Scares: Plenty of Gloom, 97.12.20
[snip]
[comparison of two articles snipped]
> The rest of the article is similar, with Williams condensing the
> Economist text. From start to finish a re-write, with a bit of American
> reference tossed in for local colour.
>
> I am glad to see that Williams' practices conservation of effort, at
> least. I wouldn't mind a job as a syndicated columnist and merely
> rip off some of the Economists research for my pay. So this is the
> standard expected in American Universities and Journals?
> Most unimpressive; this Williams is a disgrace to Academia, if not
> journalism.
Your comparison of the two articles shows significant differences
between the two. I don't see any signs of plagiarism. Your attempt to
discredit Walter Williams is most unimpressive. Is it his lack of
"political correctness" that upsets you?
mowen
ad...@interlog.com wrote:
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > The editorial is written by syndicated columnist Walter Williams
> > (http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/williams.htm). Dr. Walter E.
> > Williams
> > is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,
> > Virginia.
> And for those of you too lazy to search the above link, may I post the
> contents for you...
<snip>
and per his bio page at GMU:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/williams.htm
he has also written for scholarly and "popular" publications,
makes radio and TV appearances,etc....
I was more than a little disappointed in the editorial (even though same is
just an "opinion" piece and not put forth as a work of scholarship) as
supposedly representing the work and thinking of a Ph.D. academician.
It seemed better suited as a TV personality, preacher or political "hype"
piece... sensationally and broadly and vaguely indicting in its title and
intro
["Dire prediction after dire prediction, environmentalists are usually
wrong
Few groups have been so consistently wrong yet so revered by the
political, intellectual and media elite as have environmentalists."]
that I could scarely get to the matter of whether or not his specific
points/views might be ones with which I might agree.
Dr. Williams is a degreed scholar; he did not, in my humble opinion, write
his editorial in such a manner as to reflect that.
And I think that is most unfortunate. I might have seriously considered his
perspectives had he been more fair in his approach...
Per his web page:
"His most recent book is 'Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist
Speaks.' "
My initial impression at least is that he may be aiming for the "Popularity
Economist" title. Maybe he just needed an editor for his editorial.
Brian Allardice
>Your comparison of the two articles shows significant differences
>between the two.
No. You have no understanding of the term significant.
>I don't see any signs of plagiarism.
Blind as a bat to boot!
>Your attempt to discredit Walter Williams is most unimpressive.
>Is it his lack of "political correctness" that upsets you?
Truth is I tend to be sympathetic to his (or, more properly, the
Economists) view point. But his bit of syndicated tripe was simply a
rewrite of another's work, the sort of thing that gets one tossed out
of reputable Universities. Make the comparison yourself.
Cheers,
dba
mowen
Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Your comparison of the two articles shows significant differences
> between the two. I don't see any signs of plagiarism. Your attempt to
> discredit Walter Williams is most unimpressive. Is it his lack of
> "political correctness" that upsets you?
I think you're wrong on all counts, but if you're sure you're
right why not contact GMU:
or
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics
and let them at least figure the integrity of the piece out?
Scott M. Kozel
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
> John Lansford wrote:
> > The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
> > blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
> > Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
> > defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
> > their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
> > trees itself.
>
> Ken Kifer replies:
> Excuse me for answering twice, but I just found a good URL:
> http://www.lib.utk.edu/UTKgophers/UT-PRESS/Sampler/Frome/pref-Frome.html
>
> [talking about pollution]
> > Inevitably the consequences have become evident throughout the Appalachians.
> > Visibility from overlooks on the Skyline Drive in Virginia that once
> > extended more than eighty miles have diminished to about five miles;
I can't speak for the Smokies, but from my trips to nearby Skyline
Drive, I would have to say that that is incorrect.
> > sometimes from Clingmans Dome in the Smokies visibility is down to two
> > miles. Within thirty years visibility has been reduced by almost one-third.
I notice no author name on the webpage, nor any link to anywhere else.
Your entire quote was from the author. IOW, it was his opinion.
Ken Kifer
Brian Allardice wrote:
> The rest of the article is similar, with Williams condensing the
> Economist text. From start to finish a re-write, with a bit of American
> reference tossed in for local colour.
> I am glad to see that Williams' practices conservation of effort, at
> least. I wouldn't mind a job as a syndicated columnist and merely
> rip off some of the Economists research for my pay. So this is the
> standard expected in American Universities and Journals?
> Most unimpressive; this Williams is a disgrace to Academia, if not
> journalism.
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Your comparison of the two articles shows significant differences
> between the two. I don't see any signs of plagiarism. Your attempt to
> discredit Walter Williams is most unimpressive. Is it his lack of
> "political correctness" that upsets you?
Ken Kifer replies:
Well, Scott, this is an area in which I am knowledgeable. I won't make
any strong statements, because I don't have the two articles side by
side, nor do I know who wrote the article in the Economist.
However, to just paraphrase an article and publish under one's own name
is an clear example of plagiarism. If a student did that, I would give
him a zero on that paper and perhaps fail him from the course, depending
on the paper. Making a few changes would not win any sympathy.
When someone makes a number of statements, we assume that his choice of
statements and his research to get them is his own.
Sometimes these things can happen from accident. For instance, you
might read something that you like very well and years later repeat the
same arguments in the same way. Or, you might take careful notes, put
them to one side, and later write a paper from the notes, forgetting
that they weren't originally your ideas and arrangement. Even famous
writers have sometimes made these mistakes.
But Walter Williams should pull his article as being too much like
another one, at the least, unless he wrote the first article too.
These statements have nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with
his ideas.
Scott M. Kozel
Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> In article <34F0A5...@richmond.infi.net>, "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> says:
>
> >between the two.
>
>
>
No, your vision is colored by your political agenda.
> Make the comparison yourself.
Already did. You were not convincing.
Scott M. Kozel
"mowen" <moSan...@poNoQbox.com> wrote:
>
[Walter Williams, economist and syndicated columnist]
> and per his bio page at GMU:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/williams.htm
>
> he has also written for scholarly and "popular" publications,
> makes radio and TV appearances,etc....
>
> I was more than a little disappointed in the editorial (even though same is
> just an "opinion" piece and not put forth as a work of scholarship) as
> supposedly representing the work and thinking of a Ph.D. academician.
>
> It seemed better suited as a TV personality, preacher or political "hype"
> piece... sensationally and broadly and vaguely indicting in its title and
> intro
Why don't you (plural) analyze the data and many points he brought out,
rather than analyze him?
> that I could scarely get to the matter of whether or not his specific
> points/views might be ones with which I might agree.
Perhaps you have a built-in bias that prevents you from wanting to
consider his points?
Tony Wang
Hey, guys look.....many companies have learned that being environmental
conscious is good business. If you reduce the waste coming out of your
factories, what have you done? You must have made things somewhat more
efficient, which is your goal. The less by-product that you have to deal with,
the better you're using your resources. This helps increase your profits if
everything else remains the same.
So there is a very compelling business reason to reduce the pollution coming
from a factory. The less raw material you use to produce something, the
cheaper it is to make.
Sounds like a smart business idea to me.
--
Tony Wang
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/2544
Remove the nospam from my name to send me mail
Tony Wang
Brian Allardice wrote:
> Nothing to do with the right wing. Loonies with no education, training,
> experience or expertise, but capable of ill-informed emoting over cute
> and furry animals have defined themselves as environmentalists, while
> the real work of minimising the impact of human numbers is been carried
> out by (e.g.) cigar smoking, scotch guzzling, son of a bitch engineers.
You mean like Kim Basinger and PETA? She said she wanted to campaign for an
end to all animal research. She's doing this at the same time she's wearing
another hip celebrity thing, a red AIDS ribbon.
Um, Kim, get your head out of your ass. Without animal research, it's going
to be severely difficult to get anywhere on AIDS research. But, hey, give a
photogenic idiot a media outlet and watch stupidity spout from their mouths.
Unfortunately, these clowns are the ones who are called environmentalists,
while the people who do work on things are left behind. And they forget
about people like you and me, who recycle our stuff, try to do the right
thing, and so on.
Tony Wang
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> I agree, I've heard accounts of the enormous environmental problems in
> the Former Soviet Union. They IMO are directly traceable to that former
> type of government. Complain about your country and get shot or sent to
> Siberia. Thankfully, Communism has been relegated to the scrap heap of
> history.
Not quite. There are still Commie bastards left in China.....and they're
about to wreak some environmental havoc with their Seven Rivers Dam project.
In addition, those Commies want to be let out of the CO2 emissions treaty --
despite the fact that they produce more of it than anyone but us.
The only good Communist is a dead Communist.
Ken Kifer
John Lansford wrote:
> The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
> blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
> Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
> defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
> their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
> trees itself.
Ken Kifer replies:
> Excuse me for answering twice, but I just found a good URL:
> http://www.lib.utk.edu/UTKgophers/UT-PRESS/Sampler/Frome/pref-Frome.html
> [talking about pollution]
> Inevitably the consequences have become evident throughout the Appalachians.
> Visibility from overlooks on the Skyline Drive in Virginia that once
> extended more than eighty miles have diminished to about five miles;
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> I can't speak for the Smokies, but from my trips to nearby Skyline
> Drive, I would have to say that that is incorrect.
Ken Kifer replies:
When I was in the Smokies in 1995, the park was distributing information
like this. Obviously, the weather conditions are going to change from
one trip to another; visibility is better in the winter than in the
summer and best after a rain in the summer. I have seen better than
five mile visibility, but I have never seen 80 mile visibility in the
Blue Ridge or Smokies. Out West, however, I have seen Calgary and Pikes
Peak from over 50 miles away.
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> I notice no author name on the webpage, nor any link to anywhere else.
Ken Kifer replies:
That's a problem with web searches. They take you to the web page, not
the home page. I didn't select the option of other information from the
same site. His name, from the URL, is Frome, and he has written a book
about the Smokies called Strangers in High Places. He provides a lot of
information about himself and his contacts.
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Your entire quote was from the author. IOW, it was his opinion.
Ken Kifer replies:
No, he gave his source in the selection: the Uplands Laboratory of the
National Park Service at Gatlinburg. He also tells a lot of good
information about the forest, political history, and present problems.
He's very knowledgeable.
The information that he supplies about pollution affecting the forest is
similar to the information that I heard at both national parks.
You left out the important part of the passage. He points out that two
species of forest trees are involved in the dead forests, only one of
them affected by an insect. He also points out that pollution has been
cited as the cause of the decline of 80 species by the researchers.
My greatest problem is with his dates. His first book was published in
the 60's, the second in the 80's and this page was written in the 90's,
and he talks about all periods some. So, I am sometimes uncertain which
period of time he is talking about. For example, is visibility still
getting worse or is it now getting better?
Scott M. Kozel
"mowen" <moSan...@poNoQbox.com> wrote:
>
> Puleeze Mr. Kozel ---
> Just because you introduced the editorial and agree with its points,
> doesn't mean that anyone who expresses concerns/doubt is "blind to the
> truth" and biased
I certainly didn't suggest or state that you or anyone was "blind to the
truth" concerning the editorial.
> or that you blindly have to defend its writer in every regard... :)
I'm not, and haven't done so.
> I never heard of him... I had no idea what bias, if any, he had.
He is a regular columnist in the local newspaper. I've been reading his
column for years.
Scott M. Kozel
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
[plagiarism?]
> Sometimes these things can happen from accident. For instance, you
> might read something that you like very well and years later repeat the
> same arguments in the same way. Or, you might take careful notes, put
> them to one side, and later write a paper from the notes, forgetting
> that they weren't originally your ideas and arrangement. Even famous
> writers have sometimes made these mistakes.
>
> But Walter Williams should pull his article as being too much like
> another one, at the least, unless he wrote the first article too.
If there was plagiarism, how do you know that _Economist_ didn't copy
Williams? He is a regular columnist in the local newspaper. I've been
reading his column for years. He may have published this before. I
think this whole sub-thread is ridiculous. Nobody has enough
information to know who did what; or to accuse anyone of plagiarism.
Scott M. Kozel
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > I can't speak for the Smokies, but from my trips to nearby Skyline
> > Drive, I would have to say that that is incorrect.
>
> Ken Kifer replies:
> When I was in the Smokies in 1995, the park was distributing information
> like this. Obviously, the weather conditions are going to change from
> one trip to another; visibility is better in the winter than in the
> summer and best after a rain in the summer. I have seen better than
> five mile visibility, but I have never seen 80 mile visibility in the
> Blue Ridge or Smokies. Out West, however, I have seen Calgary and Pikes
> Peak from over 50 miles away.
Those Western peaks are over 14,000 feet tall, in much thinner air, in a
much drier climate than the Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains. The Blue
Ridge Mountains along Skyline Drive top out at about 4,200 feet.
I find it hard to believe that 80-mile visibility ever existed the Blue
Ridge Mountains in Virginia. Perhaps on a few very cold and dry winter
Canadian High days, but not commonly. I've been there many times over
the last 30 years, so I know a bit about the area. The very name "Blue
Ridge" came from the frequent blue atmospheric haze that occurs there.
The name AFAIK goes back over 200 years, long before any fossil fuel or
industrial pollutants existed.
Ken Kifer
Scott M. Kozel wrote about visibility being five miles:
> I can't speak for the Smokies, but from my trips to nearby Skyline
> Drive, I would have to say that that is incorrect.
Ken Kifer replies:
> When I was in the Smokies in 1995, the park was distributing information
> like this. Obviously, the weather conditions are going to change from
> one trip to another; visibility is better in the winter than in the
> summer and best after a rain in the summer. I have seen better than
> five mile visibility, but I have never seen 80 mile visibility in the
> Blue Ridge or Smokies. Out West, however, I have seen Calgary and Pikes
> Peak from over 50 miles away.
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Those Western peaks are over 14,000 feet tall, in much thinner air, in a
> much drier climate than the Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains. The Blue
> Ridge Mountains along Skyline Drive top out at about 4,200 feet.
> I find it hard to believe that 80-mile visibility ever existed the Blue
> Ridge Mountains in Virginia. Perhaps on a few very cold and dry winter
> Canadian High days, but not commonly. I've been there many times over
> the last 30 years, so I know a bit about the area. The very name "Blue
> Ridge" came from the frequent blue atmospheric haze that occurs there.
> The name AFAIK goes back over 200 years, long before any fossil fuel or
> industrial pollutants existed.
Ken Kifer replies:
That's a good point. But blue could be caused by seeing them from a
long distance, such as from along the coast, rather than them looking
blue from a few miles away. However, visibility is such an objective
thing, that I really don't know why Michael Frome (I found that much at
least) bothered to put it in or why I quoted it, but as I said, I read
the same kind of information at the Smoky Mt. National Park.
I remember in the 60's that I was really alarmed by how poor visibility
was in Alabama. You couldn't take any pictures of or off of any
mountains, the haze was so bad. People said it was natural; then I went
up to Canada in '66 -- no haze. I went out to the great plains -- no
haze. I crossed into the Rockies in Canada, mild haze, like smoke. I
crossed over the Rockies, and visibility was poor, much worse than
Alabama. A friend of mine who returned from Alaska the same year told
me that the haze only extended half way into British Columbia and was
caused by burning timber. I learned that the people in Vancouver rarely
see the two-mile high mountains next to the city. Then during a major
struck in the lumber industry some years ago, the mountains came back in
full glory, according to a story I read.
I think visibility is much better in Alabama now than it was then, but
as I said, haze is a very subjective measure.
That web page was at the University of Tennessee Press, but I never
could get in through the front door. You can find it by searching for
"dead forests" and then Smoky on Infoseek.
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer wrote:
> But Walter Williams should pull his article as being too much like
> another one, at the least, unless he wrote the first article too.
> If there was plagiarism, how do you know that _Economist_ didn't copy
> Williams? He is a regular columnist in the local newspaper. I've been
> reading his column for years. He may have published this before. I
> think this whole sub-thread is ridiculous. Nobody has enough
> information to know who did what; or to accuse anyone of plagiarism.
Ken Kifer replies:
I wasn't accusing him of plagiarism. I told you I hadn't read the whole
piece. I was just explaining what plagiarism was. And I suggested that
he might have written both articles. And, as you claim, someone might
have used him for a source too.
It's easy to jump to conclusions; it's harder to ask the author what
happened when you're not sure.
If I found that someone had published some of my work, I would be hot.
I think it would be easy to prove that it was stylistically mine. No
two people use the same vocabulary, the same way of putting them
together, the same organization, and with the same attitude.
If we're just going to jump to conclusions, I would suggest that he
wrote both pieces. Under the circumstances, that's the most obvious
conclusion. In other words, he paraphrased himself, adding in a little
bit of new material.
Scott M. Kozel
Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> Given the two articles, and their respective publication dates, there
> is indeed a case to answer (though answered it ultimately may be) As to
> being ridiculous, well, it does not affect the substance of the
> environmental debate, but it certainly raises questions about Williams,
> his paper
That's nice, but like I said before, your "comparison" of the articles
was very unconvincing.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger...... One who BTW
is very politically incorrect. (Heh!)
Besides, I've seen most of his points and cases brought out by other
writers. The point is without question that radical environmentalists
have engaged in inaccurate fear-mongering for decades. I recall very
well the questions he brought out about _The Population Bomb_.
Scott M. Kozel
> <snip>
> > > But Walter Williams should pull his article as being too much like
> > > another one, at the least, unless he wrote the first article too.
> >
> > Williams?
>
So it's *my* responsibility to answer an accusation against the man's
character and integrity? He is the Chairman of the Economics Department
at George Mason University, a well-respected university near Washington,
D.C.
Like you said:
Per his web page at:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/williams.htm
"Dr. Williams is the author of over 60 publications which have appeared
in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic
Review, and Social Science Quarterly and popular publications such as
Reader's Digest, Regulation, Policy Review, and Newsweek."
He's obviously no lightweight.
Scott M. Kozel
Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> In article <34F0E9...@richmond.infi.net>, "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> says:
>
> >If you don't like the message, attack the messenger...... One who BTW
> >is very politically incorrect. (Heh!)
>
> American universities again)
Nope.
> I have stated that I am sympathetic to his viewpoint.
You are hilarious! You are doing everything possible to discredit the
man, and you say you are "sympathetic to his viewpoint". ROTFL!!!
Brian Allardice
>But Walter Williams should pull his article as being too much like
>another one, at the least, unless he wrote the first article too.
As the Economist does not, generally, give credit to individual staff
writers that is, of course, a possibility.
Cheers,
dba
mowen
<snip>
> Why don't you (plural) analyze the data and many points he brought out,
> rather than analyze him?
As I rather vaguely I implied yesterday and more specifically in this post
today --- (incidentally before I was aware of the "plagarism" question)....
if he builds his "professional" doomsayer points from a "non-ethical"
perspective (and hangs his points on his hat as a Ph.D. academic and
moralist) and writes (as per his intro) neither as an academic or the
moral person he should be and represents himself to be (and this is only my
impression from the editorial--he may be a saint otherwise), then I suspect
his conclusions (i.e. don't trust his data).
> > that I could scarely get to the matter of whether or not his specific
> > points/views might be ones with which I might agree.
>
> Perhaps you have a built-in bias that prevents you from wanting to
> consider his points?
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
Puleeze Mr. Kozel ---
Just because you introduced the editorial and agree with its points,
doesn't mean that anyone who expresses concerns/doubt is "blind to the
truth" and biased
or that you blindly have to defend its writer in every regard... :)
I never heard of him... I had no idea what bias, if any, he had.
Yeh... I have this funny bias: I expect people to be fair and honest, ....
and I sort of wondered if he was either after I got done reading the
introduction.
And I expect especially that people who teach kids in universities should
know scientfic methods of research and what the words they write mean...
like he does have a Ph.D.
And his points (as I mentioned yesterday: "Not to say his examples are
wrong") I am mostly inclined to accept (IF I can believe the author...).
Brian Allardice
In article <34F0D2...@richmond.infi.net>, "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> says:
Assuming, of course, that Williams didn't actually write the Economist
article;
>If there was plagiarism, how do you know that _Economist_ didn't copy
>Williams?
Date of publication, although the Economist is a substantial organisation,
they may have psychics on staff....
>He is a regular columnist in the local newspaper. I've been
>reading his column for years.
Wow and double wow!
>He may have published this before.
His date, not mine...
I
>think this whole sub-thread is ridiculous. Nobody has enough
>information to know who did what; or to accuse anyone of plagiarism.
Given the two articles, and their respective publication dates, there
is indeed a case to answer (though answered it ultimately may be) As to
being ridiculous, well, it does not affect the substance of the
environmental debate, but it certainly raises questions about Williams,
his paper, and his university.
Cheers,
dba
mowen
> > another one, at the least, unless he wrote the first article too.
>
> Williams?
We don't know... and are waiting for you to find out the answer...!
Per his web page at:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/williams.htm
"Dr. Williams is the author of over 60 publications which have appeared in
scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, and
Social Science Quarterly and popular publications such as Reader's Digest,
Regulation, Policy Review, and Newsweek."
(of course, the list may not be complete or current...)
> He is a regular columnist in the local newspaper. I've been
> reading his column for years. He may have published this before.
> I think this whole sub-thread is ridiculous. Nobody has enough
> information to know who did what; or to accuse anyone of plagiarism.
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel
And it sounds as though you know and respect his character and opinions...
and the sub-thread is not ridiculous... :)
It may have been unnecessary for Dr. Williams to mention or an oversight
not to have mentioned that his editorial drew from his own writings
elsewhere (IF such was the case),
but it would have saved some understandable and very reasonable doubt (if
he did indeed write the Economist article/both articles)....
is his e-mail address... you get to ask "the big question"... !!! :)
(or just let him know we all are respectfully inquisitive...
and he can post a clarification here....)
Brian Allardice
>If you don't like the message, attack the messenger...... One who BTW
>is very politically incorrect. (Heh!)
You have a major problem with reading comprehension (those dratted
American universities again) I have stated that I am sympathetic to
his viewpoint. As for the rest, time for some research....
Cheers,
dba
Brian Allardice
In article <34F0E3CF...@simplecom.net>, Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> says:
>I learned that the people in Vancouver rarely
>see the two-mile high mountains next to the city.
Well, that's mostly due to weather: this place isn't calleda rain forest
for nothing.... That having been said, the lower mainland is similar
in many respects to L.A. and smog is now a real and rapidly growing
problem, with pollutant laden air trapped in and extending up the Fraser
valley. On bad days we can smell the solvents from plywood production
some miles away, and of course emissions from everyone's favourite
mode of transport do lend the air a charming brownish tinge (like, what's
so great about blue anyways?) Which brings us back to transit and the
importance of the provision of a decent mass system within the GVRD, and
the rapid adoption of zero emission standards....
Cough, cough....
dba
ab...@tiac.net
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 18:08:53 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
<koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>>
>> John Lansford wrote:
>> > The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
>> > blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
>> > Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
>> > defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
>> > their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
>> > trees itself.
>>
>> Ken Kifer replies:
>> Excuse me for answering twice, but I just found a good URL:
>> http://www.lib.utk.edu/UTKgophers/UT-PRESS/Sampler/Frome/pref-Frome.html
>>
>> [talking about pollution]
>> > Inevitably the consequences have become evident throughout the Appalachians.
>> > Visibility from overlooks on the Skyline Drive in Virginia that once
>> > extended more than eighty miles have diminished to about five miles;
>
>I can't speak for the Smokies, but from my trips to nearby Skyline
>Drive, I would have to say that that is incorrect.
>
>> > sometimes from Clingmans Dome in the Smokies visibility is down to two
>> > miles. Within thirty years visibility has been reduced by almost one-third.
>
>I notice no author name on the webpage, nor any link to anywhere else.
Both the EPA and the National Parks Service provide air quality data
on their websites. The NPS has made the improvement of visibility in
the national parks one of its primary goals. Their site includes
visibility photos of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on clear
and hazy days as well as a data regarding the negative impact that
man-made pollutants have had on park visibility.
For the NPS, go to:
http://www.nps.gov
For the Air Quality Programs at Shenandoah National Park go to :
http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/shen.htm
For NPS' Protected Areas Air Resources Web go to:
http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/
For EPA go to:
http://www.epa.gov
For the Southern Applachian Mtns Initiative, a multi-organizational
intiative working to address the adverse impact of human activities on
air quality in the region, go to:
http://www.epa.gov/ecoplaces/part1/site27.html
>Your entire quote was from the author. IOW, it was his opinion.
>
>--
>Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
ab...@tiac.net
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 19:08:55 -0600, Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net>
wrote:
>John Lansford wrote:
>> The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
>> blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
>> Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
>> defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
>> their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
>> trees itself.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>> Excuse me for answering twice, but I just found a good URL:
>> http://www.lib.utk.edu/UTKgophers/UT-PRESS/Sampler/Frome/pref-Frome.html
>> [talking about pollution]
>> Inevitably the consequences have become evident throughout the Appalachians.
>> Visibility from overlooks on the Skyline Drive in Virginia that once
>> extended more than eighty miles have diminished to about five miles;
>
>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> I can't speak for the Smokies, but from my trips to nearby Skyline
>> Drive, I would have to say that that is incorrect.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>When I was in the Smokies in 1995, the park was distributing information
>like this. Obviously, the weather conditions are going to change from
>one trip to another; visibility is better in the winter than in the
>summer and best after a rain in the summer. I have seen better than
>five mile visibility, but I have never seen 80 mile visibility in the
>Blue Ridge or Smokies. Out West, however, I have seen Calgary and Pikes
>Peak from over 50 miles away.
>
>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> I notice no author name on the webpage, nor any link to anywhere else.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>That's a problem with web searches. They take you to the web page, not
>the home page. I didn't select the option of other information from the
>same site. His name, from the URL, is Frome, and he has written a book
>about the Smokies called Strangers in High Places. He provides a lot of
>information about himself and his contacts.
>
>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> Your entire quote was from the author. IOW, it was his opinion.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>No, he gave his source in the selection: the Uplands Laboratory of the
>National Park Service at Gatlinburg. He also tells a lot of good
>information about the forest, political history, and present problems.
>He's very knowledgeable.
>
>The information that he supplies about pollution affecting the forest is
>similar to the information that I heard at both national parks.
>
>You left out the important part of the passage. He points out that two
>species of forest trees are involved in the dead forests, only one of
>them affected by an insect. He also points out that pollution has been
>cited as the cause of the decline of 80 species by the researchers.
>
>My greatest problem is with his dates. His first book was published in
>the 60's, the second in the 80's and this page was written in the 90's,
>and he talks about all periods some. So, I am sometimes uncertain which
>period of time he is talking about. For example, is visibility still
>getting worse or is it now getting better?
>------------------------------------------------------
For data in regards to visibility and air pollution in in the
Appalachia region, try the webpages for both the EPA and the National
Parks Service:
For the EPA: http://www.epa.gov
Their site has a special section for the Southern Appalachian Mtns.
Initiative, a multi-organizational initiative working to address the
adverse impacts that human-generated air pollution has had on the
region, including reductions in visibility, soil degradation from
toxins, and negative impacts upon local flora and fauna.
For the NPS: http://www.nps.gov
Their site has extensive data and excerpts from published papers
regarding air pollution in the national parks. Reversing the effects
that man-made airborne particulates have had on visibility is one of
the NPS' major agency goals. Their site includes data for the Great
Smoky Mtns National Park. In addition, the Shenandoah Mtns National
Park is being closely studied in regards to air quality. The site
includes visibility photos of both parks.
Bob Goudreau
: > Ken Kifer replies:
: > I'm sure this post follows from an e-mail exchange with you, Scott,
: > because I used the word "doomsayers" in it.
: Actually this is a coincidence. I clipped the editorial yesterday, and
: decided then to use it in the fashion that I used it. The paper
: editorial has the title, "The Doomsayers - Wrong So Very Often, But
: Lionized Nonetheless".
From the content of the editorial, it appears that Mr. Williams
was trying to recapitulate some of the points made in a much longer
article in the _Economist magazine just before Christmas. The
original can be found at:
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/20-12-97/index_xm0002.html
It's certainly a pugnacious little essay in its own right. My
favorite paragraph in it pulls no punches:
Perhaps the reader thinks the tone of this article a little
unforgiving. These predictions may have been spectacularly
wrong, but they were well-meant. But in that case, those quoted
would readily admit their error, which they do not. It was not
impossible to be right at the time. There were people who in
1970 predicted abundant food, who in 1975 predicted cheap oil,
who in 1980 predicted cheaper and more abundant minerals.
Today those people--among them Norman Macrae of this newspaper,
Julian Simon, Aaron Wildavsky--are ignored by the press and
vilified by the environmental movement. For being right, they
are called "right-wing". The truth can be a bitter medicine to
swallow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer wrote:
>> 2. Acid rain. This was also true. Lakes were being killed, forests
>> were sick or dying, and statues were being eaten away. What happened?
>> All power plants were required to install scrubbers, and other sources
>> of pollution were cleaned up. This clean-up doesn't receive the
>> attention that it once did, but every year the standards get more
>> tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
>> although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
>> pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
>> and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
>> trees were alive and healthy in 1970.
>
>John Lansford wrote:
>> The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
>> blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
>> Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
>> defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
>> their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
>> trees itself.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>I did not say those trees were killed by acid rain, just that they were
>killed by pollution.
You are really good at playing games with words. "Pollution" killed
the trees, but not "acid rain". The Forest Service information
specifically says the primary cause of death of the firs on Mt.
Mitchell was the parasites, and that the pollution was a contributing
factor (NOT the cause, though). The firs are the trees causing the
"whole dead forest" views on that mountain and others that are that
high.
> The trees were killed during a very short period
>of time in the 1970's. They were very healthy when I visited in 1971 and
>very dead when I returned in 1988.
Which was when the parasite began invading the area, I believe.
>John Lansford wrote:
>> Comparing the damage to Ducktown, TENNESSEE, (not North Carolina)
>> caused by open pit copper mining and the irresponsible disposal of the
>> waste created by the mine, and acid rain, is a straw man argument.
>> While the two create similar effects, the highly concentrated acid
>> created by the waste from the open pit mine is hundreds of times more
>> powerful than the weak acidic effect that sulfuric compounds create
>> that is called "acid rain".
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>First of all, you have complained bitterly in e-mail of how I insulted
>you and your profession. I have never insulted you or your profession,
>but I have had to put up with insults from you.
I wasn't going to bring that up, but I certainly will to defend
myself.
You said that engineers wanted cyclists off the road. You compared
your "plight" with that of Indians forced onto reservations and
alleged that engineers were behind this plan. The messages have
scrolled off my newsserver or I would provide the quotes.
> Every time I say
>something you disagree with, you make wild charges against me.
No, just requiring you to substantiate them.
>Second of all, in regard to Ducktown, you are seeing a situation that
>has had over a lifetime to heal. Only the places affected by ground and
>water pollution still show signs of damage. Unfortunately, I could find
>no source on the net for what I learned from chemistry books and geology
>teachers 35 years ago, but the story goes like this. To get rid of the
>sulfur dioxide from roasting the ores, a large chimney was constructed.
>It reduced the local problems, but started killing trees and plant life
>a larger distance away, and complaints came flooding back in. As a
>result, a huge chimney was build that put the SO2 even higher into the
>air, and forests over a vast area -- much farther than 50 miles -- were
>affected. Finally, the right person showed up at the scene, and he
>pointed out that the sulfur dioxide could be made into sulfuric acid and
>sold for a profit. In fact, there was more profit from the acid than
>there was from the copper.
The concentration of SO2 from the chimney was hundreds of times higher
than the strength of acid rain. I noticed that you deleted that point
in your response. You suggested this damage was comparable with acid
rain, which I do not believe is correct.
The prevaling winds would not allow everything to be killed within 50
miles, either. Considering that a 50 mile radius would encompass
everything from Cleveland, TN to east of Murphy, TN, I find it hard to
believe anyway.
>I noticed that the information furnished at the Ducktown site mentioned
>numerous problems, but did not mention the problem of acid rain, but the
>chemistry books sure did. Of course, the acid rain problems all healed
>up before you and I were born. Here is a report from a court case in
>1907 where the state of Georgia was suing:
You were using this damage of "whole forests killed" as an example of
what acid rain could do, yet then admit that the damage has been
healed before anyone could see it. Kind of hard to compare something
that no one can see.
>Is the state of Georgia complaining about acid rain or not? Does "great
>distances and great tracts of land" sound like 50 miles or more or not?
You are the one that made that silly claim.
>Of course, the amount of acid rain far exceeded that of any coal plant,
>since SO2 was the principal byproduct of the roasting process and not
>just an impurity.
Which is what I'm pointing out. Comparing the two is like saying a
block of TNT and a 5000 pound bomb create the same damage.
>I did make an error of fact in placing Ducktown in North Carolina. It
>is very near the state line. I think of that whole region in the
>mountains as being North Carolina.
Get a map.
John Lansford, PE
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer replies:
>Well, the chestnuts died long before we were born. And the gypsy moth
>invasion has happened this decade. The trees I referred too died in the
>1970's. It's rather dramatic when you see them because you literally
>see a forest of dead trees.
Which died from a combination of factors, none of which would have
killed them by itself. Blaming everything on pollution or acid rain is
incorrect.
>The air pollution over cities is often trapped and produces smog and
>local effects. But factory pollution is pumped high into the air in
>high chimneys and travels hundreds and thousands of miles. The trees in
>North Carolina are under greater stress because they are at higher
>elevations and because they are at the limits of their range. Many of
>the trees and plants found on the high mountains there have their
>nearest surviving relatives living in Canada. I imagine that they are
>also under greater stress from the thinning of the ozone layer, but I
>haven't read anything about it.
Then why bring your opinion into this discussion? The ozone layer may
or may not be thinning, but I doubt this has significantly affected
the trees.
>When I lived in North Carolina, back in the late 60's, there was some
>discussion of the balds -- mountain tops without anything living on
>them. Other people were puzzled, but I was not. The top of a high
>mountain is a tough environment for anything to live on. If a forest
>fire occurred, the rest would heal much more quickly than the top.
The "balds" were logged off back in the early years of this century.
mowen
> You are hilarious! You are doing everything possible to discredit the
> man, and you say you are "sympathetic to his viewpoint". ROTFL!!!
It is possible for *some* to be in agreement with a point of
view/support a fact...
and at the SAME time from another perspective "question" the
character/actions of the person who might present it.
Happens all the time...
with our Prez. being a popular and noteworthy example of same (whether or
not he deserves the credit/blame for either).
Do you really see this as "impossible"?
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer said:
> I did not say those trees were killed by acid rain, just that they were
> killed by pollution.
John Lansford said:
> You are really good at playing games with words. "Pollution" killed
> the trees, but not "acid rain". The Forest Service information
> specifically says the primary cause of death of the firs on Mt.
> Mitchell was the parasites, and that the pollution was a contributing
> factor (NOT the cause, though). The firs are the trees causing the
> "whole dead forest" views on that mountain and others that are that
> high.
Ken Kifer replies:
I provided good information showing that the national forest service
reports that 80 species are being damaged by pollution, including acid
rain, and that the firs and the spruce on those mountains are dying at
the same time, with only the fir affected by the insects. Funny, your
statement shifted from acid rain to pollution.
Again, you want me to respect you, but you want to make harsh
accusations at me.
Ken Kifer said:
> First of all, you have complained bitterly in e-mail of how I insulted
> you and your profession. I have never insulted you or your profession,
> but I have had to put up with insults from you.
John Lansford wrote:
> I wasn't going to bring that up, but I certainly will to defend
> myself.
> You said that engineers wanted cyclists off the road. You compared
> your "plight" with that of Indians forced onto reservations and
> alleged that engineers were behind this plan. The messages have
> scrolled off my newsserver or I would provide the quotes.
Ken Kifer replies:
I have the exact statement that I made. There is no blanket
condemnation of anyone. However, I did use "you" statements, which you
could have interpreted as you personally, engineers in general, the
local politicals, or whatever. Basically, I wanted to dramatize how
prejudicial various restrictions on cycling that you supported were. I
should have phrased the remarks, "if this is done, then this is the
result" and have avoided pronouns altogether. However, your replies to
my statements are full of verbal attacks; if you want me to be sensitive
to your feelings, I want you to be sensitive to mine.
John Lansford wrote (earlier message):
> Comparing the damage to Ducktown, TENNESSEE, (not North Carolina)
> caused by open pit copper mining and the irresponsible disposal of the
> waste created by the mine, and acid rain, is a straw man argument.
> While the two create similar effects, the highly concentrated acid
> created by the waste from the open pit mine is hundreds of times more
> powerful than the weak acidic effect that sulfuric compounds create
> that is called "acid rain".
Ken Kifer replied (in part):
> Second of all, in regard to Ducktown, you are seeing a situation that
> has had over a lifetime to heal. Only the places affected by ground and
> water pollution still show signs of damage. . . . To get rid of the
> sulfur dioxide from roasting the ores, a large chimney was constructed.
> It reduced the local problems, but started killing trees and plant life
> a larger distance away, and complaints came flooding back in. As a
> result, a huge chimney was build that put the SO2 even higher into the
> air, and forests over a vast area -- much farther than 50 miles -- were
> affected. . . .
John Lansford wrote:
> The concentration of SO2 from the chimney was hundreds of times higher
> than the strength of acid rain. I noticed that you deleted that point
> in your response. You suggested this damage was comparable with acid
> rain, which I do not believe is correct.
Ken Kifer replies:
John, I edit some things to keep the replies from being too long. I
acknowledged at the end of my post the the effect was many times as
great as from a coal burning plant because SO2 was the primary product
rather than an impurity. The problem that Georgia had was from acid
rain. The clip from the law suit describes it very clearly.
John Lansford wrote:
> The prevaling winds would not allow everything to be killed within 50
> miles, either. Considering that a 50 mile radius would encompass
> everything from Cleveland, TN to east of Murphy, TN, I find it hard to
> believe anyway.
Ken Kifer replies:
John, the sources I read 35 years ago were not that specific. I used
the 50 mile figure from memory. I notice that Ducktown claims 50 square
miles. Maybe my memory was off or I combined two slightly different
statements together. However, the damage extended much farther than 50
miles also. I was very loose in saying "everything was killed" since
obviously people were still alive and some vegetation.
John Lansford wrote:
> You were using this damage of "whole forests killed" as an example of
> what acid rain could do, yet then admit that the damage has been
> healed before anyone could see it. Kind of hard to compare something
> that no one can see.
Ken Kifer replies:
I was talking about acid rain and the effects of pollution if unchecked
and giving the visual examples I know of. There's plenty of damage left
at Ducktown for anyone to see. Those who wish to travel to Eastern
Europe, Russia, or other places can see more damage. Those who wish to
read scientific reports can read of less visible damage. We used to
have more visible damage here in the US. When I was a boy in
Pittsburgh, my dad had to keep an oxygen tank next to his bed, something
has not once been needed since we moved to the South. Pittsburgh, for
many years, had a horrible reputation. You could not hang clothes
outside to dry because they would come back in dirty. A good book to
read that shows how bad industry once was before regulations existed is
Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, although it doesn't talk about pollution.
Ken Kifer wrote:
> Is the state of Georgia complaining about acid rain or not? Does "great
> distances and great tracts of land" sound like 50 miles or more or not?
John Lansford replied:
> You are the one that made that silly claim.
Ken Kifer replies:
Doesn't sound silly to me. And I didn't make it, I read it, although it
was years ago. I don't go around making silly claims, and you should
have noticed that by now.
Ken Kifer said:
> Of course, the amount of acid rain far exceeded that of any coal plant,
> since SO2 was the principal byproduct of the roasting process and not
> just an impurity.
John Lansford wrote:
> Which is what I'm pointing out. Comparing the two is like saying a
> block of TNT and a 5000 pound bomb create the same damage.
Ken Kifer replies:
Your position on this is very strange to me. You first deny that the
damage was all that bad and then you compare it to a "block of TNT,"
whatever that is. You have to remember too, that this was _one_ source
of source of SO2, while we have hundreds of coal-burning plants and
other SO2 sources.
Ken Kifer said:
> I did make an error of fact in placing Ducktown in North Carolina. It
> is very near the state line. I think of that whole region in the
> mountains as being North Carolina.
John Lansford wrote:
> Get a map.
Ken Kifer replies:
On my map, Ducktown is under the shading that separates the two states.
I believe that much of the area still bare of life is in North Carolina.
You know, John, you are amazing to me. You continue to attack me as in
every way as if I am some kind of loony, and then when I provide good
evidence supporting my case, you start picking at the details, attacking
smaller and smaller points. You even attack my signature files, if
nothing else presents itself. Then if I acknowledge that I was
incorrect about something, you come back and bear down on that point, as
if it were the only thing important. You tell me that you don't want me
in on the discussion about "bicycle facilities" because I see all
engineers as evil, and then you attack my posts on another topic.
Many of the things you say impress me with your knowledge, patience, and
understanding, but in many of other things that you say, you make
careless, highly opinionated statements that reflect none of the above.
It's almost as if there are two John Lansfords. The first one, I want
to be very polite and respectful to, and the second one deserves no such
treatment. It's up to you how you want to be treated, but you can't
have it both ways. If you are polite with me, I will be polite with
you.
------------------------------------------------------
James Bow
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> Brian Allardice <d...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > The rest of the article is similar, with Williams condensing the
> > Economist text. From start to finish a re-write, with a bit of
> > American reference tossed in for local colour.
> >
> > I am glad to see that Williams' practices conservation of effort, at
> > least. I wouldn't mind a job as a syndicated columnist and merely
> > rip off some of the Economists research for my pay. So this is the
> > standard expected in American Universities and Journals?
> > Most unimpressive; this Williams is a disgrace to Academia, if not
> > journalism.
>
> Your comparison of the two articles shows significant differences
> between the two. I don't see any signs of plagiarism. Your attempt
> to discredit Walter Williams is most unimpressive. Is it his lack of
> "political correctness" that upsets you?
As Brian stated in a later post, politically speaking, he is sympathetic
to William's viewpoint, therefore your own attempt to discredit Brian is
most unimpressive. I guess you follow the credo you accuse others of:
"If you don't like the message, attack the messenger".
Best,
James
--
James Bow - MIS Department || // // ,' /---\' Mortice Kern Systems
e-mail jb...@mks.com /||/// //\\' `\\\ Waterloo, Ontario
or jame...@golden.net______/ | // // \\ \___/ CANADA
or visit my web site at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/index.html
BAHN 3.40 simulations at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/bahn340.htm
M Jakob
It is fine that environmentalists may exaggerate but this does not mean that
they are wrong. I have the joys of not living in the area of Hanford.
Nuclear may be wonderfully safe according to some but when they start
evacuating areas recently because a small amount of an explosive acid is
found next to a tank of spent fuel cells, better safe than sorry, but....
many who live here know that Hanford has a rep for lying to the public to
make everything sound safer than it really is.... well I at least become
concerned. All sort of interesting problems, cancer being the most common,
are more common "down-wind" of Hanford than elsewhere. Perhaps much of the
environmentalists' comments are exaggerated, I'm not an expert to argue one
way or the other, but when normal people in their day to day life can see
effects of these problems someone is at minimum exaggerating and I would not
say that it is all the environmentalists.
M. Jakob
Scott M. Kozel wrote in message <34EF4A...@richmond.infi.net>...
>I saw a good editorial in yesterday's local newspaper.
>
>The title is "The Doomsayers - Wrong So Very Often, But Lionized
>Nonetheless".
>
>It was written by syndicated columnist Walter Williams
>(http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/williams.htm). Dr. Walter E. Williams
>is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,
>Virginia.
>
>I found it on the Internet
>(http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/wew_envo.htm) and here it is verbatim:
>
>Walter Williams
>
>Wednesday February 18, 1998
>
>Dire prediction after dire prediction, environmentalists are usually
>wrong
>
>Few groups have been so consistently wrong yet so revered by the
>political, intellectual and media elite as have environmentalists.
>They've been predicting that the world's going to run out of coal, oil,
>gas, food, arable land and you name it for decades. If anything, the
>world's known supply of things environmentalists said we're running out
>of has increased. Let's look at it.
>
>In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted our oil reserves would last
>10 years. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil
>would last 13 years; it made the same prediction in 1951. In 1972, the
>Club of Rome's report "Limits to Growth" said total oil reserves totaled
>550 billion barrels. With the report in hand, president Carter said,
>"We could use up all proven reserves in the entire word by the next
>decade." Between 1970 and 1990, the word used up 600 billion barrels
>but, as of 1990, the word had 1.5 trillion barrels of known, unexploited
>oil reserves.
>
>In the 1970's, Lester Brown of Worldwatch Institute started predicting
>population growth would outstrip food production. His mentor, Paul
>Ehrlich, in his 1968 best selling book "Population Bomb," predicted that
>by 1999 the U.S. population would starve back to 22 million. Since
>1961, world population has doubled; food production has more than
>doubled, even in many poor countries. The Food and Agriculture
>Organization reports that calories consumed per person in Third World
>countries are 27 percent higher now than in 1961.
>
>What about the 1980s forest-destroying acid-rain scare? According to a
>$700 million official study, "There is no evidence of a general or
>unusual decline of forests in the U.S. of Canada due to acid rain." As
>for environmentalists' pressures to come to a panicky conclusion, one of
>the study's authors said: "Yes, there were political pressures. ...Acid
>rain had to be an environmental catastrophe, no matter what the facts
>revealed."
>
>There are other false environmentalist claims, like urban sprawl is
>paving over vital cropland. Fact: Farmland lying fallow in the United
>States and Argentina alone could feed 1.4 billion people. Claim: Soil
>erosion will lead to new dust bowls. Fact: The percentage of cropland
>lost through soil erosion has dropped by two-thirds since the 1950s.
>Claim: Nuclear power is dangerous. Fact: Generating all of our
>electricity by nuclear power has the risk - equivalent of raising the
>highway speed limit by 0.006.
>
>In his book, "State of Humanity," as well as his many articles, the late
>University of Maryland Professor Julian Simon presents one fact after
>another that totally demolishes environmentalist claims of coming
>disaster. People like Simon, who brought truth and reason to
>environmental hype and deliberate lies, are routinely dismissed as
>right-wing cranks and ignored by the media. The media treat
>environmentalists, who've been wrong time after time, as gods of the
>truth. For Dr. Paul Ehrlich's work, the MacArthur Foundation bestowed
>its "genius" award along with a handsome stipend for his "promoting
>greater public understanding of environmental problems". Lester Brown,
>who's been predicting global starvation for 40 years, also received the
>MacArthur "genius" award along with a stipend.
>
>Our continued belief in environmentalist mistakes, manipulation, lies
>and fearmongering leads us to establish public policies that kill people
>and reduce standards of living such as CAFE standards that downsize
>autos and cause unnecessary highway deaths, energy-saving regulations
>that produce airtight sick buildings, and the international push for
>birth control.
>
>The next time an environmentalist warns us of disaster, we ought to ask:
>When was the last time your prediction was right?
James Bow
> > <koz...@richmond.infi.net> says:
> >
> > >If you don't like the message, attack the messenger...... One who
> > >BTW is very politically incorrect. (Heh!)
> >
> > You have a major problem with reading comprehension (those dratted
> > American universities again)
>
>
> > I have stated that I am sympathetic to his viewpoint.
>
> man, and you say you are "sympathetic to his viewpoint". ROTFL!!!
I lean left of centre. However, if it appeared that something a
prominent leftist was saying was seriously flawed, then I would look
into it, and vent a lot of criticism where warrented. If the prominent
leftist deserved to be discredited, then that's what I would advocate.
Without that criticism, without weeding out those flawed advocates, I
risk being discredited myself.
I know that those who lean right of centre have plenty of ideas and
enthusiasm about how to make our nations work; as much as I do. The best
ones are those who are willing to take on anyone, even those whose
viewpoints they sympathize with, if there is a hint of anything that
needed criticism.
Now, I am not saying that Walter Williams deserves to be discredited.
The jury is still out on that one. However, don't you ever make the
mistake of believing that someone who questions a person's findings is
against that person's viewpoint. If you blindly follow those who are
sympathetic to your viewpoint, you run the risk of being as much of a
blind sheep as some people accuse leftists of being.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer replies:
>I provided good information showing that the national forest service
>reports that 80 species are being damaged by pollution, including acid
>rain, and that the firs and the spruce on those mountains are dying at
>the same time, with only the fir affected by the insects. Funny, your
>statement shifted from acid rain to pollution.
Because you used semantics to deny you were saying acid rain was
killing the trees. The Forest Service now says the parasites are
causing the deaths of the high altitude trees, with acid rain
(pollution) contributing by decreasing their resistance.
>Again, you want me to respect you, but you want to make harsh
>accusations at me.
Harsh? Please.
>Ken Kifer replies:
>John, the sources I read 35 years ago were not that specific. I used
>the 50 mile figure from memory. I notice that Ducktown claims 50 square
>miles.
Do the math. Fifty square miles in no way is anywhere close to the
area "fifty miles around" is equal to.
> Maybe my memory was off or I combined two slightly different
>statements together.
Your initial statement about how far out the damage went made no
mention that this radius was in your opinion, a guess, or anything but
as solid as the rest of the information you presented.
> However, the damage extended much farther than 50
>miles also. I was very loose in saying "everything was killed" since
>obviously people were still alive and some vegetation.
Here's the quote, Ken. It sure doesn't look like you were "very loose"
about your claim to me.
> Another place in North Carolina
>to visit is Ducktown. Everything within 50 miles was killed by the
>pollution
Now, you can spin-doctor this quote all you like, but when someone
presents such unsubstantiated nonsense as this about something I'm
familiar with, I'm going to question it. The more ridiculous it is,
the more I'm going to ridicule it.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>I was talking about acid rain and the effects of pollution if unchecked
>and giving the visual examples I know of.
Except the "visual damage" doesn't exist now. Certainly not to the
extent you appear to be claiming ("everything was killed").
> There's plenty of damage left
>at Ducktown for anyone to see. Those who wish to travel to Eastern
>Europe, Russia, or other places can see more damage.
We're not talking about other places; you were talking about Ducktown,
TN, about something that happened 90 years ago.
>John Lansford wrote:
>> Which is what I'm pointing out. Comparing the two is like saying a
>> block of TNT and a 5000 pound bomb create the same damage.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>Your position on this is very strange to me. You first deny that the
>damage was all that bad and then you compare it to a "block of TNT,"
>whatever that is. You have to remember too, that this was _one_ source
>of source of SO2, while we have hundreds of coal-burning plants and
>other SO2 sources.
What's strange? That I find someone comparing a point source location
of heavily concentrated sulfur dioxide emissions, both water borne and
airborne, with the dispersed emissions from multiple sources spread
out over the countryside?
Look, the Copper Hill mine released concentrations of sulfur dioxide
strong enough to sterilize the streams downstream. The air deposits
were very strong as well. I've seen geologic reports that claim the
Copper Hill rock formations have some of the heaviest concentrations
of sulfur in the country; if not disposed of safely, SO2 turns into
sulfuric acid when exposed to water. This is what happened there, but
it happened 90 years ago.
You can't compare something that happened nearly a century ago with
today's environmentally conscious power plant emissions.
>Ken Kifer replies:
>On my map, Ducktown is under the shading that separates the two states.
>I believe that much of the area still bare of life is in North Carolina.
You believe incorrectly, then. The SW corner of North Carolina is a
mecca of hikers, hunters, fishermen, campers and tourists. The land
there teems with trout in the streams and big game animals in the
woods. I've got projects within that area and have driven through that
region numerous times.
>You know, John, you are amazing to me. You continue to attack me as in
>every way as if I am some kind of loony, and then when I provide good
>evidence supporting my case, you start picking at the details, attacking
>smaller and smaller points. You even attack my signature files, if
>nothing else presents itself. Then if I acknowledge that I was
>incorrect about something, you come back and bear down on that point, as
>if it were the only thing important. You tell me that you don't want me
>in on the discussion about "bicycle facilities" because I see all
>engineers as evil, and then you attack my posts on another topic.
I attack wrong ideas, not people. I also defend my profession when it
is wrongfully maligned.
BTW, the "Evil Engineer" phrase is my own, coined after I started
getting plenty of heat about how engineers like to design high speed
roads through neighborhoods, over design for drunk drivers and those
too stupid to drive correctly, and deliberately try to get cyclists
off of the highway. I never said anyone called me that, but to me the
implication that "engineers are to blame" was plain.
Scott M. Kozel
> > between the two. I don't see any signs of plagiarism. Your attempt
> > to discredit Walter Williams is most unimpressive. Is it his lack of
> > "political correctness" that upsets you?
>
> As Brian stated in a later post, politically speaking, he is sympathetic
> to William's viewpoint, therefore your own attempt to discredit Brian is
> most unimpressive. I guess you follow the credo you accuse others of:
Errmmm.... Just how do you consider Brian Allardice to be a
"messenger"? Walter Williams is widely published. Brian is just
another Usenet poster, like me.
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer replies:
John Lansford's remarks are completely unrealistic and out of hand.
They also constitute violent, personal attack, even though he is
ultra-sensitive to remarks made about him. And he talks about Avery!
He has accused me of making statements that were "blatantly false" and
"completely without substance or merit other than to inflate your own
claims," of making a "silly claim," and of using "semantics to deny you
were saying acid rain was killing the trees." And the following
statement:
> Now, you can spin-doctor this quote all you like, but when someone
> presents such unsubstantiated nonsense as this about something I'm
> familiar with, I'm going to question it. The more ridiculous it is,
> the more I'm going to ridicule it.
My complete original statement that he objected to was:
> 2. Acid rain. This was also true. Lakes were being killed, forests
> were sick or dying, and statues were being eaten away. What happened?
> All power plants were required to install scrubbers, and other sources
> of pollution were cleaned up. This clean-up doesn't receive the
> attention that it once did, but every year the standards get more
> tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
> although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
> pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
> and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
> trees were alive and healthy in 1970. Another place in North Carolina
> to visit is Ducktown. Everything within 50 miles was killed by the
> pollution -- before some scientist pointed out that they could make more
> money off of the sulfur than the copper. This disaster happened many
> years earlier, before people even recognized that acid rain could be a
> problem. But it's a good example of what acid rain can do.
At the very most, the changes needed are:
1/4 of the spruce-fir forests in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina
are dying due to the effects of acid raid, ozone, and the balsam woolly
adelgid (which attacks the fir only, although both species of trees are
dying, along with some 78 other species of plants).
Another place on the border of North Carolina to visit is Ducktown.
All the trees and plants over "great distances and great tracts of land"
were destroyed.
This is the first court case ever fought (and won) over acid rain. [Not
a correction, but a very important point I should have made]
By the way, I also heard plenty of evidence that pollution in those
areas is getting worse, not better.
All of my other statements have not been contradicted. As I said, I
remember the statement about everything within 50 miles being destroyed
from 35 years ago or so. In fact, I made a visit to Ducktown with a
geologist in 1964. I have found nothing to prove my figure wrong,
although I admit it may be wrong, either in terms of miles or degree of
damage, because I have not been able to confirm it by searching on the
web. I have also found several places on the web, including one from
the national forest service talking about Mount Mitchell (where I took
my pictures), that mention only the the problem of acid rain and air
pollution without the aphid; I also found one that mentioned the aphid
without mentioning the other causes; then, I found several sources than
mention both problems. I also found references to forests elsewhere in
the US being destroyed by pollution. I also discovered why they
consider haze to be a good indicator of pollution. Studies show that
80% of the haze is from pollution. Without it, visibility would be an
average of 25 miles.
None of these corrections prove that I was lying or "spin-doctoring" or
whatever John Lansford wants to say. On the other hand, he has provided
no support for his statements. Nor has he made any attempt to respond
in a polite and civilized manner, even though I kept asking him to do
so. So, I will no longer be polite in return.
I ended my last post:
> You know, John, you are amazing to me. You continue to attack me as in
> every way as if I am some kind of loony, and then when I provide good
> evidence supporting my case, you start picking at the details, attacking
> smaller and smaller points. You even attack my signature files, if
> nothing else presents itself. Then if I acknowledge that I was
> incorrect about something, you come back and bear down on that point, as
> if it were the only thing important. You tell me that you don't want me
> in on the discussion about "bicycle facilities" because I see all
> engineers as evil, and then you attack my posts on another topic.
John Lansford replied:
> I attack wrong ideas, not people. I also defend my profession when it
> is wrongfully maligned.
> BTW, the "Evil Engineer" phrase is my own, coined after I started
> getting plenty of heat about how engineers like to design high speed
> roads through neighborhoods, over design for drunk drivers and those
> too stupid to drive correctly, and deliberately try to get cyclists
> off of the highway. I never said anyone called me that, but to me the
> implication that "engineers are to blame" was plain.
Ken Kifer comments:
The reason why John gets into trouble in these newsgroups and elsewhere
is that he keeps making irresponsible, unknowledgeable, and
unprofessional statements that no one in his position should make. He
attacked me through e-mail saying that every one of my statements
against bigots were against him personally. Here are some of his
statements from various posts that show why he would feel that way. If
these aren't enough to suit him, I can dig up a lot more:
> Come on, all you car-haters. You keep whining about how much money is
> spent on cars, how they don't pay their fair share (when bicyclists
> pay even less to use the same road), how your choice of transportation
> is ignored, vilified and derided by nearly everyone.
(I get the impression that everyone else means John.) Here's a nice
left-handed compliment; he praises the ones writing to him while
trashing all other cyclists:
> The pro-bicycle crowd here is not representative of the entire bicycle
> user population, IMO. The ones here are intelligent and appear to be
> all adult and capable of rational and creative thought.
A more accurate statement would have been to say that they were better
informed than he was about highway issues. Someone asked (see the
statement John made above about designing high-speed highways through
residences):
> And what do we
> tell the parents of a child killed by someone driving 45 mph in the 25
> mph zone? Sorry, your child was interfering with the fast flow of
> auto traffic??
And John's kind-hearted and thoughtful reply was:
> Well, what was the child doing out in the road without supervision?
> Children do irrational things; chase balls out into traffic, cross
> roads without reason, and dart into the road without warning. Until
> they learn the dangers of playing out in the road, parents should
> exercise responsibility and take steps to make sure they do not enter
> the road AT ALL without an adult's permission.
And of course, his most famous statement:
> Bicycles rarely travel over 25-30mph. Therefore, anywhere the speed
> limit is higher than this, bicycles should not be on the same road
> with motor vehicles. The speed differential is just too high on roads
My brother-in-law was an engineer, my childhood best friend became an
engineer, many of the cyclists in these exchanges are engineers, and I
have made many friends with engineers over the years. I have never met
one of them that have made the wild statements that John Lansford is
famous for. I would never call any of them "evil engineers."
On the other hand, I can certainly understand why John gets plenty of
heat, and why people consider him to be an "evil engineer." Anyone who
tells a mother that her dead child is her own fault and not the fault of
the speeder fits my definition of an evil engineer.
John should recognize that we're not playing Masters of Orion here,
though; we're talking about people's lives and the health of our
country, not seeking to curry favor to win a few "bicycle facilities."
From now on, when John makes such foolish remarks, I am going to point
them out.
------------------------------------------------------
By the way, John might look at my post on flaming people; his attempts
are so pathetic:
http://www.simplecom.net/kenkifer/flame.htm
Brian Allardice
In article <34F24AC3...@simplecom.net>, Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> says:
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>John Lansford's remarks are completely unrealistic and out of hand.
>They also constitute violent, personal attack, even though he is
>ultra-sensitive to remarks made about him. And he talks about Avery!
>He has accused me of making statements that were "blatantly false" and
>"completely without substance or merit other than to inflate your own
>claims," of making a "silly claim," and of using "semantics to deny you
>were saying acid rain was killing the trees."
Ain't usenet a gas :-)
>> Now, you can spin-doctor this quote all you like, but when someone
>> presents such unsubstantiated nonsense as this about something I'm
>> familiar with, I'm going to question it. The more ridiculous it is,
>> the more I'm going to ridicule it.
>
>My complete original statement that he objected to was:
>
>> 2. Acid rain.
You can go on about acid rain for pages, but the whole argument can
be resolved by one word: SUDBURY (cf) Of course it is always possible
that these trees died in their sleep and donated their bodies to mining...
Using buses to get to the smelter (just to keep on-topic)
Cheers,
dba
John Lansford
d...@uniserve.com (Brian Allardice) wrote:
>In article <34F24AC3...@simplecom.net>, Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> says:
>>
>>Ken Kifer replies:
>>John Lansford's remarks are completely unrealistic and out of hand.
>>They also constitute violent, personal attack,
Violent? Completely unrealistic? Out of hand?
You're the one who miscomprehends the difference between 50 square
miles and 50 miles around a point. Here's a hint; the first one has a
radius less than 5 miles.
Not to mention claiming we engineers conspire to drive cyclists off
the road, that you feel as oppressed as American Indians, etc, etc.
You are sounding more and more like a little kid running to mom
yelling, "make him quit saying nasty things about me!".
When you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger. Standard tactics
for the losing side of a debate.
> even though he is
>>ultra-sensitive to remarks made about him.
Ooooh, an attack on my character! I'm so upset now.
> And he talks about Avery!
Actually I don't talk about him at all.
>>He has accused me of making statements that were "blatantly false" and
>>"completely without substance or merit other than to inflate your own
>>claims," of making a "silly claim," and of using "semantics to deny you
>>were saying acid rain was killing the trees."
I did because there was a need. Portraying such things as "everything
was killed within 50 miles" and "pollution kills the trees" is so much
silly woo-woo that I won't let it go without refuting it.
>Ain't usenet a gas :-)
I'm having a lot of fun; how's everyone else doing?
>>> Now, you can spin-doctor this quote all you like, but when someone
>>> presents such unsubstantiated nonsense as this about something I'm
>>> familiar with, I'm going to question it. The more ridiculous it is,
>>> the more I'm going to ridicule it.
>>
>>My complete original statement that he objected to was:
>>
>>> 2. Acid rain.
My, my, such a short memory. I objected to, in order:
1) The portrayal that acid rain (oh, I'm sorry. Ken says he never said
this but that "pollution" is what he was talking about) killed the
trees on the Blue Ridge Mountains, even though the Forest Service
disagrees with him. He mentioned no study in the message I responded
to.
2) The utter nonsense that "everything within 50 miles was killed" as
a result of the Ducktown, TN copper mine waste. When called about
this, Ken responded that it was in a (questionable) source, his
chemistry schoolbook, and then proceeded to backpedal off his original
statement. First it was "I didn't mean EVERYTHING died", then it was
"it happened so long ago that the land has healed", now it's "maybe it
was just 50 square miles". Of course, now he's making equally silly
statements that there are still places with no life in North Carolina
as a result of this copper mine.
>You can go on about acid rain for pages, but the whole argument can
>be resolved by one word: SUDBURY (cf) Of course it is always possible
>that these trees died in their sleep and donated their bodies to mining...
I suggest he stop before the hole gets too deep to climb out of. It's
already deep enough to be buried in...
>Using buses to get to the smelter (just to keep on-topic)
NOTE: I haven't seen Ken's post that dba has responded to yet, so I'm
responding to it here. I couldn't resist my image of him running off
yelling "they were mean to me!" at the top of his post.
George Conklin
In article <34F24AC3...@simplecom.net>,
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>At the very most, the changes needed are:
>1/4 of the spruce-fir forests in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina
>are dying due to the effects of acid raid, ozone, and the balsam woolly
>adelgid (which attacks the fir only, although both species of trees are
>dying, along with some 78 other species of plants).
>
The trees on Mt. Mitchell are simply being replaced by
those species which used to grow at somewhat lower
altitudes, that's all. Trees left over from the least ice
age were very isolated there.
Exile on Market Street
>
> Your comparison of the two articles shows significant differences
> between the two. I don't see any signs of plagiarism. Your attempt to
> discredit Walter Williams is most unimpressive. Is it his lack of
> "political correctness" that upsets you?
>
No, it's because he's a semi-regular participant on Channel 6's "Inside
Story", Philadelphia's answer to "The McLaughlin Group". ;-)
(Williams is on the GMU faculty but lives on Philadelphia's Main Line.)
--Sandy, who realizes that it wasn't me you were talking to
--
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
University Relations, U. of Pennsylvania 215.898.1423/fax 215.898.1203
I speak for myself here, not for Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief
that one's work is terribly important."
--------------------------------------------------------Bertrand Russell--
Ken Kifer
John Lansford wrote:
> 1) The portrayal that acid rain (oh, I'm sorry. Ken says he never said
> this but that "pollution" is what he was talking about) killed the
> trees on the Blue Ridge Mountains, even though the Forest Service
> disagrees with him. He mentioned no study in the message I responded
> to.
Ken Kifer replies:
John Lansford is continuing his slanderous comments. I can't as yet
support or deny what I said about Ducktown except with the lawsuit
brought by the State of Georgia in the Supreme Court in 1907, which
unfortunately is unspecific to the number of miles.
When he says I mentioned no study, he forgets that I provided a good
source of information and where the research data came from. He, on the
other hand, is only providing hearsay evidence. I don't think the
National Forest Service or the North Carolina State Forest Service
disagree with me, as I have found information from them that cites acid
rain and/or pollution (acid rain plus ozone) and the major or only
mentioned cause. Certainly there is no way that one insect can be
killing 80 species of plants.
The problem with my material, in John Lansford's view, is that I don't
get it from right-wing, anti-environmental political sources. He ought
to cite his sources.
In this case, all the information is on the web, so anyone who wants to
can check it. Although, I think the source I provided earlier is more
informative. I guess all these other people are lying along with me.
The views from the Parkway in the Mount Mitchell State Park area, south
towards
Asheville, are tremendous. Sadly, however, this is largely because the
trees around the
summit of Mount Mitchell - the highest point in the eastern US, at
6684ft - have been
ravaged by acid rain from coal-burning industries in the Chattanooga
Basin to the west,
and the large barren patches leave the horizon clear.
http://www.hotwired.com/rough/usa/south/nc/regions/blue.ridge.parkway.html
Mt. Mitchell at 6,684 feet elevation is the highest mountain in the
eastern United
States. This range, known as the Black Mountain Range, has nine peaks
rising above
6000 feet elevation. Along this ridge is a virgin stand of Fraser Fir
and Red Spruce
that is unfortunately in very bad shape because of acid rain and wooly
aldegid damage.
The range of mountains is rugged but their is a foot trail to the crest.
Dr. Elisha
Mitchell, surveyor and botanist, likely travelled this trail during his
exploration
of the mountain that bears his name. Check out NC Natural's story of
Elisha Mitchell
and the history of the area. Enter the Mt. Mitchell State Park via NC
128 north
of the Blue Ridge Parkway, or reach the summit and nearby campground
from access
off the Blue Ridge Parkway.
http://ncnatural.com/NCUSFS/Pisgah/toecane.html
For the perfect side trip, take the parkway about a half-hour to Mt.
Mitchell,
which at 6,684 feet is the highest point east of the Mississippi River.
As you
wind your way up the last mile from the parkway to the top, you can
reach out
and feel the frosty condensation from the clouds. (Regrettably, the view
from
the summit reveals the sad effects of acid rain, which is causing the
defoliation of many grand pine trees.) Another 45 minutes' drive
eastward
brings you to some of the mountains' most inspirational views--at the
Linn
Cove Viaduct, an engineering marvel whose completion in 1987 marked the
final link in the construction of a parkway begun 60 years earlier, and
at
Grandfather Mountain, which features a mile-high swinging bridge.
http://www.businessweek.com/1996/38/b3493145.htm
In the mixed mesophytic forest, one of the two oldest
temperate-zone forests on earth, ecologist Orie Loucks estimates that as
many
as eighty tree-size woody plant species, including the near-extinct red
mulberry tree and local populations of chinquapin and butternut, are
showing
the effects of years of oxidant concentrations and acid deposition
driven
eastward by prevailing winds from the industrialized river valleys of
the
Midwest and the Southern border states.
"A possible--if not likely--reason for the sudden increase of
adelgid-caused
mortality in forest stands of hemlock in recent years is that the insect
seems
to thrive on nitrogen. McClure conducted a test of this theory by
fertilizing a
group of adelgid-infested hemlocks with nitrogen and comparing the
effects
with another group of adelgid-infested trees not given nitrogen
fertilizer. On
the trees to which nitrogen had been added, the adelgid population
densities
were five times higher than on the other group. Moreover, hemlock growth
was not enhanced at all by nitrogen, as might be expected. Instead, the
unfertilized trees grew faster than the fertilized ones, and the foliage
on the
fertilized trees became discolored. According to Edward Whereat, a
forest
ecologist at the University of Maryland, McClure's research suggests a
connection between the excess nitrogen deposition caused by air
pollution and
the recent virulence of the adelgid."
"All three trees which so agreeably grow together are afflicted--the
hemlock
with the adelgid, the dogwood with its unstoppable and deadly
anthracnose
fungus, and now the beech with a scale insect that severely stresses the
tree,
which allows a deadly fungus to finish the job."
http://www.ecobooks.com/dying.htm
Declines in forest populations are now being seen in the Sierra Nevada
range in
California, especially in the high elevations consistent with the
effects of acid
precipitation in other high altitude forested areas (Miller and Miller,
1989, p. 34).
In the east the primary damage is in the Appalachians and Great Smokey
Mountains.
The worst damage, however, is considered to be in the Adirondacks These
high
altitude forests in New York, Vermont and New Hampshire have suffered
extensive
destruction. In studies conducted from 1965-1975, seedling production
and tree
density fell by one-half. In 1975, over 50% of the spruce trees on
Camel's Hump
were dead. Not far behind is North Carolina's Mount Mitchell, now
covered with
dead and dying trees (Lean, 1990, p. 84).
http://www.sonic.net/daltons/melissa/pollute1.html
"Mount Mitchell, the hardest-hit peak in North Carolina, has changed in
the
last two decades from a dense primeval forest to a plateau of sick
trees. But
just a few ticks farther back Mount Mitchell was much worse off. Around
the
turn of the century, Cornelius Vanderbilt constructed a tram railway up
the
peak so that loggers could take out the valuable old-growth trees. The
mountain was clear-cut and left for dead. By the 1950s Mount Mitchell
was
once again biologically vibrant. . . . Today death knocks anew along the
Blue
Ridge. Soon, within your lifetime, the mountain will again live."
Correction:
To the contrary, clearcutting on Mount Mitchell occurred only at the
lower elevations.
At the top of the mountain, substantial parts of the forest were never
logged, and are
classified as virgin forest. Now many of the trees in this area are
severely damaged.
Red spruce, in particular, is being destroyed by a combination of acid
rain, ozone,
and other forms of air pollution. [31]
http://www.edf.org/pubs/reports/easterbr2/e_section4.html
Mount Mitchell - Effects of Acid Rain
What is causing all of the trees to dies on Mount Mitchell? Visit Mount
Mitchell,
the tallest mountain in North Carolina and learn about the effect of
acid rain on
the forest. The trip to Mount Mitchell will provide beautiful views
along the
Blue Ridge Parkway.
http://www.abanet.org/sonreel/fall97trip.html
Mount Mitchell State Park (704) 675-4611
Alpine Forest Grades 4 - 6
ED378046
natural communities, limiting factors, acid rain,
forest decline, stewardship
http://eelink.umich.edu/ncparks.html
Now the forest is protected
by the Blue Ridge Parkway and the city of Asheville's watershed,
and so the spruce and fir have grown anew on its slopes. Near the
top, however, low-level ozone and acid rain have left a dying and
skeletal forest, its branches bony and silver.
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/election/connection/environ/green.htm
r...@inetworld.net
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 16:18:39 GMT, jo...@vnet.net (John Lansford)
wrote:
>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>2. Acid rain. This was also true. Lakes were being killed, forests
>>were sick or dying, and statues were being eaten away. What happened?
>>All power plants were required to install scrubbers, and other sources
>>of pollution were cleaned up. This clean-up doesn't receive the
>>attention that it once did, but every year the standards get more
>>tough. As a result, the sky is cleaner now than it was in 1970,
>>although problem areas still remain. If you want to see the effects of
>>pollution, go to the top of the Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina
>>and see whole dead forests. I have pictures before and after; those
>>trees were alive and healthy in 1970.
>
>The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
>blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
>Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
>defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
>their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
>trees itself.
Um, John; one example doesn't make a "fact". Take a look at the
evergreens in the Northeast and Quebec. It's pretty well established
that they're dying off due to acid rain. Take a look sometime at the
evergreens in the mountains east of Smell-A. Same thing is true.
The Blue Ridge Mts. are outside the Rust Belt and not in the
prevailing wind pattern for the pollution that came out of Rust Belt
smokestacks. It could well be that some alarmists were incorrect when
they attributed things there to acid rain. That hardly makes an
argument that acid rain is not a fact or that acid rain is not
impacting forests in areas other than the Blue Ridge.
In short; all you've offered is anecdotal evidence that it may not be
the cause of trees dying in one particular area of the U.S. You've
not proven in any way, shape or form that acid rain is not the cause
in other areas of the country.
=Bob
Who knows what miracle tomorrow may bring?
r...@inetworld.net
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:59:25 GMT, jo...@vnet.net (John Lansford)
wrote:
>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Kifer replies:
>>Well, the chestnuts died long before we were born. And the gypsy moth
>>invasion has happened this decade. The trees I referred too died in the
>>1970's. It's rather dramatic when you see them because you literally
>>see a forest of dead trees.
>
>Which died from a combination of factors, none of which would have
>killed them by itself. Blaming everything on pollution or acid rain is
>incorrect.
Blaming nothing on pollution or acid rain is just as incorrect, John.
There's a happy medium somewhere in there where real science takes
over and real science tells us that acid rain and pollution does in
fact have an effect on certain plant life. It may not be has terrible
as the alarmists would make it out to be, but it does exist and it is
a problem.
John Lansford
r...@inetworld.net wrote:
>>The evidence that acid rain has killed "whole dead forests" is
>>blatantly false. The firs on top of the highest of the Blue Ridge
>>Mountains have been dying due to a parasite from which they have no
>>defense. Acid rain has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE factor in reducing
>>their resistance to this parasite, but it in no way is killing the
>>trees itself.
>
>Um, John; one example doesn't make a "fact". Take a look at the
>evergreens in the Northeast and Quebec. It's pretty well established
>that they're dying off due to acid rain. Take a look sometime at the
>evergreens in the mountains east of Smell-A. Same thing is true.
>
>The Blue Ridge Mts. are outside the Rust Belt and not in the
>prevailing wind pattern for the pollution that came out of Rust Belt
>smokestacks. It could well be that some alarmists were incorrect when
>they attributed things there to acid rain. That hardly makes an
>argument that acid rain is not a fact or that acid rain is not
>impacting forests in areas other than the Blue Ridge.
>
>In short; all you've offered is anecdotal evidence that it may not be
>the cause of trees dying in one particular area of the U.S. You've
>not proven in any way, shape or form that acid rain is not the cause
>in other areas of the country.
Well, this is correct. I was attacking Ken's assertion that the Blue
Ridge Mountains have been denuded by acid rain. There may be other
areas where the effects of acid rain are greater. My use of the phrase
"whole dead forests" was in response to Ken's original use of it in
his claim about the BRM's.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer replies:
>John Lansford is continuing his slanderous comments.
What was slanderous about my comments, Ken, other than they disagreed
with your viewpoint?
> I can't as yet
>support or deny what I said about Ducktown except with the lawsuit
>brought by the State of Georgia in the Supreme Court in 1907, which
>unfortunately is unspecific to the number of miles.
Boy, but you sure presented it as if it were factual, now didn't you?
>When he says I mentioned no study, he forgets that I provided a good
>source of information and where the research data came from.
Only after I questioned the first comment about acid rain. It was
afterward that you presented the source of this information.
> He, on the
>other hand, is only providing hearsay evidence.
You are quite welcome to climb to the top of Mt. Mitchell and read the
information presented there. I was there back in October and there was
an entire message board about acid rain and its effects on reducing
the trees' resistance to the various fungi and parasites attacking
them.
But saying that acid rain contributes to their death and saying acid
rain killed them (oh yes, I forgot. You said that "pollution" did it)
are two different things.
BTW, your list of sources contradict themselves. Some say acid rain
contributes to the trees' deaths, some say they are killed outright by
it.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>The problem with my material, in John Lansford's view, is that I don't
>get it from right-wing, anti-environmental political sources. He ought
>to cite his sources.
BTW, I'm no more "right wing, anti-environmental" than anyone else.
Now who's throwing slanderous comments around, Ken? Considering that
my profession directly affects the environment, I have very strong
environmental beliefs and take care to see that my projects reflect
these beliefs as well.
And like I said, go right up on Mt. Mitchell and read what's up there
about acid rain. There have been other people here who've posted
rebuttals to the "acid rain is destroying the environment" talk.
BTW, all this comment about acid rain makes me wonder; if this is such
a bad, terrible effect, why are all the WNC and Eastern Tennessee
rivers so full of trout? Trout do not like acidic water, even a
little, yet the rivers and streams through this region are full of
those fish. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife people I've spoken to about
my projects say that nearly every stream in the area have trout in
them, even in streams they haven't designated as trout streams.
>In this case, all the information is on the web, so anyone who wants to
>can check it. Although, I think the source I provided earlier is more
>informative. I guess all these other people are lying along with me.
Anyone can post anything at all on the web. It doesn't cost much and
no one really reviews it. Publishing in a book, OTOH, takes money and
more effort and the information within gets reviewed, sometimes quite
heavily.
Just because something that agrees with your opinion is on the Web
doesn't make it correct. Quite often the information is whatever fits
the agenda of the person posting it in the first place. The signal to
noise ratio of info on the web is astounding.
Geronimo Don
Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in article
<34EF51...@richmond.infi.net>...and here it is verbatim:
>
> Walter Williams
>
> Wednesday February 18, 1998
>
> Dire prediction after dire prediction, environmentalists are usually
> wrong.
> In 1972, the
> Club of Rome's report "Limits to Growth" said total oil reserves totaled
> 550 billion barrels. With the report in hand, President Carter said,
> "We could use up all proven reserves in the entire world by the next
> decade." Between 1970 and 1990, the world used up 600 billion barrels
> but, as of 1990, the world had 1.5 trillion barrels of known,
> unexploited oil reserves.
But doesn't that prove the prediction correct, or in error only because it
came true early?
It seems to me that the prediction made in 1972 was that 550 billion
barrels would be consumed by 1990. In fact 600 billion barrels were
consumed. Hmm...within 10% of the prediction over a 18 year peroid. I
would suggest that most sciences would be happly if they could predict with
such accuracy.
Scott M. Kozel
> about acid rain. There have been other people here who've posted
> rebuttals to the "acid rain is destroying the environment" talk.
>
> BTW, all this comment about acid rain makes me wonder; if this is such
> a bad, terrible effect, why are all the WNC and Eastern Tennessee
> rivers so full of trout? Trout do not like acidic water, even a
> little, yet the rivers and streams through this region are full of
> those fish. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife people I've spoken to about
> my projects say that nearly every stream in the area have trout in
> them, even in streams they haven't designated as trout streams.
>
> >can check it. Although, I think the source I provided earlier is more
> >informative.
All that was necessary was to run search engines with "mitchell+acid".
There are many (millions?) of links on the Internet.
> Anyone can post anything at all on the web. It doesn't cost much and
> no one really reviews it. Publishing in a book, OTOH, takes money and
> more effort and the information within gets reviewed, sometimes quite
> heavily.
That's right, all three of us have developed major websites. I've
gotten numerous compliments about the accuracy and thoroughness of mine,
but I admit that no one besides myself is holding me accountable for
what I post.
> Just because something that agrees with your opinion is on the Web
> doesn't make it correct. Quite often the information is whatever fits
> the agenda of the person posting it in the first place. The signal to
> noise ratio of info on the web is astounding.
John, I've read hundreds of your posts over the year that I've been on
Usenet. None of us knows it all, but you seem to have a lot of
knowledge about your state and your profession. The fact that you are a
long-time resident of North Carolina and a licensed professional
engineer there, causes me to view your information gathered while on top
of Mt. Mitchell to carry more weight than these Internet posters, who I
don't know.
I've been to Virginia's Skyline Drive many times over the last 30 years,
and the forests are in good shape there. Of course, the tallest peak is
about 4,200 feet, compared to 6,800 feet for Mt. Mitchell. The park
there is run by mostly local rural people. They are friendly, but while
there I always have a sense of being in someone else's domain, kind of
like being a "city-slicker" visiting the country. The people there also
have concerns about pollution affecting the local environment. They are
concerned about their domain (rightfully so) and perhaps overestimate
the effects on the local environment.
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer wrote:
> John Lansford is continuing his slanderous comments.
John Lansford replied:
> What was slanderous about my comments, Ken, other than they disagreed
> with your viewpoint?
Ken Kifer points out:
I listed the comments made. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing
with my viewpoint, but you were engaged in exaggerated personal attack.
Ken Kifer said:
> I can't as yet
> support or deny what I said about Ducktown except with the lawsuit
> brought by the State of Georgia in the Supreme Court in 1907, which
> unfortunately is unspecific to the number of miles.
John Lansford wrote:
> Boy, but you sure presented it as if it were factual, now didn't you?
Ken Kifer replies:
I provided evidence from memory. To support it I provided evidence from
the court case in 1907, which seems to be as close as I am going to
get. That evidence might not convince you, but it was good enough to
gain a victory in the Supreme Court, with Oliver Wendell Holmes in
agreement. They probably had additional sources that I can't access.
I have checked three libraries for further information, but none of the
sources I found included facts and figures on the number of miles
distances or the number of square mile involved.
I agree that, when I said everything within 50 miles was killed by
pollution, I should have said everything within 50 square miles.
However, I know that the damage to forests extended much further than 50
miles. For example, one source says about a very similar site in
Canada:
Three large nickel and copper smelters have discharged 2-3000 tons
of SO2 per day. Result: no vegetation over 25,000 acres, stunted
vegetation over 36,000 acres, and loss of white pine over 720 sq.
mi. They closed one of the smelters in 1972 and put the worlds
largest smokestack on another - 1,250 feet high. This has been
done in many areas, so we don't get the acute damage as often.
This is a classic case that led to the phrase, "Dilution is the
solution to pollution." There has been erosion and acidity, devastating
lakes and streams. Elevated nickel and copper remains in the soil up
to 30 miles away. Another example is Copper Basin Tennessee, and
various smelters, generating plants, etc. in the West. Generally,
conifers are most sensitive to SO2.
But I can't find that kind of information about Ducktown, even though
everyone mentions it as a prime example of acid rain pollution. After
all, this is the first court case and one of the largest scenes of
destruction. However, there were no ecologists back then and not many
foresters either to accurately report the damage.
Ken Kifer said:
> When he says I mentioned no study, he forgets that I provided a good
> source of information and where the research data came from.
John Lansford replied:
> Only after I questioned the first comment about acid rain. It was
> afterward that you presented the source of this information.
Ken Kifer replies:
I was not writing a research paper, just a simple essay.
Ken Kifer said:
> He, on the other hand, is only providing hearsay evidence.
John Lansford replied:
> You are quite welcome to climb to the top of Mt. Mitchell and read the
> information presented there. I was there back in October and there was
> an entire message board about acid rain and its effects on reducing
> the trees' resistance to the various fungi and parasites attacking
> them.
> But saying that acid rain contributes to their death and saying acid
> rain killed them (oh yes, I forgot. You said that "pollution" did it)
> are two different things.
> BTW, your list of sources contradict themselves. Some say acid rain
> contributes to the trees' deaths, some say they are killed outright by
> it.
Ken Kifer replies:
Then, you are acknowledging that acid rain is the primary cause and yet
you claimed I was making "blatant falsehoods" when I said much the same
thing. Thanks for the minor corrections, but no thanks for the sweeping
claims.
I'm always happy to get corrected because I want my statements to be on
firm footing.
You made at least three mistakes of your own in these exchanges:
1. You said that the Ocoee River was not bothered by pollution. The
sources I found pointed out that the Ocoee River flows through the
middle of the copper basin. The river was complete sterilized by
sulfuric acid and almost dammed up by eroded soil.
2. You said that the balds were created by logging. That's why I
provided a correction yesterday that pointed out that the tops of the
mountains in North Carolina had never been logged. I knew that was true
to begin with, since the balds had been there from the earliest times.
The people talking about the balds when I lived in North Carolina back
in the 60's were knowledgeable about the mountains; if there had been
stumps there or any history of logging, they would have know it.
3. You said that the amount of emissions from a coal-fired plant can not
be compared with those from Ducktown. I first thought that this was
true, however, the 1915 settlement allowed Tennessee Copper to release
20 tons of SO2 daily. On the other hand,
> A big coal-burning power plant, with two generators, can burn 650
> tons of coal per hour at each generator. If that is 2% sulfur,
> that can generate 65 tons of SO2 per hour, also NOx.
Also, I might point out that there is nothing wrong or even unusual
about the two examples I chose. Here is part of an article from the
Chattanooga Times:
> But the question some environmentalists have about the Copper Basin is not
> so much whether it can be cleaned and made green again. What they really
> want to know is whether society has learned anything from it. Trees at higher
> elevations in the Southern Appalachians are suffering now from some of the
> same problems that decimated the Copper Basin more than 100 years ago.
> As Don Barger of the National Parks and Conservation Association put it:
> "Success will not be how many trees are growing, but if we learned the lesson
> of what acid deposition does to plants. Right now we have the same problem
> to a lesser degree but on a much larger scale with regional air pollution. Did
> we pay attention to what happened at Copperhill?"
http://www.chattimes.com/news/today/Thursday/July241997/CTStorya3copp.html
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer wrote:
> The problem with my material, in John Lansford's view, is that I don't
> get it from right-wing, anti-environmental political sources. He ought
> to cite his sources.
> BTW, I'm no more "right wing, anti-environmental" than anyone else.
> Now who's throwing slanderous comments around, Ken? Considering that
> my profession directly affects the environment, I have very strong
> environmental beliefs and take care to see that my projects reflect
> these beliefs as well.
Ken Kifer replies:
I'm glad to hear that, although your comment is ambiguous. I don't
think the comment was slanderous; I have many friends who are
right-wing, and I read right-wing, anti-environmental sources myself. I
just wanted to know what your source was.
John Lansford wrote:
> And like I said, go right up on Mt. Mitchell and read what's up there
> about acid rain. There have been other people here who've posted
> rebuttals to the "acid rain is destroying the environment" talk.
Ken Kifer replies:
I've been there on my bicycle and read their data. Go back and read
what I posted because it explains how they teach school kids that acid
rain and pollution is responsible for the death of the trees on Mt.
Mitchell. Remember that only one tree is affected by that aphid. Read
the other statements as well.
John Lansford wrote:
> BTW, all this comment about acid rain makes me wonder; if this is such
> a bad, terrible effect, why are all the WNC and Eastern Tennessee
> rivers so full of trout? Trout do not like acidic water, even a
> little, yet the rivers and streams through this region are full of
> those fish. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife people I've spoken to about
> my projects say that nearly every stream in the area have trout in
> them, even in streams they haven't designated as trout streams.
Ken Kifer replies:
You are a highway engineer, and I am a college English teacher; this is
outside our areas of knowledge. I can only read what others have said.
Ken Kifer said:
> In this case, all the information is on the web, so anyone who wants to
> can check it. Although, I think the source I provided earlier is more
> informative. I guess all these other people are lying along with me.
John Lansford wrote:
> Anyone can post anything at all on the web. It doesn't cost much and
> no one really reviews it. Publishing in a book, OTOH, takes money and
> more effort and the information within gets reviewed, sometimes quite
> heavily.
Ken Kifer replies:
Several of those sources were from books. I saw Michael Frome's book,
both the original edition and the current edition in the library while
looking for information about Ducktown. I thought that most of those
sources were impressive, however, I also provided some of a local
nature, such as the instructions for teaching school kids, to show that
my beliefs were reasonable.
John Lansford wrote:
> Just because something that agrees with your opinion is on the Web
> doesn't make it correct. Quite often the information is whatever fits
> the agenda of the person posting it in the first place. The signal to
> noise ratio of info on the web is astounding.
Ken Kifer replies:
When I am being called a liar, I do not have to prove that I was right;
I only have to prove that what I said was reasonable. I did that. And
went beyond that. However, just because something on the web disagrees
with your opinion that doesn't make it wrong.
Ken Kifer
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> John, I've read hundreds of your posts over the year that I've been on
> Usenet. None of us knows it all, but you seem to have a lot of
> knowledge about your state and your profession. The fact that you are a
> long-time resident of North Carolina and a licensed professional
> engineer there, causes me to view your information gathered while on top
> of Mt. Mitchell to carry more weight than these Internet posters, who I
> don't know.
Ken Kifer replies:
Well Scott, being a PE doesn't make one an expert on the environment.
My brother-in-law was an engineer with EPA (he was in charge of
sanitation for three states), and he complained about that fact that
engineers are supposed to be knowledgeable about everything. He was
well-qualified in his own area, but he wouldn't have tried to design a
highway.
As an English teacher, I can't claim to be an expert on the
environment. But his reading a fly-sheet on top of Mt. Mitchell is a
lot less than the amount of reading that I have done.
A better source than either of us is the book by Michael Frome, which I
first cited. It shows a great deal of knowledge about the forests, and
he uses information gathered by scientists to talk about problems. The
book, however, was more about the history of the region than anything
else.
My main problem, however, was not with John Lansford's opinions on these
subjects, but the way he expressed them. It's true that he did not use
profanity, but he used extremely strong terms in reference to me. And
this is the same person that e-mailed me to object to my referring to
bigots or making references to the treatment of minorities, although I
never called him a bigot.
If John wants other people to be polite to him and to use non-emotional
language, he will have to treat them with the same respect. That's all
I ask.
Ken Kifer
Brian Allardice wrote:
> You can go on about acid rain for pages, but the whole argument can
> be resolved by one word: SUDBURY (cf) Of course it is always possible
> that these trees died in their sleep and donated their bodies to mining...
I couldn't figure out what you were saying, Brian, but then I looked up
Sudbury. It's almost an identical twin to Ducktown. Same size, same
solution with the chimneys, just much later.
It's interesting too that when the Tennessee Copper Company was sued,
they said, "You don't want to put all these poor people out of work, do
you?"
What goes around, comes around.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>Well Scott, being a PE doesn't make one an expert on the environment.
Actually, Ken, I'm as legally proficient to practice environmental
engineering as I am to practice transportation engineering. Note that
I said "legally"; my PE license allows me to deal with all three
aspects of civil engineering under the eyes of the law, although I do
not make "official" statements about the other two branches unless my
experience with them in an isolated instance allows me to make an
informed comment.
>My brother-in-law was an engineer with EPA (he was in charge of
>sanitation for three states), and he complained about that fact that
>engineers are supposed to be knowledgeable about everything.
We are expected to know what we're qualified to comment about and what
we aren't. I would not attempt to design a structure, for example even
though my license allows me to do so.
>As an English teacher, I can't claim to be an expert on the
>environment. But his reading a fly-sheet on top of Mt. Mitchell is a
>lot less than the amount of reading that I have done.
What does that matter? This was a Forest Service information board
under a permanent weather proof structure. The title said something
like "the truth about acid rain" or something similar, and I recall my
wife and I were surprised at the information there. For the FS to
place this message board there, right in front of all the dead fir and
spruce trees, tells me they feel it is correct and valid information.
>My main problem, however, was not with John Lansford's opinions on these
>subjects, but the way he expressed them. It's true that he did not use
>profanity, but he used extremely strong terms in reference to me.
I sure did. I still feel that your original comments were designed to
cause those who read them to feel that what you had said was correct
and informed material. The information I had disputed your claims, and
I said as much. The longer you continued to assert your claims were
correct, the more strongly I dispute them.
> And
>this is the same person that e-mailed me to object to my referring to
>bigots or making references to the treatment of minorities, although I
>never called him a bigot.
Clever, Ken, clever. I've also objected to your comparison of the
treatment of American Indians and cyclists here, publicly. It is true
you've never accused me directly of being a bigot, just as it is true
that I've never protested you calling me one.
>If John wants other people to be polite to him and to use non-emotional
>language, he will have to treat them with the same respect. That's all
>I ask.
Then I suggest that you phrase your outrageous claims in the future
with "I think" or "I believe" or at least say where you are getting
such wild claims. Making statements without saying they are your
opinion gives some people the idea that what you are saying is gospel,
and there's enough dis- and mis-information on the Internet already.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>Ken Kifer replies:
>You are a highway engineer, and I am a college English teacher; this is
>outside our areas of knowledge. I can only read what others have said.
Actually, it IS within my area of knowledge. I deal with trout streams
on nearly all my mountain projects, and have spoken to many Forest
Service and Fish & Wildlife representives about the condition of
mountain streams. I don't consider myself an "expert" on trout
streams, but I'm certainly informed about them.
BTW, my question was a rhetorical one in case you did not realize it;
the streams are thriving and many streams not officially listed as
holding trout actually have trout within them. These kind of fish are
sensitive to increases in acidity within the water and are often used
as indicators that something is wrong.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>> BTW, your list of sources contradict themselves. Some say acid rain
>> contributes to the trees' deaths, some say they are killed outright by
>> it.
>
>Ken Kifer replies:
>Then, you are acknowledging that acid rain is the primary cause
How do you read that from my comments? I've not disagreed that acid
rain has caused problems for the trees, but that they have not died
from acid rain alone. It's a combination of all the factors involved
that's killing the trees, not any one item. Acid rain is hardly the
"primary cause", either.
>You made at least three mistakes of your own in these exchanges:
>
>1. You said that the Ocoee River was not bothered by pollution. The
>sources I found pointed out that the Ocoee River flows through the
>middle of the copper basin. The river was complete sterilized by
>sulfuric acid and almost dammed up by eroded soil.
I made that comment in response to your original claim that the Copper
Hill mine killed everything within 50 miles, before you amended this
comment with "it happened years and years ago". I was providing a data
point to show that certainly the Ocoee River was not dead.
>2. You said that the balds were created by logging.
So did you.
> That's why I
>provided a correction yesterday that pointed out that the tops of the
>mountains in North Carolina had never been logged.
More inaccuracies. You said that the top of Mt. Mitchell had never
been logged; I doubt you know about the rest of the mountains,
although I've been told by Forest Service personnel in the region that
all but the tallest mountains were logged completely off back in the
early decades of this century.
>3. You said that the amount of emissions from a coal-fired plant can not
>be compared with those from Ducktown. I first thought that this was
>true, however, the 1915 settlement allowed Tennessee Copper to release
>20 tons of SO2 daily. On the other hand,
>
>> A big coal-burning power plant, with two generators, can burn 650
>> tons of coal per hour at each generator. If that is 2% sulfur,
>> that can generate 65 tons of SO2 per hour, also NOx.
Sixty-five tons is 10% of 650, Ken. If you use the above statement,
then 2% of 650 tons per hour is about 13 tons per hour of SO2.
>> As Don Barger of the National Parks and Conservation Association put it:
>> "Success will not be how many trees are growing, but if we learned the lesson
>> of what acid deposition does to plants. Right now we have the same problem
>> to a lesser degree but on a much larger scale with regional air pollution. Did
>> we pay attention to what happened at Copperhill?"
Gee, he's saying the same thing I said; that the effects are happening
"to a lesser degree" as a result of regional air pollution. I'm not
denying the effects are there, only that you cannot compare the two
with any validity. They are on opposite ends of the scale.
Ken Kifer
John Lansford wrote:
> BTW, your list of sources contradict themselves. Some say acid rain
> contributes to the trees' deaths, some say they are killed outright by
> it.
Ken Kifer replied:
> Then, you are acknowledging that acid rain is the primary cause
John Lansford wrote:
> How do you read that from my comments? I've not disagreed that acid
> rain has caused problems for the trees, but that they have not died
> from acid rain alone. It's a combination of all the factors involved
> that's killing the trees, not any one item. Acid rain is hardly the
> "primary cause", either.
Ken Kifer replies:
Everything that dies slowly dies from multiple causes. You read the
report that both the spruce and the fir are dying, yet only the spruce
is dying from the aphid. You also read that 80 other species are
affected also. You also read that this information comes from
scientific research. I also posted information about a very similar
case elsewhere where studies were made that showed that the aphids only
harmed the trees affected by pollution. Acid rain is cited as the
primary cause, ozone is the secondary cause, and the aphid is the final
agent, in the case of the Fraser Fir only.
Ken Kifer said:
> You made at least three mistakes of your own in these exchanges:
> 1. You said that the Ocoee River was not bothered by pollution. The
> sources I found pointed out that the Ocoee River flows through the
> middle of the copper basin. The river was complete sterilized by
> sulfuric acid and almost dammed up by eroded soil.
John Lansford wrote:
> I made that comment in response to your original claim that the Copper
> Hill mine killed everything within 50 miles, before you amended this
> comment with "it happened years and years ago". I was providing a data
> point to show that certainly the Ocoee River was not dead.
Ken Kifer replies:
Nowhere have I claimed that nothing has had time to recover. From what
I understand, only 300 acres is currently being left bare, although when
I first passed through the area, some 35,000 acres were almost bare of
vegetation. Those wanting to see a picture can look at the June 1973
National Geographic (just one picture) or read the article in Discover
Magazine for October 1987 (with a number of photos).
Ken Kifer said:
> 2. You said that the balds were created by logging.
John Lansford wrote:
> So did you.
Ken Kifer replies:
That's news to me. I knew your information was incorrect the minute I
saw it.
Ken Kifer said:
> That's why I
> provided a correction yesterday that pointed out that the tops of the
> mountains in North Carolina had never been logged.
John Lansford wrote:
> More inaccuracies. You said that the top of Mt. Mitchell had never
> been logged; I doubt you know about the rest of the mountains,
> although I've been told by Forest Service personnel in the region that
> all but the tallest mountains were logged completely off back in the
> early decades of this century.
Ken Kifer replies:
I didn't say anything; I posted information that I had found, and I
reminded you of it. Do you know what a bald is? A bald is the top of a
high mountain that is free of trees. These balds were here when the
first settlers arrived and have nothing to do with logging. As you just
said, the tops of the mountains were not logged off.
Ken Kifer wrote:
> 3. You said that the amount of emissions from a coal-fired plant can not
> be compared with those from Ducktown. I first thought that this was
> true, however, the 1915 settlement allowed Tennessee Copper to release
> 20 tons of SO2 daily. On the other hand,
[quote from internet source]
> A big coal-burning power plant, with two generators, can burn 650
> tons of coal per hour at each generator. If that is 2% sulfur,
> that can generate 65 tons of SO2 per hour, also NOx.
John Lansford wrote:
> Sixty-five tons is 10% of 650, Ken. If you use the above statement,
> then 2% of 650 tons per hour is about 13 tons per hour of SO2.
Ken Kifer replies:
These are not my figures; I just found them on the net. But you have
not done your math correctly. Two generators are burning 26 tones of
sulfur per hour. When the sulfur combines with oxygen, the weight of
the oxygen must be added in. These figures are somewhat low and
approximate. Either the figures are for H2SO3 and rounded off, or the
person was using the figures supplied from actual measurements, and the
coal was somewhat greater than 2% sulfur.
To me, this was just an illustration of how bad pollution could be from
coal plants; my understanding is that low-sulfur coal and/or scrubbers
are used at all plants.
Ken Kifer quoted the Chattanooga Times:
> As Don Barger of the National Parks and Conservation Association put it:
> "Success will not be how many trees are growing, but if we learned the lesson
> of what acid deposition does to plants. Right now we have the same problem
> to a lesser degree but on a much larger scale with regional air pollution. Did
> we pay attention to what happened at Copperhill?"
John Lansford wrote:
> Gee, he's saying the same thing I said; that the effects are happening
> "to a lesser degree" as a result of regional air pollution. I'm not
> denying the effects are there, only that you cannot compare the two
> with any validity. They are on opposite ends of the scale.
Ken Kifer replies:
Well, gee, he's saying the same thing I was saying too. I just pointed
out two dramatic examples; the same two examples used by the Chattanooga
Times and many other sources. Being from the South, Ducktown has always
been an important example of how badly we can go astray. I never tried
to suggest that any other place in North America is as currently as bad
as Ducktown, although I learned that Sudbury, in Canada, is just as bad,
and within the last twenty-five years too. The example that I gave of
trees on Mt. Mitchell was supplied to me by numerous sources over the
years, including both forest services. As I told Scott, these trees are
at the Southern end of their range and at high elevations. Obviously,
they are the most vulnerable to the effects of acid rain and other
pollution.
However, in looking around the web, I discovered the situation is worse
than I thought it was, not better. I was thinking we had air pollution
under control with our scrubbers for coal power plants and with our
catalytic converters on cars. However, the damage is still taking
place, so we need even further improvements, or even more trees will
die. While I mentioned Mt. Mitchell, because I have seen the dramatic
change there, the effects of acid rain and pollution have hit maples in
Pennsylvania very hard, and the damage is much greater in quantity from
that in the high mountains of the South.
------------------------------------------------------
And God said, "Let there be bicycles." And God looked
at the bicycles, and they were good. And the evening
and the morning were wonderful days.
My web page: http://www.simplecom.net/kenkifer/bike.htm
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer replied:
> Well Scott, being a PE doesn't make one an expert on the environment.
John Lansford wrote:
> Actually, Ken, I'm as legally proficient to practice environmental
> engineering as I am to practice transportation engineering. Note that
> I said "legally"; my PE license allows me to deal with all three
> aspects of civil engineering under the eyes of the law, although I do
> not make "official" statements about the other two branches unless my
> experience with them in an isolated instance allows me to make an
> informed comment.
Ken Kifer said:
> My brother-in-law was an engineer with EPA (he was in charge of
> sanitation for three states), and he complained about that fact that
> engineers are supposed to be knowledgeable about everything.
John Lansford said:
> We are expected to know what we're qualified to comment about and what
> we aren't. I would not attempt to design a structure, for example even
> though my license allows me to do so.
Ken Kifer said:
> As an English teacher, I can't claim to be an expert on the
> environment. But his reading a fly-sheet on top of Mt. Mitchell is a
> lot less than the amount of reading that I have done.
John Lansford said:
> What does that matter? This was a Forest Service information board
> under a permanent weather proof structure. The title said something
> like "the truth about acid rain" or something similar, and I recall my
> wife and I were surprised at the information there. For the FS to
> place this message board there, right in front of all the dead fir and
> spruce trees, tells me they feel it is correct and valid information.
Ken Kifer replies:
Now we know that John Lansford, environmental engineer, always depends
on careful research before attacking someone else's statements. How
could I have been so misinformed over the years? Whenever I meet anyone
who makes claims to the contrary, I will report this careful
investigation by an environmental engineer at the very scene of the
distruction.
Ken Kifer said:
> My main problem, however, was not with John Lansford's opinions on these
> subjects, but the way he expressed them. It's true that he did not use
> profanity, but he used extremely strong terms in reference to me.
John Lansford replied:
> I sure did. I still feel that your original comments were designed to
> cause those who read them to feel that what you had said was correct
> and informed material. The information I had disputed your claims, and
> I said as much. The longer you continued to assert your claims were
> correct, the more strongly I dispute them.
Ken Kifer replies:
Well John, whoever wants to investigate the matter can compare your
testimony above to the many URL's that I supplied and make their own
decisions.
Ken Kifer said:
> And
> this is the same person that e-mailed me to object to my referring to
> bigots or making references to the treatment of minorities, although I
> never called him a bigot.
John Lansford replied:
> Clever, Ken, clever. I've also objected to your comparison of the
> treatment of American Indians and cyclists here, publicly. It is true
> you've never accused me directly of being a bigot, just as it is true
> that I've never protested you calling me one.
Ken Kifer replies:
I wasn't being clever, just being honest, just doing some thinking out
loud.
Ken Kifer said:
> If John wants other people to be polite to him and to use non-emotional
> language, he will have to treat them with the same respect. That's all
> I ask.
John Lansford wrote:
> Then I suggest that you phrase your outrageous claims in the future
> with "I think" or "I believe" or at least say where you are getting
> such wild claims. Making statements without saying they are your
> opinion gives some people the idea that what you are saying is gospel,
> and there's enough dis- and mis-information on the Internet already.
Ken Kifer replies:
I didn't make any wild claims. I said that Ducktown was in North
Carolina when the beginning of the copper basin is on the North Carolina
line, I confused two similar statements about the amount of damage to
vegetation to make a stronger statement than was warranted, and I did
not mention the aphid in my statement about Mt. Mitchell. These are all
valid objections, but they do not substantial alter the original
statement that I made. The orginal statement had pointed out that by
acting soon enough, we had avoided environmental problems predicted in
advance. In the area of acid rain, I pointed out that we had installed
scrubbers in coal-fueled power plants to deal with the problems. So
show that acid rain can cause problems, something some people try to
deny, I provided the example of Ducktown and the trees on Mt. Mitchell.
In both cases, acid rain was not the sole problem, and perhaps if I had
included that statement, you would have been satisfied, but I doubt it.
My greatest mistake, however, was in assuming that we have already done
enough, something that you did not point out.
As far as including "I believe" or "I think," that is a statement I get
all of my students to drop. Everything that everyone says is an
opinion, at least to some degree. We all have to judge the information
according to its source. I know what you think of my information, and I
know what I think of yours. Other people can read what we have both
said on this subject and decide for themselves what the truth is.
------------------------------------------------------
And God said, "Let there be bicycles." And God looked
at the bicycles, and they were good. And the evening
and the morning were wonderful days.
Ken Kifer
Ken Kifer replied:
> John Lansford's remarks are completely unrealistic and out of hand.
> They also constitute violent, personal attack,
> Violent? Completely unrealistic? Out of hand?
> You're the one who miscomprehends the difference between 50 square
> miles and 50 miles around a point. Here's a hint; the first one has a
> radius less than 5 miles.
Ken Kifer replies:
I'm aware of the differences. You caught me in the error of compounding
two different statements. Much more than 50 miles in radius was
damaged, but "everything" was only killed within the 50 square miles. I
should have thought of what I was saying. On the other hand, you did
not recognize the meaning of "average speed" even after several people
told you that you were wrong. Another PE had to explain your error.
Even though I am not required to be knowledgeable about math in my
profession, I immediately recognize when people use average to mean
"median" or "mode." I knew what you were talking about right away, but
you couldn't comprehend what the cyclists were talking about. I also
recognize that SO2 weighs more than sulfur and that two power plants
produce twice the amount as one.
I am also aware of the difference between personal attack and point out
errors. There's nothing wrong with pointing out mistakes; we all make
them. You could have just told me that my statements were wrong.
John Lansford wrote:
> Not to mention claiming we engineers conspire to drive cyclists off
> the road, that you feel as oppressed as American Indians, etc, etc.
> You are sounding more and more like a little kid running to mom
> yelling, "make him quit saying nasty things about me!".
> When you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger. Standard tactics
> for the losing side of a debate.
Ken Kifer replies:
I don't agree with any of these interpretations. I'll let others judge
for themselves.
I have made it a point to speak out when people are flaming other
people. I defended Scott recently. I defended George a little time
ago. I can't see that it's wrong for me to point out when someone's
statements about me are wild exaggerations.
Ken Kifer said:
> even though he is ultra-sensitive to remarks made about him.
John Lansford wrote:
> Ooooh, an attack on my character! I'm so upset now.
Ken Kifer replies:
No, that was not an attack. You are the only person who has killfiled
anyone that I know of because you couldn't take the person's criticism.
And you have threatened to quit communicating with other people on
several occasions recently. I haven't quit posting with anyone. But
I'll be glad to take back the remark about your being sensitive; I have
changed my mind anyway.
Ken Kifer said:
> And he talks about Avery!
John Lansford wrote:
> Actually I don't talk about him at all.
Ken Kifer replies:
That was not what the remark meant.
Ken Kifer said:
> He has accused me of making statements that were "blatantly false" and
> "completely without substance or merit other than to inflate your own
> claims," of making a "silly claim," and of using "semantics to deny you
> were saying acid rain was killing the trees."
John Lansford wrote:
> I did because there was a need. Portraying such things as "everything
> was killed within 50 miles" and "pollution kills the trees" is so much
> silly woo-woo that I won't let it go without refuting it.
Brian Allardice wrote:
> Ain't usenet a gas :-)
John Lansford wrote:
> I'm having a lot of fun; how's everyone else doing?
> My, my, such a short memory. I objected to, in order:
> 1) The portrayal that acid rain (oh, I'm sorry. Ken says he never said
> this but that "pollution" is what he was talking about) killed the
> trees on the Blue Ridge Mountains, even though the Forest Service
> disagrees with him. He mentioned no study in the message I responded
> to.
Ken Kifer replies:
Acid rain and ozone are responsible for the dead and dying spruce and
fir trees in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, your flyer
notwithstanding. The aphids are attacking the damaged fir only. I
posted some studies that explained this.
John Lansford wrote:
> 2) The utter nonsense that "everything within 50 miles was killed" as
> a result of the Ducktown, TN copper mine waste. When called about
> this, Ken responded that it was in a (questionable) source, his
> chemistry schoolbook, and then proceeded to backpedal off his original
> statement. First it was "I didn't mean EVERYTHING died", then it was
> "it happened so long ago that the land has healed", now it's "maybe it
> was just 50 square miles". Of course, now he's making equally silly
> statements that there are still places with no life in North Carolina
> as a result of this copper mine.
Ken Kifer replies:
Forests and orchards were being destroyed in Georgia; Georgia won a
lawsuit in the Supreme Court on that basis claiming "vast distances." I
just am unable to currently locate a source that tells me how much
damage there was or how far it extended. The chemistry book that I
read, talking about the production of sulfuric acid, seems like a better
source to me than a flyer that you just happened to come across that the
"park service" posted.
Brian Allardice wrote:
> You can go on about acid rain for pages, but the whole argument can
> be resolved by one word: SUDBURY (cf) Of course it is always possible
> that these trees died in their sleep and donated their bodies to mining...
Ken Kifer replies:
Thanks, Brian, for pointing this out. John didn't notice it, but I
did. Sudbury is the Canadian Ducktown.
John Lansford wrote:
> I suggest he stop before the hole gets too deep to climb out of. It's
> already deep enough to be buried in...
> NOTE: I haven't seen Ken's post that dba has responded to yet, so I'm
> responding to it here. I couldn't resist my image of him running off
> yelling "they were mean to me!" at the top of his post.
Ken Kifer replies:
Since I have started exchanging posts with you, I have been very puzzled
at your answers. They always seemed very knowledgeable but quite off
the point. No matter how hard I tried to explain my point of view to
you, you never got the message, not one time. You always managed to
come across as the dignified engineer, however. Between this posts,
other recent ones, and your e-mail messages to me, I get a quite
accurate picture of what you are like. I also understand why you were
not listening to me when I posted or wrote to you. I said to you that I
thought our personalities were alike even though our beliefs were
different, but that was not a correct statement at all.
You see, it doesn't bother me at all to make a mistake and be
corrected. My problem with agreeing that the 50 miles around statement
was wrong is that I'm still not sure if it is true or false. I have
been in three libraries, and read everything I could find, and I still
don't know. Certainly, there has been enough time for the destruction
to heal if the deforestation had extended that far. But had it? The
story I told about the chimneys is supported by the Supreme Court case
and the memory of the Alabama Geologic Survey librarian, but I can't
find a single other piece of evidence.
You had me very upset in the e-mail messages by claiming I was rude to
you, because I am not a rude person. I can get angry and let something
out, but rudeness is something I control. You also got me upset this
time by being rude to me. If you want to portray me as a cry-baby, go
ahead, that is your right. However, people can only get me upset by
being rude the first time; after then, I know what to expect.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
> On the other hand, you did
>not recognize the meaning of "average speed" even after several people
>told you that you were wrong. Another PE had to explain your error.
You didn't read what he said, then. He said that what I was talking
about and what Pein and some others were talking about were two
different things. I tried repeatedly to point out that what they were
saying was not what I was talking about, but no one wanted to listen.
> I knew what you were talking about right away, but
>you couldn't comprehend what the cyclists were talking about.
I understood that what they were mentioning was not what I was talking
about, and attempted to explain the difference.
>Ken Kifer replies:
>No, that was not an attack. You are the only person who has killfiled
>anyone that I know of
Then you only know Avery Burdett. He's the only one that's in my kill
file. You even thought you were in it, which was another mistake.
because you couldn't take the person's criticism.
I quit listening to Burdett's comments because he became even more
insulting than you've ever been.
Scott M. Kozel
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
> Ken Kifer replied:
> > Well Scott, being a PE doesn't make one an expert on the environment.
>
> John Lansford wrote:
> > Actually, Ken, I'm as legally proficient to practice environmental
> > engineering as I am to practice transportation engineering. Note that
> > I said "legally"; my PE license allows me to deal with all three
> > aspects of civil engineering under the eyes of the law, although I do
> > not make "official" statements about the other two branches unless my
> > experience with them in an isolated instance allows me to make an
> > informed comment.
>
> Well John, whoever wants to investigate the matter can compare your
> testimony above to the many URL's that I supplied and make their own
> decisions.
I already have. I accept John Lansford's testimony over these people
who I don't know.
--
Scott M. Kozel
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> >I agree, I've heard accounts of the enormous environmental problems in
> >the Former Soviet Union. They IMO are directly traceable to that former
> >type of government. Complain about your country and get shot or sent to
> >Siberia. Thankfully, Communism has been relegated to the scrap heap of
> >history.
>
> It is wonderful to watch mention of the xUSSR turn pro-capitalist
> "James Watt Was Right" anti-environmentalists into tree-hugging greenies.
I sure hope you didn't direct this toward me. If you did, you are
rather dense, to say the least.
Ken Kifer
John Lansford wrote:
> You know, I performed a search for "Mt. Mitchell" and then one on
> "acid rain", and got this very informative study, made by Forest
> Service personnel as well as other researchers.
>
> It backs up what I've said all along, that acid rain isn't killing the
> trees, but "might" be causing them to be more susceptible to parasites
> and diseases. The researchers do not feel that there is sufficient
> evidence to indicate that the trees are being adversely affected by
> acidic clouds and rain.
>
> Here's the address:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/region04/samipgs/samirpt.htm
>
> It's called "Evaluation of Effects of Acidit Deposition to Terrestrial
> Ecosystems in Class I Areas of the Southern Appalachians", and goes
> into exhaustive detail of the effects by NO2 and SO2 and SO4 on the
> ecosystems on the high elevation mountains.
Ken Kifer replies:
Yes, it's a very careful study, and if it had said that the aphid was
responsible, I was willing to accept it as being authoritative. Even if
that had been the case, it would have only meant that my original
statement was incorrect, based on reading the wrong sources. Likewise,
the fact that the evidence points the other way does not give me any
reason to flame you or to accuse you of "blatant falsehoods" as you
accused me but just to point out that your information was not correct.
And in the beginning, it seemed that the majority of evidence was in
favor of the aphid. However, they were very exhaustive and came to the
opposite conclusion.
For those who do not wish to read the whole thing, which is quite
technical, I have included the last part with the summary. For those
who don't wish to read even this, I can sum it up in a few words. The
trees began declining before the aphid showed up; this decline is
associated with a reduction in available calcium; the lack of calcium
weakened the firs and made them vulnerable to attack. The spruce have
also suffered from this weakening, even though they are not attacked by
the aphid. Firs on Mt. Rogers, at a lower elevation, did not suffer as
much from acid rain, and therefore have not been harmed as much by the
aphid. Further research is to be conducted.
Ozone, by the way, was found innocent. Acid rain, not ozone or the
aphid, is the source of the problem. Of course, the weakened firs are
very susceptible to aphid damage.
> 5.9 Physiological Measurements on Fraser Fir. The presence and dynamics
> of the balsam woolly adelgid is unquestionable evidence that the adelgid
> plays a major role in the death of large numbers of Fraser fir in the
> Southern Appalachians (see Chapter 2). However, it is also important to
> consider the role of predisposing factors in increasing susceptibility
> of stressed forests to pathogens (Manion, 1981). Several bits of evidence
> warrant examination in evaluating factors influencing resistance or
> susceptibility of Fraser fir to adelgid-induced mortality. First is
> the fact that some fir trees have a resistance to this introduced
> pathogen and can survive attack. Within the Southern Appalachians the
> most resistant population has been at Mt. Rogers in southwestern
> Virginia, where mortality has been very light and evidence of wound
> healing pockets in the bark indicates that resistance mechanisms do
> exist (Eagar, 1984). As the northernmost extension of the range of
> Fraser fir, the apparent resistance at Mt. Rogers could be due to
> genetic differentiation within the Fraser fir population. However,
> there is now increasing evidence of attack in the Mt. Rogers
> population primarily at low elevation sites (Dull et al. 1988)
> suggesting that site-related factors may influence sensitivity.
> Significant temporal and spatial variability in susceptibility of the
> closely related balsam fir (Abies balsameri) has been recorded
> across its eastern range since the adelgid was introduced around 1900
> (Timmel, 1986). Mortality of this species has been significant in the
> Canadian Maritime Provinces, particularly in the mid 1980's. Tree vigor,
> bark characteristics, and the formation of compression wood are
> apparently related to resistance of fir to the adelgid (Eagar, 1984;
> and Timmel, 1986).
> Several seemingly converging lines of inference have led to examination
> of the role of acidic deposition on calcium supply and physiological
> responses potentially related to resistance. First, there is
> dendroecological evidence that fraser fir in GSMNP began a growth
> decline around 1960 in parallel to that experienced by red spruce
> (McLaughlin et al., 1984). Second, recent physiological measurements
> on Fraser fir indicate a decline in P:R ratio of foliage with
> increasing elevation (and acidic deposition exposure) parallel
> to that documented for red spruce (Stone et al., in preparation).
> Third, preliminary contrasts between Mt. Rogers and Clingmans Dome
> indicate higher foliar and soil calcium and lower aluminum levels
> at the high elevation Mt. Rogers site than found for more sensitive
> populations at Mt. Rogers low elevation or either high or low elevation
> GSMNP sites. There was also no significant P:R gradient with increasing
> elevation at Mt. Rogers (Stone, in preparation). Finally, the known
> role of calcium in disease resistance, including wound repair (Bangerth
> et al., 1989) and formation of lignin, which is a major constituent
> of compression wood, make calcium supply a likely modifier of resistance
> of Fraser fir to fatal adelgid infestation.
> Collectively this evidence suggests that acidic deposition, through
> its effects on calcium availability, may be playing a role in the
> apparent low resistance of Fraser fir to adelgid attack in the Southern
> Appalachians. Current investigations of Fraser fir ecophysiology are
> under way to further evaluate the role of calcium nutrition and
> soil solution chemistry on growth and physiological responses of
> Fraser fir.
5.10 Summary
> The physiological studies discussed above have played an important
> role in identifying a wide range of essential plant processes that
> are altered in response to levels of acidic deposition that are now
> occurring at high elevations in the Southern Appalachians. The
> responses include reduced uptake and increased leaching of a
> growth-limiting nutrient, calcium, reduced net carbon assimilation,
> and reduced growth. Patterns of tree ring chemistry of red spruce
> and other high elevation species indicate that altered calcium
> and aluminum availability began to occur coincidentally with both
> increased regional emissions of SO2 and NOx, and patterns of reduced
> radial growth of mature red spruce trees at high elevation sites.
------------------------------------------------------
And God said, "Let there be bicycles." And God looked
at the bicycles, and they were good. And the evening
and the morning were wonderful days.
Loren Petrich
In article <34F07A...@richmond.infi.net>,>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>> For example, at Three Mile Island and at Brown's Ferry, we
>> came very close to major disaster. The Russians didn't have to worry
>> about environmentalists and whistle-blowers. As a result they created
>> the worst environmental disaster in modern times when they blew the roof
>> off at Chernobyl. They even lied to their own people _after_ the
>> disaster, which caused more deaths. But to some extent, all of Russia
>> is an environmental disaster because of gross mis-management.
>I agree, I've heard accounts of the enormous environmental problems in
>the Former Soviet Union. They IMO are directly traceable to that former
>type of government. Complain about your country and get shot or sent to
>Siberia. Thankfully, Communism has been relegated to the scrap heap of
>history.
It is wonderful to watch mention of the xUSSR turn pro-capitalist
"James Watt Was Right" anti-environmentalists into tree-hugging greenies.
That is because the xUSSR had had policies they *admire* --
economic growth no matter what happens as to the environment. Those who
have attacked environmentalists as anti-growth ought to admit that the
xUSSR ensured that they would never get in the way of economic growth.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Loren Petrich
In article <34F0BBA4...@prodigy.net.nospam>,
Tony Wang <ton...@prodigy.net.nospam> wrote:
>Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> I agree, I've heard accounts of the enormous environmental problems in
>> the Former Soviet Union. They IMO are directly traceable to that former
>> type of government. Complain about your country and get shot or sent to
>> Siberia. Thankfully, Communism has been relegated to the scrap heap of
>> history.
>Not quite. There are still Commie bastards left in China.....and they're
>about to wreak some environmental havoc with their Seven Rivers Dam project.
>In addition, those Commies want to be let out of the CO2 emissions treaty --
>despite the fact that they produce more of it than anyone but us.
However, China is now suffering from creeping capitalism -- and
that has not stopped those dam projects or their trying to wiggle out of
the CO2 treaty.
John Lansford
Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>http://www.hotwired.com/rough/usa/south/nc/regions/blue.ridge.parkway.html
>http://ncnatural.com/NCUSFS/Pisgah/toecane.html
>http://www.businessweek.com/1996/38/b3493145.htm
>http://www.ecobooks.com/dying.htm
>http://www.sonic.net/daltons/melissa/pollute1.html
>http://www.edf.org/pubs/reports/easterbr2/e_section4.html
>http://www.abanet.org/sonreel/fall97trip.html
>http://eelink.umich.edu/ncparks.html
>http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/election/connection/environ/green.htm
You know, I performed a search for "Mt. Mitchell" and then one on
"acid rain", and got this very informative study, made by Forest
Service personnel as well as other researchers.
It backs up what I've said all along, that acid rain isn't killing the
trees, but "might" be causing them to be more susceptible to parasites
and diseases. The researchers do not feel that there is sufficient
evidence to indicate that the trees are being adversely affected by
acidic clouds and rain.
Here's the address:
http://www.epa.gov/region04/samipgs/samirpt.htm
It's called "Evaluation of Effects of Acidit Deposition to Terrestrial
Ecosystems in Class I Areas of the Southern Appalachians", and goes
into exhaustive detail of the effects by NO2 and SO2 and SO4 on the
ecosystems on the high elevation mountains.
John Lansford, PE
r...@inetworld.net
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:43:16 GMT, jo...@vnet.net (John Lansford)
wrote:
>r...@inetworld.net wrote:
>>In short; all you've offered is anecdotal evidence that it may not be
>>the cause of trees dying in one particular area of the U.S. You've
>>not proven in any way, shape or form that acid rain is not the cause
>>in other areas of the country.
>
>Well, this is correct. I was attacking Ken's assertion that the Blue
>Ridge Mountains have been denuded by acid rain. There may be other
>areas where the effects of acid rain are greater. My use of the phrase
>"whole dead forests" was in response to Ken's original use of it in
>his claim about the BRM's.
Okay. I can accept that. There's this problem with blaming
everything on a specific event or phenomenon without considering the
effects that living in a smaller world has.
Zebra Clams, for instance, are ripping the living S#$% outta the St.
Lawrence and the Great Lakes. They came here attached to freighters.
It's a problem that's going to become more and more prevelent as
world-wide trade continues.
So from the standpoint that he may be incorrect that acid rain is
responsible for what's happening in North Carolina, I'm inclined to
agree with you. But from the standpoint that we have to be careful of
introducing alien species into our ecosystems, I can't agree.
The question is, what do you do about it? And I"m afraid I have no
answer for that. As near as I can tell, it's pretty much impossible
to stop alien species that discover an ecological niche where they
have no natural preditors.
So whether it's acid rain or it's some damn bettle from Asia or
Europe, the devistating effects are the same.
r...@inetworld.net
>I already have. I accept John Lansford's testimony over these people
>who I don't know.
Scott:
I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't accept what a friend says.
I'd certainly support a friend on here and you probably should be
congratulated for doing so.
However, supporting a friend does not mean that you offer no argument
other than, "John says it, I believe it, that's the end of it".
John's quite capable of defending himself. Show us what you think
rather than just knee-jerking whenever someone attacks your friend.
r...@inetworld.net
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:47:18 GMT, jo...@vnet.net (John Lansford)
wrote:
>Ken Kifer <kenk...@simplecom.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Kifer replies:
>>You are a highway engineer, and I am a college English teacher; this is
>>outside our areas of knowledge. I can only read what others have said.
>
>Actually, it IS within my area of knowledge. I deal with trout streams
>on nearly all my mountain projects, and have spoken to many Forest
>Service and Fish & Wildlife representives about the condition of
>mountain streams. I don't consider myself an "expert" on trout
>streams, but I'm certainly informed about them.
Heh, Heh, Heh (to quote Bevis - or is it Butthead?). Speaking to the
feds. That's sort of like speaking to a blank wall as near as I can
figure out. One of my greatest joys in life is when I have to deal
with the feds. Real fun bunch of folks.
>
>BTW, my question was a rhetorical one in case you did not realize it;
>the streams are thriving and many streams not officially listed as
>holding trout actually have trout within them. These kind of fish are
>sensitive to increases in acidity within the water and are often used
>as indicators that something is wrong.
Don't go too far buying into the argument of "indicator species". The
feds will tell you this about any species that can't deal with human
activity. But they never really define what an "indicator" is other
than its a species that is on the low end of dealing with humans and
therefore is a forebearer of more "terrible" things to come. What
they don't recognize is that life will take hold and exist wherever it
can. Claiming, for instance, that the least tern cannot breed, nest
or exist within human noise levels is nonsense. They've been doing it
for a very long time. Species like that are going down because their
habitat is being lost, not because some bozo is running by their nests
on a jet ski at 6 am.
Give life a habitat and it'll adapt to most any condition you throw at
it. Take away that habitat and it's going to disappear. The rules
that feds have set up are ridiculous because it assumes a fragility
that just doesn't exist. The species that are here exist because
they've been able to adapt to external environmental changes. What
causes them to decline and die off is the loss of everything that they
need to breed, raise their babies and supply them with food.
But we, in our arrogance, assume that if don't hold down the decibles
and allow cars, airplanes, or people in general to get near them,
they're going to disappear. This is patent nonsense. Give them a
clean environment and a decent habitat within which to screw like
crazed weasles and make babies, they'll be more than happy. Take away
that habitat and it ain't going to matter what activities we engage
in.
Scott M. Kozel
r...@inetworld.net wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:26:48 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >I already have. I accept John Lansford's testimony over these people
> >who I don't know.
>
> Scott:
>
> I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't accept what a friend says.
> I'd certainly support a friend on here and you probably should be
> congratulated for doing so.
>
> However, supporting a friend does not mean that you offer no argument
> other than, "John says it, I believe it, that's the end of it".
> John's quite capable of defending himself. Show us what you think
> rather than just knee-jerking whenever someone attacks your friend.
Friendship has nothing to do with it. John is a licensed professional
engineer in North Carolina, a civil engineer who can legally practice
environmental engineering there. He reported on the Forest Service
information that he saw several months ago, posted on a signboard on top
of Mt. Mitchell. I would say he is a very credible witness.
Ken Kifer
Excuse me if I have posted this twice, but my newservice messes up from
time to time and loses my posts, and this reply did not appear in Deja
News today.
John Lansford wrote:
> You know, I performed a search for "Mt. Mitchell" and then one on
> "acid rain", and got this very informative study, made by Forest
> Service personnel as well as other researchers.
>
> It backs up what I've said all along, that acid rain isn't killing the
> trees, but "might" be causing them to be more susceptible to parasites
> and diseases. The researchers do not feel that there is sufficient
> evidence to indicate that the trees are being adversely affected by
> acidic clouds and rain.
>
> Here's the address:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/region04/samipgs/samirpt.htm
>
> It's called "Evaluation of Effects of Acidit Deposition to Terrestrial
> Ecosystems in Class I Areas of the Southern Appalachians", and goes
> into exhaustive detail of the effects by NO2 and SO2 and SO4 on the
> ecosystems on the high elevation mountains.
Ken Kifer replies:
5.10 Summary
------------------------------------------------------
r...@inetworld.net
>Friendship has nothing to do with it. John is a licensed professional
>engineer in North Carolina, a civil engineer who can legally practice
>environmental engineering there. He reported on the Forest Service
>information that he saw several months ago, posted on a signboard on top
>of Mt. Mitchell. I would say he is a very credible witness.
Being a "credible witness" has even less to do with it. This isn't a
court of law and few if any of us are lawyers. If you have an
argument to offer, then fine, offer it. Just stating that you accept
what someone says is true is hardly a cogent post. I wouldn't care
for it any more if you were stating that you believe that what I say
is true.
I'm not attacking you or John. I'm just saying that tossing out posts
supporting someone with nothing other than offering that person's
credentials is hardly an argument or a reason to take up band width.
It's sort of the equivalent of saying "yeah", or "me too".
Ken Kifer
I am posting this the third time; I believe Supernews spam filter is not
allowing it to get out because it is too long. This is a condensation
of my previous reply to this post, so delete it if you have read it.
> Collectively this evidence suggests that acidic deposition, through