author: Billy

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "Juhana Harju" <[email]> wrote:

RF wrote:
Try
http://www.holistic-online.com/Remedies/Heart/hypot_herbs-hypotension.htm

alt.folklore.herbs added.


author: Kevysmom

subject: Re: Herbals to raise Blood Pressure safely?

text:
Bill I watched the Carlin Video you have attached to your post, Its
GREAT!, Thought you might like this video..

John Perkins, Part 1 The first of a three part speech given to the
Veterans For Peace National Convention, Seattle, WA in August 2006.
Author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, in this part John
discusses, from a hit mans perspective, the reasons and background to
why we are at war in the Middle East

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3968544393356669182&q=John%20Perkins%20and%20VFP%20National%20Convention&hl=en

On May 21, 11:06 am, Billy <[email]> wrote:


text:
On May 20, 11:36 pm, "Juhana Harju" <[email]> wrote:

I won't rate licorice as safe over the long term.
Though it might make sense if one's goal is to
flunk a draft physical.


text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Kevysmom <[email]> wrote:

Thanks


text:
In article
<[email]>,
 "[email] |" <[email]> wrote:

http://www.holistic-online.com/Herbal-Med/_Herbs/h204.htm

Safety:

Caution : There is a small possibility of effecting electrolyte balance
with extended use of large doses of licorice. It has an ACTH like effect
causing retention of sodium thus raising BP. The whole herb has
constituents that counter this but it is best to avoid Licorice if the
patient has hypertension, kidney disease or during pregnancy.

It may interfere with the calcium and potassium absorption. Do not use
if you are suffering from osteoporosis, hypertension (increases water
around heart). Take with boiled milk.

No other information about the safety of this herb is available. Use
caution. Ayurvedic herbs are often taken in combination with others to
neutralize the toxicity one herb with the opposing effect of other. Do
not take except under the supervision of a qualified professional.


author: RF

text:
Billy wrote:

My thanks to everyone.

OK, licorice is struck off my list. Seems like the
others are enough for a start.

Does anyone know of the relationship between the
size of the doses and the
elevation in BP for the list I gave (minus
licorice)?  Or is it individual-dependent?


text:
In article <[email]>, RF <[email]>
wrote:

Probably idiocentric, like allopathic medicine


text:
Billy wrote:

I guess I'll have to put a cuff on, start popping
the pills or caps, and
write down the numbers every 15 mins.

I just did some reading in the LEF Disease
Prevention and Treatment
manual that it takes 2 grams of calcium citrate to
block 40% of the iron
in a meal. Seems like one would get calcium
overload at that rate. They
also mentioned black tea to block the iron but no
numbers were given.

It would appear that this work is still in its
infancy.


text:
In article <[email]>, RF <[email]>
wrote:

You seem to live in a mirror universe, trying to raise your BP
and avoiding Fe+++ and Ca++. I take prunella to lower my BP and
the cuff is the only way I have of guesstimating it's effectiveness.
Fortunately, I grow my own, so once I have the dosage set, I don't
need to worry about it for a few months. You may want to look into
growing ginseng.


text:
RF wrote:

According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginseng
it takes 4 or 6 years to grow it.


text:
In article <[email]>, RF <[email]>
wrote:

What? You goin' some place?

Some other plants for you to look at to raise blood pressure.

Liquorice
http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Glycyrrhiza+glabra

Horse Chestnut (Buckeye)
http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Aesculus+hippocastanum

or any of the other plants on
http://www.pfaf.org/database/search_use.php?K%5B%5D=Vasoconstrictor

with vasocostrictor being the key element in the search.

Bonne chance,


text:
Billy wrote:

I need the high BP to go "some place."  ;-)

I had this in my first list but read some negative
things about it and dropped
it. The LEF Disease Prevention and Treatment
Expanded 4th Edition has lots
or good things to say about it, so I'm reconsidering.

I already take that for leg veins. According to
one report I read, taking it
was the equivalent to using elastic stockings when
flying.

Will check it out. Thanks for the info.

Merci!


author: anonymous

subject: Ans. to Science FAQs on Psychotherapy

text:
[Recently updated and extended:]

The Answers to Science FAQs on Psychotherapy (below) will describe in
detail why
the following brief summary statement is as true today as it has ever been:

"After you match people for everything except psyc training, there is no
evidence psychologists are better at ANY noteworthy human skill or
activity. This is an absolute fact.  What they have are meaningless
credentials, empirically speaking."

All the information in the FAQ below is completely current and accurate.  It is
as true today as it has ever been, perhaps moreso since the psychotherapy
field continues to pretend to science and operate in a fraudulent way. All
the information in the 2 links referred to is also completely factual
and accurate.

The science FAQ below describes MAJOR issues and questions that
are essential for the foundation of any science of psychotherapy, but
which have not been dealt with or adequately addressed in any way by the
profession.  The issues are as important as ever and nothing is being
done to rectify the situation.  There can be no real foundation for
psychotherapy or any efficient advancement until and unless these issues
are dealt with. The Amer. Psychol. Assoc. actively avoids dealing with any
of these
questions in any reasonable, proper way.

Also (as part of this prelude to the science FAQ) I would like to inform
people of
the way professionals in the field who are regular Usenet participants have
reacted to these FACTS below. This can be seen in a post summarizing their
aggression:    http://psycfacts.cjb.net/
(This post is also a good response to FAQs about the newsgroup
sci.psychology.psychotherapy, a newsgroup that has proven unsafe for
dissident views.)

But now the answers to science FAQs regarding the field of psychotherapy:

Issue 1, Regarding who are good counselors (cute title for issue):
"We can't 'Just Go With The Best' UNTIL We can
Determine what CONSTITUTES "the Best" and make sure we know where to
concentrate training to make "THE Best" otherwise we won't really have
the best and won't really get the best. Okay ?"

[Let me deal with your confusion from my title (above) by trying to
state the issue still briefly,
but more simply:  If you don't know what good peer counselors can do or
what they can easily be trained to do and handle, you will not know
where you really need SPECIALLY trained (long trained) individuals or
the problems that they especially need to be trained for.

Trying for ten
words or less:  "If you don't make comparisons with regular good people,
you don't know what you got."  (scientifically speaking) (Sorry, 15 words.)]

OK,  Let's take a look at this specific issue in a little more detail:

A major set of FOUNDATION research studies for the
counseling/"therapy" field has not yet been done. AND indeed, ONLY 3
CONTROLLED studies (the last in 1979 !) have been done comparing the
effects of counseling from professionals *with* counseling from "other
reasonable helpers" (with no professional grad. training). THIS, in
spite of the fact that these best studies in the area essentially show
that other REASONABLE helpers do as well for arguably a broad range of
problems. These studies, at the same time, indicate the other helpers
are an ethical comparison group, having been found *good* for a broad
range of problems for which counseling is most often sought. More
recently much research shows peer counselors in colleges to be VERY
helpful (though their performance is NOT directly compared to that of
professional helpers in these studies).

ANYWAY, these studies are NEEDED to show where professionals ARE
really needed AND where treatments need to be developed (as is, this
situation REMAINS VERY UNCLEAR). These studies might well also indicate
the desirability of other mental health care provider roles (like well
selected and well-trained peer counselors and/or more extensively
trained paraprofessionals).

Now to the "ethics" matter (the first defense of the many backing the
status quo in the field): Not only have other reasonable helpers been
shown effective for a broad range of problems in past studies, BUT ALSO:
"other helpers" (peer counselors or "paras"), used as a comparison group
to professionals (professionals who are licensed & grad.-trained), would
ETHICALLY only have to be NO WORSE than the NO TREATMENT groups (or
waitlist control groups) used today OR NO WORSE than the placebo
controls used today for the study to be considered ethical. *AS WITH*
the types of studies now done, clients treated by peer counselors OR
"paras" could be offered professional care AFTER the study. (Today
waitlist people wait up to around 3 months for treatment -- they just
wait until the other exactly equivalently disturbed group is treated.)

AGAIN: Without these studies we do NOT KNOW where professionals are
really needed or most needed. Areas where treatment developments are
most needed are not being identified. (I hope readers appreciate these
and other LIKELY negative effects ON CLIENTS of an inexcusable LACK of
work in certain, basic areas of FOUNDATION RESEARCH.) Also, a
reasonable, delineated mental health care SYSTEM (with a variety of
helpers or at least specializations) is NOT being developed. IT REALLY
CAN'T BE FROM ONE STANDPOINT: *BASIC FOUNDATION* RESEARCH IS
*NECESSARY*.  There are many things about which one cannot conclude
without clear research.

---------

Issue #2:  (not so cute title): "If you want to have a good
classification system (and you MUST if you want to be any kind of
scientist), THEN you must do work on making your diagnostic (or
classification) system understandable.  You must at the most basic level
set up definitions so people show agreement on diagnoses (or formal
classification)"  This requires research DEVELOPING interrater
reliability SURROUNDING the specific diagnostic criteria (PER SE) --
i.e. as written -- between each "revision" of said criteria.  This is
rarely done.

Regarding the therapists' major guide for objectivity, the Diagnostic
and Stat. Manual of the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc.: It is without question
that one could develop criteria-through-procedures that show MUCH better
inter-rater agreement than the DSM. The last time the Amer. Psychia.
Assoc. published and reported COLLECTED reliability data (within the DSM
itself (DSM III)), there was only a r=.7 correlation between clinicians
AS TO WHETHER a client had a disorder in the Mood Disorder GROUP (or
NOT). SIMILARLY, there was an equally low level of agreement on whether
a client had a disorder in an Anxiety CATEGORY (or NOT) (quite
inadequate!!). (Often there is disagreement on whether a disorder is an
Anxiety Disorder or a Mood Disorder.) AND this is all beside the issue
that today's "diagnoses" are possibly good for very little and possibly
often more destructive than constructive. VERY VERY little work was done
investigating the inter-rater reliability of criteria *between* DSM-III
and the meeting of the DSM-IV committee to define "new" diagnostic
"options." In fact, only 14 of the top 40 diagnoses had ANY inter-rater
reliability data generated on their criteria in the 15 years since
DSM-III (source: DSM-IV Sourcebook, Vol. 2). Judging by the "new" ICD-10
criteria and their inter-rater reliabilities, we can expect the DSM-IV
diagnostic criteria to show little better inter-rater reliabilities than
DSM-III (the DSM-IV criteria were made to be very similar and consistent
with ICD-10).

To comfort us in some way a number of therapists say "we don't like
diagnoses either." A GOOD RETORT:

I don't care about diagnoses, but you still need good definitions
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES YOU USE within an agency to have the minimum
science standard -- decent inter rater agreement. Otherwise you cannot
discuss anything clearly with any others (you can't communicate). I am
in no way comforted by the INDIVIDUAL therapist making his decisions in
idiosyncratic ways, with way too little accountability. (It is a
principle: power corrupts. Without accountability or communication you
will have an inappropriate degree of power BECAUSE it is in no way
appropriately negotiated, sanctioned, or scientifically monitored.)

I am quite aware that "therapists" often do not use the DSM.  They VERY
often do not use ANY proven diagnostic OR CLASSIFICATION system.  They
think what ever they want and do whatever they want.  I can't believe
that people can possibly be given doctorates in this area (esp.
given I have well shown that clinicians are in NO real sense whatsoever
"science-practitioner"  --  in NO sense at all).

See http://homepages.go.com/~psycadvoc/it.html   for more.

------

Issue #3:  (not cute at all) :
"Claims of Being "Science-Practitioners" are Fraudulent,
Misleading and Scientifically Unethical"

People of science should do the main basic science practices when and
where they can (e.g. in their own local agencies or professional
group).
To be a "science-practitioner" you must do some science practice, not
just read science (or in this case read a hodgepodge of poor science and
speculatively "extrapolate").

To be a "science-practitioner" you must clearly and regularly engage in
some science procedure.   Extrapolating from studies done in the
irony tower is NOT practicing science.  In fact, it is doing NOTHING
special OR professional at all.  Such a person is acting just as a lay
reader of science and unless the practitioner uses the results of the
single study  (or much more rare, a study program)
*directly* and in a controlled manner, he is only speculating.

In NO substantial way is their any truth to the claim that clinical
psychologists, etc. are science practitioners.  Clinical
psychologists do not have the discipline to establish good operational
definitions WITHIN AGENCIES (e.g. for defining (i.e. diagnosing)
personality disorders). NO PROGRESS CAN BE MADE UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES (and many other similar problems-in-science cases).

Because they are not scientists they cannot progress OR really work
well together. They cannot self-evaluate. DSM criteria are so far from
good operational definitions, I would not dignify them with the word
"criteria." I know of no counselor or agency that has made any credible
attempt at scientific respectability (or any that could be argued to be
doing such). It is simply pitiful and inexcusable. Practice, as is, is
actually an abuse of power and taking advantage of vulnerable
populations. Someday such practice may result in law suits. Using
diagnostic procedures that do lead to excellent inter-rater agreement is
certainly possible today, not only at some level but at a useful level.
At present counselors and therapists don't even respect each other.

Since I am trained in psychology myself I know what is meant when it is
said that therapists are "trained in scientific methods." Trouble is
they engage in no regular (much less integral) scientific PROCEDURES in
the normal or typical conduct of their work. This is true to such a
degree it is unacceptable. And it is true of all therapists I know of.
Again, their failure to develop operational definitions of personality
disorders that at least show excellent within agency inter-rater
reliability is an excellent illustration. There is correspondingly a
lack of proven agreement on the application of procedures (loosely called
"therapies") and on the assessment of results IN actual practice. The
field itself recognizes deficiencies in how "therapies" are considered
"validated." (Obviously with this problem most treatments should NOT be
termed "therapies.")

The fact that the idea of scientific procedure INTEGRAL in a therapist's
daily work makes no sense to many therapists is not surprising. THERE
ARE NONE!! I would hope you could see a problem there. While
psychologists hear a lot about scientific methods, they do not learn to
use them in an integrated and realistic way (even in the "ivory tower"). No
wonder when the controls of grad. school are gone and no others exist
(as it is with most therapists), even the mock "science" behavior no longer
occurs.  ...
...

My definition of minimally acting "in accord WITH science" is: that
one clearly makes use of a set of procedures (yielding determinations
and
clear actions), from diagnoses through treatment through assessment of
results, that *ALL* have shown or proven their inter-rater reliabilities
(start to finish at each step of the process). OR, at a minimum, demonstrating
MOVEMENT in this direction by working together with fellow professionals
and progressively demonstrating interrater reliabilities.
Achieving the objective indicated is analogous to good
diagnoses and treatment in medicine.  Respectable, systematic MOVEMENT
in this direction is essential (and the minimum) for anyone to validly
call themselves a "science-practitioner".  This does NOT go on today.

To be a scientist one must WORK WITH OTHERS in an integral
(day-to-day) way so better and better and more and more inter-rater
reliabilities are shown or so studies are replicated at a good rate.
And, all this should be linked to concrete
things that have been agreed upon as important and such a system of
proceeding should be linked to more and more good consequences (results)
and account for (and allow control of) more and more phenomenon. Then
you would be a science-practitioner, one who PRACTICES science oneself.

----

FOOTNOTE:

The way progress in developing "better"
diagnostic criteria proceeds today illustrates what is wrong with the
way things operate and are done today. It displays the lack of appreciation
for the grassroots INDUCTIVE work that, it seems to me, has to be done.
True, the "diagnostic options" decided on by the DSM COMMITTEES every
decade or so *are tested* AFTER THE FACT for inter-rater reliability.
BUT, the problem is:
Do you wait for rare committee meetings to try to piece together a set
of best "options" on a relatively rare basis OR do you strive for better
reliabilities for criteria *AND better criteria* more often, on a more
local level ?? Yes, PEOPLE must first have "guesses" about what might be
better criteria and *then* investigate them. BUT this need not ALL be
done by rare committees ALONE doing this work. Doing virtually all such
diagnostic development work JUST by committee (meeting every decade
or so) is loaded on a hypothetico-deductive side as opposed to a
grassroots, more inductive, discovery (and yes, trial and error)
approach.

One could argue that INDEED you DO (and MUST) **DISCOVER*** the
better criteria, rather than formulate them en masse in our heads during
"big committee" meetings. What our present attitude suggests, and what
is done now, is the figuring of nature out in our heads and then (only
afterward) testing your limited range of relatively constrained ideas.
Wouldn't it be better for some local consistent (**everyday**) work to
go on to find criteria that are understandable and show (demonstrate)
inter-rater reliabilities and also relate to disorders? SHOULDN'T THIS
AT LEAST BE DONE *IN ADDITION* TO THE inter-rater reliability work
associated every decade or so with "committee work" ? PRESENTLY THIS
IS NOT DONE, AND I WOULD ARGUE IS ONE BIG THING THAT HOLDS UP
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIELD. We are basically both being pompous and
pretentious, while at the same time abdicating basic science
responsibilities.


author: An Metet

subject: Re: Ans. to Science FAQs on Psychotherapy

text:
In articcle <[email]>
anonymous <[email]> warbled incoherently

[iow no change]

Here is an interesting paradox for you; you have failed
to provide empirical evidence by way of justification for your
wild, incoherent ramble; such proof would necessarily
have to come from the science of psychology (you are
making psychological statements about psychologists,
of an occupational nature - trained in that are you?); you
would therefore necessarily have to provide evidence
from that very discipline of which you are so envious,
dickless.

So the question I have to ask of you is, will you ever
provide people with evidence for your rubbish? For
your allegations about the apa, about psychology in
general, and about the people whom you smear?

I thought not. You can't. You are just another incompetent,
unstable, wildly ranting net kook who urgently needs
a psych eval.

Small wonder your wife refused to have you on the
deeds of your property. She probably remains with
you out of charity. I hope she has the sense to sleep
in a separate bed. I hope she had the sense to get
spayed when she discovered what a wild little piece
of shit you are, Brad L. Jesness.


author: [redacted]

text:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:27:58 -0500, An Metet
<[email]> wrote:

I just wish she would stop soliciting me for my,
"Daddy Love"
:-)

Crawdad (PhD) (RCA)         "Sometimes it just doesn't pay to chew
         <:((>>>><                 get up in the morning"
      www.cotse.com


author: Kali

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...

Hey, anonymous NOT BRAD poster! Brad doesn't have the capacity to
comprehend concepts like paradox. One must stick to a 3rd grade reading
level when addressing the fut. t Y p E  s L o W l Y, too.

Nevertheless, your post is right on and I thoroughly agree.

 you have failed

Evidence? There is NO GOOD EVIDENCE!!!

True, but maybe Brad's signed up for internet psychotherapy.

hmm... Similar to what I hear Brad cries out in the night, "Momma, oh
momma!" Especially when his "binky" falls out of his mouth.

Kali


author: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX

subject: RE: Niel Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle

text:
Yeah, me too. I was "grossed out" by Neil's personal attack but this is not
the first time this has happened on this list. I hope the list owner is
taking note of this unwarranted and really rude behaviour.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email] [mailto:[email]]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:10 PM
To: [email]
Subject: Niel Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle

Regarding Neil Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle.  I think Neil missed Ron's
point in a very big way.  Ron said he was being sarcastic and "ready to be
misunderstood".  OK, Neil jumped on this one and went overboard.  I usually
try to stay out of personal cross-exchanges, but Neil's post took the cake.
I thought this was a discussion group to share information, not get uncivil.
Sounds to me like someone else on this list is trying to attract attention
to themselves.

Is it too much to ask people to make it a habit to "reply to sender" rather
than to the whole list, when getting personal?

In case anyone misunderstands me, this is not a personal attack.  I'm just
asking for a little civility on the group.

By the way (excerpts from Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary):

"civil - polite, urbane"
"civility - politeness, consideration, courtesy"

Thank you,
Harry Pavulaan

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Neil Jones

text:
On 4 Jan, in article
     <[email]>
     [email] "Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX"
     wrote:

Norbert Kondla calls me "rude" for condemning someone who promotes (perhaps in
naive innocence) the removal of a scientific resource by promoting
pro-extinction ideas. I'd like to reply to this and a few of the other
accusations being made against me and then perhaps we can let this matter
rest. It is difficult to do this without some people, who put politeness
before logical accuracy, thinking I am being "personal". I think it is fair
to say that Mr Kondla and I "don't get on". He has a particular political
postition that he has promoted vociferously over the years
that I do not agree with. My interpretation of this is that he seems to give
succour and support (as of course free speech allows) to those who promote
the anti-conservation line.

Let me give you an example of
what I consider worse than rude. A few years ago we had a convicted wildlife
felon posting on this newsgroup. He with two others had been convicted of a
large list of crimes. In fact their criminal indictment ran to 85 pages.
This was a philatelic collector of the worse kind. This was no scientist, the
indictment was peppered with quotes containing the "Latin" names of numerous
species marked (SIC) because they had been misspelled. He had blatently traded
in endangered species, poached in national parks etc. and over 200 specimens
listed under CITES (The international treaty protecting endangered species)
were confiscated from him.

Unfortunately and to the dismay of many people on this list this young man
decided, a few days after his conviction, to "go postal" on the net with a
ludicrous conspiracy theory. His conviction he claimed was the result of a
massive conspiracy to get him. The government agents and lawyers who brought
him to book were all crooks. John Shuey and Paul Opler, two respected
lepidopterists, were criminals as were most of the members of the NABA board.
Of course this plainly delusional and in no way true at all.
Part of the eccentric argument put forward by the young man was a series of
peculiar anti-conservation statments attacking the US Endangered Species Act.
I don't intend to name the young man. Most people here will know who he is.
For those who do not I suggest searching the archives for the phrase
"he who must not be named". People are reluctant to name him in case he
returns and I also have some sympathy out of simple humanity for someone, who
had by all accounts always been eccentric, but who had just been left alone
in the world after the death of his father while this was going on. The
stress of this is what may have finally deprived the poor fellow of his reason.

Why am I mentioning this? Well Dr Kondla didn't find this anti-conservation
criminal rude (although many others did) and, it seems, was one of the few people to give
 credence to his conspiracy theory. It appears this is a political position.
This may be seen as a personal attack but of course Dr Kondla's attacks on me
are a personal one too. Before people judge who is unreasonable they need some
background on previous disagreements and some insight into the political
differences between us.


author: Paul Cherubini

subject: Re: Niel Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle

text:
Kondla, Norbert wrote:

Neil has personally attacked me this week too in the same general manner
as yourself, Ron Gatrelle, Mark Walker, etc:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Mr Cherubini's affiliations
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:06:05 GMT
From: Neil Jones <[email]>
Reply-To: [email]
To: [email]

We have been hearing a lot from Mr Paul Cherubini.
I know that some people will know about his affiliations but others will not.
It is of course important that ad-hominem attacks are not made. This is not
my intention. However, it is important for people to know when some one is
dissembling about their affiliations. It is also important for people to be
aware of the eccentric world view of someone making these outrageous claims.

My Cherubini's main role in life seems to be to act as a political activist
for the "wise use" movement. This political movement is deliberately named to
confuse and is actual aim is vehemently anti-conservation. It is perhaps best
described in the words of one of its gurus Ron Arnold.

"Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want
people to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely."

Mr Cherubini seems to oppose _all_ conservation effort _on_principle_. He has
become well known on other lists for spreading conspiracy theories which in
the main seem to consist of attacks on "evil" Ph.D scientists.

He has spread falsehoods and smears about people engaged in conservation. For
example, when a keen conservationist appealed for people to help save the
Palos Verdes Blue (which is arguably the world's rarest butterfly) from a
construction development on its last remaining site, he immediately attacked
her as doing it for money. (No money was asked for people were just asked to
write letters and the person concerned is in fact a professional choreographer
who couldn't benefit financially from it.)

Similarly he has attacked efforts to conserve the endangered Quino Checkerspot
with false information.

He says that people don't like him because he kills insects. Well actually the
truth is people don't like him because he tries to help make them _extinct_.!
No one will be able to study them then.

Many people will remember his attempt to misuse satellite photographs to claim
there was no deforestation on the Mexican hibernation roosts of the monarch
butterfly. Essentially his claim , if taken as honest, would boil down to the
claim that low resolution photographs showed _more_ detail than high
resolution ones.

This distortion of data is a frequent feature of Mr Cherubini's postings.
Time and time again you find that people have dicovered he is misquoting
or selectively quoting to misrepresent.

If people want to know more about this issue it would be interesting to read
the new book "Four Wings and a Prayer" by Sue Halpern.

The following extracts about Mr. Cherubini are interesting.

Here Mr. Cherubini is talking about how he came to form his beliefs.

"... I got depressed, seriously depressed. And my parents were having
marital problems and the psychiatrist wanted to interview me to get a sense
about what their problems were but then he realized I had problems too, and he
 said "You're depressed, why do you think you have no future?" and I said
"because these scientists have Ph.Ds," and he said ,
"That's not right, you're paranoid,"

 It goes on but experienced Cherubini watchers will recognise the theme.

Another extract is this.

"We went to Jack-in-the-Box for lunch. Paul explained how low-fat foods were
unhealthy but no one could say that out loud in public because to do so would
be to take on a huge part of the economy....... He looked normal but his
ideas seemed a little off kilter, tending toward the second gunman/trilateral
commission/ Vince Foster conspiracy side of things."

Read the book to get the full story it is most interesting.


author: Patrick Foley

subject: It is Paul Ehrlich's fault!

text:
I blame Paul Ehrlich for all the embarrassingly dumb posts to the Leps
list this year (2002). If only Paul could control himself, we could too.

Patrick
[email]

1_iron wrote:

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


text:
On 5 Jan, in article <[email]>
     [email] "Mike Soukup" wrote:

Ignoring the personal _opinions_ about me that are not being backed up by
_facts_, ( And the point that no one has been able to _factually_ demonstrate
that anything I have said is _logically_ incorrect.)

I will debate your point _logically_ looking at the _facts_ and _opinions_.

A few _facts_ both smallpox and polio are not bacteria. They are viruses.
The correct singular form is "bacterium".

 Is this a "bad" thing??  I think not.

As an active conservationist I can say that that _opinion_ is wrong.
It is a fundamental tenet of conservation that we do not know how  the planet
works and we are not in control so we need to be careful. It is one example of
the "precautionary principle". Doctors have a similar one for treating patients
because their scientific training has taught them that they do know everything
about how the body works. It is so old that it is often quoted in Latin as
"Primum non nocere" or "first do no harm".
Now if you can produce some _facts_ to establish that your _opinion_ is
correct and that mine is not then we can debate the matter to establish
which _opinion_ is _factually_ correct.

  VERY egotistical.  And, also, ludicrous.

Conservationists would agree this point. This is why we believe we shouldn't
take parts out of the engine when we don't fully know what they do.

My _opinion_ is that Rush Limbaugh is a useless source of information.
I believe that this _opinion_ is _factually_ correct based on _logic_.

Rush Limbaugh makes a number of statements that I could pick on but let's just
take one.

"What the environmentalists are saying,  in effect, is that some
trees are better than others.  Trees that have been planted by man
are not as worthy or valuable as those that grow in 'virgin' forests.
What is a virgin forest anyway?  Most trees live for only a couple of
hundred years and then die.  No tree lives forever."

So his _opinion_ is that there is no difference between virgin and secondary
forest. This _opinion's_ validity may be examined by determining whether it is
_logically_ correct.

Now here are the _facts_.

Virgin forests are forests untouched by humans.  In the
Northwest, they are mostly old-growth forests, featuring towering
stands of trees, 200 to over 1,000 years old.  These trees are
known to harbor a number of endangered or threatened species,
among them (but not limited to) the Northern spotted owl.

So the _facts_ are in contradiction to Limbaugh's _opinion_.
Therefore Limbaugh is wrong. If you can produce _facts_ to say that I
am wrong we will debate it.

Now we are at the position where we know that good old Rush giving out
_opinions_ that are not in accord with the _facts_.

Now there are two posibilities one is that he is _lying_. In that he knows
what is saying is wrong. The second is that he is _incompetant_ in that
he is stating facts that are by rational examination incorrect but does not
know that he is doing so . (For logical completeness there
is the third that he is insane but I think we can discount that. :-))

Given that Rush Limbaugh's _opinions_ are _logically_ riddled with similar
holes, We can establish the _fact_ that he is not a reliable source of
information.

In fact Rush Limbaugh's comment on the Spotted Owl in his first book was,
"If the owl can't adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it!"

I think we must agree on this since it is in _logical_ opposition to your
earlier statements in your posting.

I think therefore _logically_ you should stop paying attention to Rush
Limbaugh's rhetoric.

This is your _opinion_, but it is not _factually_ correct. An examination of the
archive will show that I never mentioned Hitler.

Incidentally (and jocularly) there is a long tradition on the net that the
first person to mention Hitler in a heated debate has lost the argument. :-)

An awful lot of people don't seem to have examined carefully what I said.
Ron Gatrelle was rather offensive and pushed rather a lot of mental
"buttons" with me. Internet trolls are good at this.


author: Mike Soukup

text:
I have not followed this thread closely for many reasons.  However, my two cents from far-far
out in right field is this:  Extincion - whether we like it or not, is the natural order of
ALL living things.  If I could stop that, the first thing I would do would be to stop my own
impending extinction!!!  There are millions of more species that have gone extinct than there
are species living on the earth today....and that's just on one measly little planet in a
backwater solar system in the boondocks of one of the outer spiral arms of one of the smaller
galaxies in the universe.  Had the dinosaurs not gone extinct, we would not be here now.  So,
in that case, I would think maybe Neil would want to consider the value of extinction.  For
instance, I believe that smallpox or polio or  some other bacteria was "made extinct" and is
only now preserved in CDC labs and such.  Is this a "bad" thing??  I think not.
    Once again, I think many conservationists are blinded to thier own impotence.  They think
humans have control over the planet.  VERY egotistical.  And, also, ludicrous.  That said, I
consider myself a conservationist.  I do everything I can in my little sphere to keep things
going.  But, I am also a realist.  Trying to maintain the diversity of our flora and fauna as
is is as impossible as trying to stop the earth's rotation.  You can't do it.  It's bigger
than you.  And, once again, I have to point out that we are part of nature - not separate and
above it - or different from it - but merely a part of it.  I've stated it before and it
bears repeating.  We are not the driver of this car.  We aren't even really passengers....we
are part of the car.  And, even if we are the engine or the steering wheel....I still don't
think we are the ones deciding where the vehicle is going to go!  And, thinking we ARE in
control is like the steering wheel thinking it's driving.

Oh, and the ad hominem attacks and linking people with listening to Rush Limbaugh "don't make
it".  See, first of all, if everyone on this list actually listened to Rush for 3 weeks, then
listened to Neil for 3 weeks, I think they would think Rush makes ALOT more sense and is much
more "mainstream"..  And, if the fascist name calling, Hitler references are ALL the tools
that one has resort to, then you have lost the rational argument - and are, in fact, wrong.

I only wish I had followed more closely to see where everyone stands....but the holidays
REALLY mess with my routine!!!

Cherubini wrote:


author: Felix Sperling

subject: Re: Niel Jones' responses

text:
First, my apologies to everyone for inadvertently referring to
another person called Neil in my last posting. I meant Neil Jones.

Since I am on your screen, I feel that this much-flogged issue should
not rest with the the most recent postings of Neil Jones. First , I
commend his effort to employ logic in his new postings. However, I
will argue that his logic and argumentation have flaws.

First, it is simply not a good strategy in rhetoric and logical
argumentation to nit-pick at peripheral points right at the
beginning. It is true that smallpox and polio are not caused by
bacteria, but this list is made up of lots of people without formal
biology training and Neil would be better off to just let that pass
with a gracious correction. By focusing on that rather than the key
point that some kinds of extinction are desirable, Neil inadvertently
gives credibility to that argument.

Second, Neil disagrees point blank with the factual basis of the
statement that "many conservationists are blinded to their own
impotence". My reaction is maybe. And maybe not. I recall an
interview I had in 1993 on national radio where the environmentalist
interviewer took strong offence to my statement that I wasn't
absolutely sure that we were to blame for Boloria acrocnema looking
like it was about to be squeezed off its relict mountaintop sites by
global warming. This was 1993, and she was incensed that I would be
equivocal about the root cause of global warming (not the observed
fact of increasing temperatures), and called me "arrogant". I
responded, as gently as I could, that we may not be that
all-powerful, and that I felt that it was a case of humility to
recognize that. She abruptly stopped the interview. Now I am by no
means an apologist for the rapacious environmental practices that we
see across the planet, and with new evidence I am convinced of the
importance of our role in global warming. But my point is that I have
had experiences, and in fact many of them, that support Mike Soukop's
statement about many (notice he didn't say *most*) conservationists
being blinded to their own impotence.

Third, I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I have no
intention of starting now. But Neil's attempt to counter Limbaugh's
argument is not good logic, and thereby again only serves to boost
the credibility of the opposing argument. Limbaugh said that
"environmentalists are saying .. that some trees are better than
others" and says, in effect, that old, virgin forests are no big
deal. Neil countered by saying that virgin forests are untouched by
humans, very old, and ecologically important to endangered species,
but he still didn't get the point. Limbaugh said that those are not
the most important factors in valuing trees. So Neil needs to say
*why* old trees, untouched forests, and endangered species are
valuable. Instead he says that Limbaugh may be a liar. Sorry, but
that is just not going to cut the mustard as a logical argument,
because it evades the point of Limbaugh's expression of value.

Finally, it is true that Neil did not mention Hitler by name. But he
did mention Ghengis Khan and Attila the Hun and that amounts to the
same sort of thing. Again, this sort of nit-picking diversion from
the central argument is not going to win a logical argument.

I will not indulge myself by responding at equal length to Neil's
other postings, including his rude response to Rene Boutin on
Cherubini (what good can it really accomplish to say "Listen very
carefully I shall say this only once!" ?) Instead I think, based on
what I have seen on Leps-l, that there is a strong resemblance
between Neil Jones and Cherubini in their use of inappropriate logic
and vitriolic rhetoric. But Cherubini seems to be better at keeping
his cool under fire. That is really too bad, because I am no fan of
much of what he says. I realize that it takes a lot of emotional
energy to counter this sort of thing, but I sincerely hope that Neil
will continue in his effort to use logic, and to hone his use of
logic, to counter such arguments. To do anything else is to give
credibility to those arguments.

Enough. Now I'll off this list for a loooong time; starting tomorrow
I get to preach to 450 Intro Bio students.

Felix Sperling

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


text:
Mike Soukup, you've got smart brains. Wish I had said that.

Jim Taylor
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mike Soukup
  To: [email]
  Cc: [email]
  Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 6:34 PM
  Subject: Re: Niel Jones' response to Ron Gatrelle

  I have not followed this thread closely for many reasons.  However, my two cents from far-far out in right field is this:  Extincion - whether we like it or not, is the natural order of ALL living things.  If I could stop that, the first thing I would do would be to stop my own impending extinction!!!  There are millions of more species that have gone extinct than there are species living on the earth today....and that's just on one measly little planet in a backwater solar system in the boondocks of one of the outer spiral arms of one of the smaller galaxies in the universe.  Had the dinosaurs not gone extinct, we would not be here now.  So, in that case, I would think maybe Neil would want to consider the value of extinction.  For instance, I believe that smallpox or polio or  some other bacteria was "made extinct" and is only now preserved in CDC labs and such.  Is this a "bad" thing??  I think not.
      Once again, I think many conservationists are blinded to thier own impotence.  They think humans have control over the planet.  VERY egotistical.  And, also, ludicrous.  That said, I consider myself a conservationist.  I do everything I can in my little sphere to keep things going.  But, I am also a realist.  Trying to maintain the diversity of our flora and fauna as is is as impossible as trying to stop the earth's rotation.  You can't do it.  It's bigger than you.  And, once again, I have to point out that we are part of nature - not separate and above it - or different from it - but merely a part of it.  I've stated it before and it bears repeating.  We are not the driver of this car.  We aren't even really passengers....we are part of the car.  And, even if we are the engine or the steering wheel....I still don't think we are the ones deciding where the vehicle is going to go!  And, thinking we ARE in control is like the steering wheel thinking it's driving.
  Oh, and the ad hominem attacks and linking people with listening to Rush Limbaugh "don't make it".  See, first of all, if everyone on this list actually listened to Rush for 3 weeks, then listened to Neil for 3 weeks, I think they would think Rush makes ALOT more sense and is much more "mainstream"..  And, if the fascist name calling, Hitler references are ALL the tools that one has resort to, then you have lost the rational argument - and are, in fact, wrong.

  I only wish I had followed more closely to see where everyone stands....but the holidays REALLY mess with my routine!!!

  Cherubini wrote:

    Kondla, Norbert wrote:
    Neil has personally attacked me this week too in the same general manner
    as yourself, Ron Gatrelle, Mark Walker, etc:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subject: Mr Cherubini's affiliations
    Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:06:05 GMT
    From: Neil Jones <[email]>
    Reply-To: [email]
    To: [email]

    We have been hearing a lot from Mr Paul Cherubini.
    I know that some people will know about his affiliations but others will not.
    It is of course important that ad-hominem attacks are not made. This is not
    my intention. However, it is important for people to know when some one is
    dissembling about their affiliations. It is also important for people to be
    aware of the eccentric world view of someone making these outrageous claims.

    My Cherubini's main role in life seems to be to act as a political activist
    for the "wise use" movement. This political movement is deliberately named to
    confuse and is actual aim is vehemently anti-conservation. It is perhaps best
    described in the words of one of its gurus Ron Arnold.

    "Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want
    people to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely."

    Mr Cherubini seems to oppose _all_ conservation effort _on_principle_. He has
    become well known on other lists for spreading conspiracy theories which in
    the main seem to consist of attacks on "evil" Ph.D scientists.

    He has spread falsehoods and smears about people engaged in conservation. For
    example, when a keen conservationist appealed for people to help save the
    Palos Verdes Blue (which is arguably the world's rarest butterfly) from a
    construction development on its last remaining site, he immediately attacked
    her as doing it for money. (No money was asked for people were just asked to
    write letters and the person concerned is in fact a professional choreographer
    who couldn't benefit financially from it.)

    Similarly he has attacked efforts to conserve the endangered Quino Checkerspot
    with false information.

    He says that people don't like him because he kills insects. Well actually the
    truth is people don't like him because he tries to help make them _extinct_.!
    No one will be able to study them then.

    Many people will remember his attempt to misuse satellite photographs to claim
    there was no deforestation on the Mexican hibernation roosts of the monarch
    butterfly. Essentially his claim , if taken as honest, would boil down to the
    claim that low resolution photographs showed _more_ detail than high
    resolution ones.

    This distortion of data is a frequent feature of Mr Cherubini's postings.
    Time and time again you find that people have dicovered he is misquoting
    or selectively quoting to misrepresent.

    If people want to know more about this issue it would be interesting to read
    the new book "Four Wings and a Prayer" by Sue Halpern.

    The following extracts about Mr. Cherubini are interesting.

    Here Mr. Cherubini is talking about how he came to form his beliefs.

    "... I got depressed, seriously depressed. And my parents were having
    marital problems and the psychiatrist wanted to interview me to get a sense
    about what their problems were but then he realized I had problems too, and he
     said "You're depressed, why do you think you have no future?" and I said
    "because these scientists have Ph.Ds," and he said ,
    "That's not right, you're paranoid,"

     It goes on but experienced Cherubini watchers will recognise the theme.

    Another extract is this.

    "We went to Jack-in-the-Box for lunch. Paul explained how low-fat foods were
    unhealthy but no one could say that out loud in public because to do so would
    be to take on a huge part of the economy....... He looked normal but his
    ideas seemed a little off kilter, tending toward the second gunman/trilateral
    commission/ Vince Foster conspiracy side of things."

    Read the book to get the full story it is most interesting.

    --
    Neil Jones- [email] http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
    "At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
    butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
    National Nature Reserve

     ------------------------------------------------------------

       For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

       http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Chris J. Durden

subject: Re: Niel Jones' responses

text:
Thank you Felix Sperling for a response to Neil Jones, that I think a lot
of the rest of us will agree with. I cherish both virgin old-growth
vegetation and virgin successional vegetation, they are home to different
sets of equally valuable animal species. There is just more diversity in
the successional species set. Neither Rush nor Neil seem right on this one.
.................Chris Durden

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Anne Kilmer

subject: Re: Neil Jones' responses

text:
Chris J. Durden wrote:

Neil is in great distress, watching the little beautiful places around
him die, replaced with urban and suburban squalor, non-native weeds
(Buddleja, for godsake) that have muscled their way in and crowded out
the choice little natives. He is watching the loss of some species,
replaced by others more common, more easily supported by a wholesale
environment.

I, too, am in distress. I am watching all this happen in Ireland, as
well as in South Florida, and there is no euphoric that will effectively
suppress my horror, pain, rage and guilt. I am equally distressed at the
huge supermarket that has been built in Westport, Mayo, Ireland,
replacing my favorite little hardware stores, one of which was good on
tools; the other paint, and lessons on how to use the tools.
The fellow who smokes his own salmon is hanging on by an eyelash, he's
only there sometimes, in his tiny shop, and it's easier to buy my smoked
salmon from the supermarket, so I do that. This is a sin and I do it
knowingly, just as I drop the jam jar into the trash instead of rinsing
it and putting it into the recycling. It is a sin, and I am sorry for it.

It is one thing to sin secretly and to repent. It is another to claim
that sin is a virtuous act, and to recommend it to the innocent who come
asking.

There is, we are promised, a special hell for people who falsify
results, lead people astray, poison the babies' milk with formaldehyde
and claim it's a health benefit ...

  It is not the province of this list to assign people, whether
subscribing to this list or not, to that special hell. But please,
understand our pain when we see someone weighing short-term personal
gain against long-term general good ...

There was a fellow a while ago, on this list, who explained that we are
not really losing species for, although some go extinct, we are
continually creating more species ... yes, folks, all those special dogs
and cats and sheep can make up to us for the flower fly and the snail
darter. (Neil didn't like him, either, as I recall.)

The leopard does not change his spots nor the Ethiopian his skin. Paul
Cherubini will continue to tout DDT and sing the praises of eucalyptus;
Ron Gatrelle will continue to toss his hat in the ring, Mark will quote
inflammatory sections of the Bible (but takes us along on wonderful road
trips); Ken Philip will continue to provide the voice of reason when he
can't stand it another minute, Chris Durden will provide balance ...
Balance, that's the word I was looking for.

But we all meet in that bloody ground where we shop at the supermarket
and mourn Vincent Bourke's shop, so soon to go under.
Few of us are comforted for the loss of the Xerces blue, by the fact
that the exotic eucalyptus is just the place for the Monarch to roost.

It is perhaps as well that we have among us at least one voice that
defends and praises change, because after all, change is what we are are
about, we human beings, and perhaps it is as well to take an honest look
at it.

Like it or not, the train has left the station, and somebody here had
better learn how to drive. This sucker is a space ship, changes are
taking place, and the matter at hand is that we must decide what we're
taking with us, whether we're headed for Mall World tunneled into a
snowball, or learning to control the planet's weather. Because anything
we don't pack, it ain't going.

On a trip like this, we need Paul, if only because he makes the
scientists take the time to pause and explain to the rest of us why he
is so disastrously wrong. Or, occasionally, actually quite right.

We also need Neil, but Neil, Neil, you promised, keep it to your web
page, just refer people there. I was around when He Who May Not Be Named
was posting to this list, as part of his Community Service after his
conviction ... and let's just leave it on the archives, please, we don't
want to hear it all again.

As part of my plan for Mall World, I'll be needing all those breeders to
produce suitable butterflies for the plazas. What an opportunity to save
all the other species as well?
Let's not need to do that. But let us not eliminate the part of the
population that will be able to do that, if need arises.
Peace
Anne Kilmer
South Florida

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus

subject: Re: Neil Jones' responses

text:
As usual, _very_ well said, Anne.
And if anyone doubts if conservation is needed, please come and visit
Flanders, where only about 10% of the butterflies still occur that were
there a 100 years ago.

And a happy new year to all of you.

Guy.

----- Original Message -----
From: Anne Kilmer <[email]>
To: <[email]>
Cc: <[email]>
Sent: maandag 7 januari 2002 15:30
Subject: Re: Neil Jones' responses

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Ernie Wright

subject: References for date of La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1?

text:
Anyone know of recent work on dating La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1?  I've
been searching just about every way I know how, but haven't found any
citations.  A number of secondary sources express the date in language
that seems to imply recent work's been done, e.g.

    "Recent dating of this site ... around 60,000 years":
    http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/lachap.htm

    The oddly specific 56,000 to 47,000:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/skulls.html
    http://www.originsnet.org/eramp.html

but the dates don't agree (in the unimportant sense of apparently not
having been copied from the same source), and no primary sources are
offered for them.  Online journal searches aren't turning anything up
either.

- Ernie                                  http://home.comcast.net/~erniew


author: Daryl Habel

subject: Re: References for date of La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1?

text:
Ernie Wright <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

At the end of Stringer and Gamble's (1993) book "In Search of the
Neanderthals", there is a list of selected absolute dates, which gives
an ESR (electron spin resonance) determination for La Chapelle that
matches your "oddly specific 56,000 to 47,000", and references Grun
and Stringer, 1991.

Apparently (I haven't checked):

R. Grun and C. Stringer. "Electron spin resonance dating and the
evolution
of modern humans." Archaeometry, 33: 153-199.

I don't know of any other, or more recent determination.

Dar


text:
Daryl Habel wrote:

Thanks Dar!  That looks like a highly likely candidate.  I appreciate
you finding and posting it.

- Ernie                                  http://home.comcast.net/~erniew


author: Peter de Blanc

subject: NERVA nuclear reactors

text:
Does anyone know how big (volume and mass) the reactors used for NERVA were?
How small could a reactor be made for NTR?


author: Jonathan Wilson

subject: Re: NERVA nuclear reactors

text:
"Peter de Blanc" <[email]> wrote in message
news:z7l_9.148$[email]...
were?

Well, addressing the second question, I found a document at the Univ. of
Florida (US) at
http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/research/nuclear_thermal_prop/nuclear_design_analys
is_of_a_slh.html

which posits a solid-core NTR using interlocking (Lego-like) fuel wafers of
pseudo-ternary carbides of uranium. These have very high melting point and
much greater thermal conductivity than the uranium oxides. Guesses of
characteristics were:
                    Core size 0.5m wide, 0.5m high
                    Thrust 50k pounds
                    Isp = 930
                    Core temperature 3000K
If I recall correctly mass was not specified.

According to documents I found at NASA once upon a time (but have lost the
URL for),
a 'nuclear light bulb' (uranium plasma inside quartz "light bulb") gas-core
engine with 44.7kN thrust, 15.1 tonnes mass has been designed with t/w of
0.3, specific impulse of 1550 lbf-s/lbm to fit in a shuttle cargo bay. Of
course, the fuel would have to come up separately, presumably on an
expendable launcher.

I have seen others (an Andrews Aerospace study comes to mind) which guess
that a gas-core open-cycle (U235 retained by combination of flow dynamics
and magnetic containment) engine could be made quite small - 0.5m diameter
"combustion" chamber, surrounded by a beryllium neutron reflector and a
steel pressure vessel. Without pumps, shielding and plumbing, 5500kg. Design
goals were for a 1-in-500 loss of uranium mass (one kg of U235 lost for each
500kg of LH2 pumped through) and 10:1 t/w ratio. And of course, at the end
of each burn you just blow the fissionables out the tailpipe.

Regards,
Jonathan Wilson


author: Christopher P. Winter

subject: Re: NERVA nuclear reactors

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:21:17 -0600, "Jonathan Wilson"
<[email]> wrote:

    That URL is out of date. I believe the one you want is

	http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/library/docs/gouw_2000.pdf

    This is from memory, so may not be accurate. If not, go to the main
page at http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/research/ and look for the external
library link.

Chris


subject: Vegans' elevated heart risk requires omega-3s and B12

text:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/acs-veh020111.php

People who follow a vegan lifestyle strict vegetarians who try to eat
no meat or animal products of any kind may increase their risk of
developing blood clots and atherosclerosis or "hardening of the
arteries," which are conditions that can lead to heart attacks and
stroke. That's the conclusion of a review of dozens of articles
published on the biochemistry of vegetarianism during the past 30
years. The article appears in ACS' bi-weekly Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry.

Duo Li notes in the review that meat eaters are known for having a
significantly higher combination of cardiovascular risk factors than
vegetarians. Lower-risk vegans, however, may not be immune. Their
   diets tend to be lacking several key nutrients including iron, zinc,
   vitamin B12, and omega-3 fatty acids. While a balanced vegetarian
diet
   can provide enough protein, this isn't always the case when it comes
   to fat and fatty acids. As a result, vegans tend to have elevated
   blood levels of homocysteine and decreased levels of HDL, the "good"
   form of cholesterol. Both are risk factors for heart disease.

   It concludes that there is a strong scientific basis for vegetarians
   and vegans to increase their dietary omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin
   B12 to help contend with those risks. Good sources of omega-3s
include
   salmon and other oily fish, walnuts and certain other nuts. Good
   sources of vitamin B12 include seafood, eggs, and fortified milk.
   Dietary supplements also can supply these nutrients.


author: Taka

subject: Re: Vegans' elevated heart risk requires omega-3s and B12

text:
On Feb 3, 6:50 am, [email] wrote:

Surely vegans may consume larger amounts of Omega-6 seed oils, like in
the southern India.  Hence they are lacking more Omega-3 to "balance"
it.

Taka


author: montygraham

text:
It's the usual science-aganda, Taka.  I was a vegan for about 12
years.  Then I had problems due to low stomach acid production and had
many tests done.  There was no sign of atherosclerosis, according to a
vascular MRI I had.  In any case, we know the omeag 3 claim is
nonsense, but low B12 certainly could be a problem (I used to take a
multi-vitamin that was iron free).  Proper controls are required,
which they obviously didn't do, because they assumed that omega 3s are
essential, rather than having a Mead acid control group.


author: Pushpinder Singh

subject: Re: Minsky vs Penrose

text:
This is directed at Jack Sarfatti and others who are looking for a
quantum level theory of mind:

Just what sort of explanatory power do your theories have?  All I
have seen offered is a rather bizarre explanation of how we make
decisions, i.e. via making use of information coming from the future
(albeit in a parallel universe) after the decision has been made;
so in effect, the decision comes from nowhere!  Does this really make
sense to you?  And if it does, explain to me why we don't always make
the right decision, given that we have this level of foresight?  It
would seem that evolution would have taken extraordinary advantage of
this ability -- in fact, why should brains exist at all if the right
action can be taken with only the little machinery needed to tap into
the future?

Also, you think that consciousness has something to do with violating
the uncertainty principle.  The only basis for this that I can see is
that you have drawn an analogy between the supposedly subjective
nature of our experiences and the hidden portions of the universe
-- they both defy objective observation, so they must be related ?!

In replying to Minsky's article, I think you missed the point entirely.
If you want people to pay attention to your theories, you need to start
developing answers to questions like these:

Marvin Minsky writes:

-push


author: Bill Clark

subject: Re: Minsky vs Penrose

text:
[email] (Pushpinder Singh) writes:

Much better powers than non-quantum theories have in connection with rather
deep philosophical and logical issues.

You seemed to have missed the point on this one entirely (and please
excuse me if I'm wrong on this).  Explaining just how we make decisions
is difficult if not even impossible in non-quantum physics.  Most
adherents to naturalism look at decisions in terms of possible outcomes,
rather than examining the issue of how we make them.  Introspect for a moment
about how extraordinary a thing a decision is for a moment.  That the concept
of a "decision" exists at all -- without attachment to any particular
instance of possible outcomes -- should make obvious the fact that what is
going on is dependent upon a process that cannot be explained solely by
reference to classical-scale phenomena.  Explanation of ideals by means
of "essence" or some mathematical subset of finite classical events or
structures ignore the paradoxical fact that we do seem to be able to
perform computational feats that stretch (some would say surpass) the
reasonable limits of a structure such as the brain.  Additionally, classical
limits on the logical structure defining consciousness demand that it be
(at least eventually) epiphenomenal -- something that hardly seems
consistent with introspective analysis.  Without quantum mechanics,
philosophy of mind and the physical sciences are at odds with each other
over the issue of the nature of mind.

That its a "level" of foresight is exactly the point, and have you forgotten
that quantum mechanical equations are usually expressed in terms of
probability functions?

And from where would this machinery come?  More to the point, isn't the very
*point* of AI research to do just this?

It's called Occam's Razor (after William of Occam, I believe).

And you think you can answer them without quantum mechanics?  Generations
of philosophers would disagree.

bill clark
rutgers university


author: Brian J Flanagan

subject: Re: Minsky vs Penrose

text:
On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Pushpinder Singh wrote:

Push! Buddy! Where ya been? A number of excellent points, as per usual.
Indeed, of what use is a theory with no explanatory power? Predictive
power is even more impressive, as when Dirac predicted the existence of
antimatter on the basis of symmetry arguments or when Uncle Albert
predicted the deflection of photons by gravity. Or then there's
Gell-Mann's successful prediction of the properties of a particle that
had yet to be detected, this last on the basis of group-theoretic
considerations, if I am not mistaken.

All I > have seen offered is a rather bizarre explanation of how we make >
decisions, i.e. via making use of information coming from the future >
(albeit in a parallel universe) after the decision has been made; > so in
effect, the decision comes from nowhere!  Does this really make > sense to
you?

I confess I don't know what the others are on about here.

It seems to me (and I know Crick has similar notions) that so potentially
complex a process as human decision making might not yield so easily to
analysis (of mind) as so (relatively) straightforward a process as vision.
In the realm of vision we have well-understood theories (QED) to guide us,
theories which incorporate volumes of results & hard data in simple,
elegant mathematical language--all of which helps to constrain the
universe of possible solutions, or so it seems to me, insofar as neural
activity ought to be able to describe NNs in terms of EM interactions.
That the mathematics turns out to be agreeable to the above is suggestive
or persuasive, but (as has correctly been noted), not conclusive. An
octogon is not an octopus.

And if it does, explain to me why we don't always make > the right
decision, given that we have this level of foresight?

BJ> I am also in need of clarification re: what is being asserted.

Also, you think that consciousness has something to do
with violating > the uncertainty principle.  The only basis for this that
I can see is > that you have drawn an analogy between the supposedly
subjective > nature of our experiences and the hidden portions of the
universe > -- they both defy objective observation, so they must be
related ?! > >

Again, I am unsure what is being asserted by the others--I am not always
conversant in the literature they cite--but I am of the opinion (& I know
Einstein agrees with me on this one) that our "subjective" experience is
very much an "objective" feature of the universe. I don't know whether
you are thinking of "hidden variables" theories, but my own idea is that
they are not "hidden" at all, but manifest to us in perception &
coordinated with the (state vector) geometry of photons.

In replying to Minsky's article, I think you missed the
point entirely. If you want people to pay attention to your theories,
you need to start developing answers to questions like these:

BJ> I love it when you're so masterful.

How do you choose which words to say? > > How do you recognize what you
see? > > How do you locate your memories? > > Why does Seeing feel
different from Hearing? > > Why does Red look so different from Green? > >
Why are emotions so hard to describe? > > What does "meaning" mean? > >
How does reasoning work? > > How do we make generalizations? > > How do we
get (make) new ideas? > > How does Commonsense reasoning work? > > Why do
we like pleasure more than pain? > > What are pain and pleasure, anyway? >

BJ> Excellent questions from the philosopher of AI, coincidentally my own
spiritual father, who ... but that's another story.


author: Inman Harvey

subject: Re: Minsky vs Penrose

text:
Bill Clark ([email]) wrote:
: ....
: You seemed to have missed the point on this one entirely (and please
: excuse me if I'm wrong on this).  Explaining just how we make decisions
: is difficult if not even impossible in non-quantum physics.  Most
: adherents to naturalism look at decisions in terms of possible outcomes,
: rather than examining the issue of how we make them.  Introspect for a
: moment
: about how extraordinary a thing a decision is for a moment.  That the
: concept
: of a "decision" exists at all -- without attachment to any particular
: instance of possible outcomes -- should make obvious the fact that what is
: going on is dependent upon a process that cannot be explained solely by
: reference to classical-scale phenomena.
: ....

I fail to find the concept of a decision quite so extraordinary.

If I put a coin into a coke-machine, it decides whether it is a legitimate
coin, and on the basis of this decision either produces a can of coke or
rejects the coin. The decision is made by some mechanism which checks the
coin's weight, dimensions etc., in a way adequately describable by classical
non-quantum physics.

The coke-machine's decision is a trivially simple one, in comparison to the
far more complex one I make in deciding whether I want a Coke or a Pepsi;
factors far more complex than the characteristics of a coin then come into
play. So one must assume the mechanism involved is enormously more complex,
but it is not obvious to me that the '...process ... cannot be explained
solely by reference to classical-scale phenomena.'

I suspect that some people want to bring in quantum physics because they
reason like this:
1) Anything mechanism that can be explained in a classical fashion is
deterministic. (..the coke-machine..)
2) To make a decision you must have free will, which is incompatible with
determinism.
3) Therefore the coke-machine is not REALLY making a decision, whereas us
humans REALLY do.
4) Quantum physics gets us out of this bind because it allows in some form of
indeterminism.

The naive mistake here is in (2), and the coke-machine really is making a
decision.

Inman Harvey


author: David Hikaru Norman

subject: Re: Minsky vs Penrose

text:
[email] (Bill Clark) writes:

My own misgiving about all this is: what is a decision?

It's a decision to move house.
It's a decision to get married.
It's a decision to start learning the guitar.
It's a decision to buy groceries for the week coming.
It's a decision to make sandwiches for tomorrow's lunch.
Is it a decision to choose areas of study that you are interested in?
Is it a decision to kill time until that meeting in 30 minutes?
Is it a decision to avoid getting wet by sheltering out of the rain?
Is it a decision to look left, then right, then left again?
Is it a decision for me to get my fingers going to type these words?
Is it a decision to lift my knees when I walk upstairs?
Is it a decision to say "Darn" (or worse) when you stub your toe?
(Remember, language is supposed to be one of our higher functions)

At what point does one decide, "oh, that's too simple (i.e. reducible) and
hence is not a 'real' decision'"?

David Norman - "Dont get even, get mad!"
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~dnor01/


author: Jack Sarfatti

subject: Tales of North Beach 1

text:
Tales of North Beach
by Jack Sarfatti
[email]

"The idea is important, not the machine."  Jerry hunched
over his papers filled with strange diagrams in the smoke-
filed Bohemian dive called the Caffe Trieste.  "But people
get caught up in the machine.  I have lots of interesting
classes of knots in 3-space.  But I'll never find all of
them.  The problem is too hard, but I try.  I must get this
ready for publication."

Stephen Schwartz interupts with his hand on my shoulder.  "I
must admit Jacky you saw the New Age and John Mack for what
it is.  Look at this article about "smarts" and "marks" and
the Cold War New Age KGB-directed attack on American
Science by James Gleick in the New Republic.  You know that
line I quoted you in Arguments &  Facts about Mack telling
you that Gorby was a UFO contactee is now famous in the
attacks on Mack."

The spirit is the ontological quantum wave function in the
brain - nonlocal in spacetime with memory and precognition
unified.  But what is wrong?  Why are our memories so much
more reliable than our soothsaying?  What really breaks this
fearful symmetry?  Gleick says we must distinguish real
science from phony science.  But the distinction is delicate
at the cutting edge that unavoidably diffracts beyond the
fringe.  Even though I may disagree with John Mack's
opinions on the benign nature of the "greys" and the reality
of alleged sex abuse of humans by them etc, still, I must
defend his freedom of speech and his right to express
unpopular views which frighten the majority of ostriches
with their heads in the sand.


author: John K. Taber

subject: Re: Tales of North Beach 1

text:
Jack Sarfatti ([email]) wrote:

: Tales of North Beach
: by Jack Sarfatti
: [email]

: "The idea is important, not the machine."  Jerry hunched
: over his papers filled with strange diagrams in the smoke-
: filed Bohemian dive called the Caffe Trieste.  "But people
                                 --------------

Boy!  Am I glad that the Caffe Trieste is still in existence!  That's
my favorite coffee shop.  It must be the oldest west of the Mississippi
now that the Mediterranean in Berkeley has folded.

Something remains.

By the way, why do you call it a "dive" and why do you characterize it
as Bohemian?  Are these romantic terms for you, or terms of deprecation?
It's a nice place; it's Italian and congenial, and not far from City
Lights.  What more do you want?


author: DaveHatunen

subject: Re: Tales of North Beach 1

text:
In article <[email]>,
John K. Taber <[email]> wrote:

Yep. Still there.

It is a curious description. It was Beat, not Bohemian, for a while.
And Sarfatti goes back that far. Odd he'd call it a "dive". BTW, they
say teh area is becoming re-Italianized.

Wrong newsgroup, eh?


author: Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661

subject: Re: Tales of North Beach 1

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (DaveHatunen) writes:

 -:It is a curious description. It was Beat, not Bohemian, for a while.
 -:And Sarfatti goes back that far. Odd he'd call it a "dive". BTW, they
 -:say teh area is becoming re-Italianized.
 -:
 -:Wrong newsgroup, eh?
 -:
 -:
 -:
 -:--
 -:    ********** DAVE HATUNEN ([email]) **********
 -:    *                Daly City California:                *
 -:    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
 -:    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
 -:    *******************************************************
 -:

Does Bohemian mean "Bohemien" ('a la francais)?

maurizio


subject: Re: Tales of North Beach 1

text:
In article <[email]>,
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661 <[email]> wrote:

Comme la vie artistique de l'Oper "La Boheme"? Oui.