RE: [asa] Ban on computers reportedly wanted.

At 10:24 AM 4/9/2007, Debbie Mann wrote:
>What a bogus statement! 'On a per unit basis' -
>we are talking nanotechnology here. Sure there
>is going to be more waste on a per unit basis -
>dang, the per unit is infintesimal. Somebody has
>their tongue planted firmly in their cheek.

@ No kiddiiiiiiiiiing? !!! :)

Okay. Let's do this again:

Science -- Kerr 276 (5315): 1041 "Climate
modelers have been "cheating" for so long it's
almost become respectable. ..."
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5315/1041

If certain researchers want to continue receiving
grants, they will find the evidence that is
necessary for central planners to use to justify
the tax / fee increases / regulations they intend
to impose on those they consider to be 'the vast
unwashed' (aka: useful idiots).

Once a 'researcher' lets it be known in certain
circles that he has a personal need to "save the
planet" or "save humanaity", he is either
identifying himself as a central planner,
himself, a useful idiot, or both. Either way, he
is "available", and the only question left to ask
then, is, "How much do you want [to give me what I need]?"

Those who naively believe that money and politics
doesn't make the world go 'round and doesn't
PERMEATE both science and religion, are the same
people who have an emotional need to believe
people like Ehrman and fall for his
"chidken-little" agenda, to wit [excerpted from last night's post]:

"...In sum, Ehrman’s latest book does not
disappoint on the provocative scale. But it comes
up short on genuine substance about his primary
contention. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to
alarm lay readers on issues that they have little
understanding of. Unfortunately, the average
layperson will leave this book with far greater
doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT
than any textual critic would ever entertain. A
good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his
students what’s what, but he also knows how to
package the material so they don’t let emotion
get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not
create Chicken Littles." http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

Here is wisdom too high for fools (who "out"
themselves every time they open their mouths or cast their vote):

“The real destroyer of the liberties of the
people is he who spreads among them bounties,
donations and benefits.” ~ Plutarch [Mestrius Plutarchus] (45-125 A.D.)

“This and no other is the root from which a
tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a
protector.” ~ Plato (429-347 B.C.)

~ Janice ...“Just because you do not take an
interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t
take an interest in you.” ~ Pericles (493-429 B.C.)

>Debbie Mann
>AKA Joan Saunders, author of 'Doors of the Megdalines'
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Janice Matchett
>Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:12 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: [asa] Ban on computers reportedly wanted.
>
>At 07:33 PM 4/8/2007, Randy Isaac wrote:
>
>>" .. the data are way out of date. .." ~ Randy
>
>@ Here's some that
>isn't. 11/7/06 "...Furthermore, new
>technologies such as those used to produce and
>process nanoscale materials and other advanced
>manufacturing processes exceed the energy use of
>older technologies by six to eight orders of
>magnitude on a per-unit-of-material-processed basis,.."
>
>Note that the "what will they try to do next"
>clue - (roll-back/limit large-scale production
>and consumption) - is found near the bottom of the MIT article below.
>
>It follows these sorts of sentiments: "At the
>core of Tertullian's teachings lay his bitter
>admonition that life in the 2nd century had
>become too extravagant, too wasteful, and that
>population growth had run out of control.
>Mankind was raping the Earth of its resources,
>he warned grimly "...we men have actually become
>a burden to the Earth ... the Earth can no
>longer support us ..." And, to escape total
>planetary destruction, mankind had to withdraw
>to the past and practice severe asceticism,
>living in a simpler more natural state. ~
>Tertullian of Carthage. Fast-forward 1800
>years... [Algore of Carthage
>(TN) http://www.opinionet.com/staff/gw4-switalski.shtml
>
>~ Janice :)
>
>
>Source: <http://web.mit.edu>Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
>Date: November 7, 2006
>
> Engineer Launches Review Of Energy Use In Manufacturing
><http://www.sciencedaily.com>Science Daily ­
>Timothy G. Gutowski's mission is to help the
>manufacturing industry lighten up, energy-wise.
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061106145912.htm
>
>With a grant from the National Science
>Foundation, the MIT professor of mechanical
>engineering is reviewing energy use in
>manufacturing processes such as machining,
>grinding, injection molding, advanced machining
>methods and microelectronics fabrication
>methods. The goal is to compare the
>environmental performance of traditional methods
>to alternative processes, alternative product
>designs and proposed new processes.
>
>The work is important because manufacturing
>plays a big role in U.S. energy use. Industry
>accounts for around 30 percent of the total, and
>manufacturing is responsible for around 80
>percent of industrial use. In addition, the
>manufacturing industry designs and builds all of
>the equipment used in the other major energy use sectors.
>
>"Manufacturing processes can be thought of as
>products with a huge energy appetite," he said.
>This contributes to global warming but is not as
>visible to the public as gas-guzzling SUVs or
>images of melting polar ice caps. "Many people
>are not aware of the energy requirements for
>many manufacturing processes," said Gutowski,
>who, after extensive work in aerospace materials
>and composites, switched fields seven years ago
>_to satisfy a need_ "to contribute to society in
>a bigger way." [Mother Gaia or Mr. Deep Pockets calling??]
>
>The problem isn't that industry isn't interested
>in being environmentally friendly. In fact, in
>an MIT Laboratory for Manufacturing and
>Productivity working paper from earlier this
>year, Gutowski wrote that the World Business
>Council for Sustainable Development includes 180
>international corporations, and the Global
>Environmental Management Initiative has members
>in 22 business sectors totaling $915 billion in
>annual sales. And, he added, many leading
>corporations have adopted sustainable
>development as a major corporate strategy.
>
>But there are paradoxes.
>
>For one, because of increased efficiency, energy
>use per kilogram of product produced by major
>industrial sectors has been declining. But,
>Gutowski pointed out, efficiency and increased
>production go hand in hand. And usually,
>increased production more than offsets any gains
>in efficiency. "Hence, energy efficiency alone
>has not resulted in an absolute reduction in energy use," he said.
>
>Further, in the United States, the barriers to
>"environmentally benign manufacturing" differ
>from industry to industry and can be frustratingly complex.
>
>For instance, Gutowski said, automobiles,
>compared with other products, are already
>recycled very effectively, with only around 15
>percent of the average car ending up in a
>landfill at the end of its life. So a suggested
>manufacturing alternative--using lightweight
>composites instead of steel--would solve one
>problem (making cars lighter and more
>fuel-efficient) while creating several others:
>Composite materials would increase waste because
>they are currently not recyclable, have no
>feasible recycling technologies on the horizon
>and increase manufacturing costs.
>
>Meanwhile, microelectronics has different
>issues. Computers are used for approximately two
>to three years, compared with around 10 years
>for a car, and the recycling rate for all
>electronics is quite low. In addition, the
>manufacture of integrated circuits--the devices
>at the heart of all electronics
>products--requires the use of ultrapure
>materials and energy-intensive manufacturing processes.
>
>Furthermore, new technologies such as those used
>to produce and process nanoscale materials and
>other advanced manufacturing processes exceed
>the energy use of older technologies by six to
>eight orders of magnitude on a
>per-unit-of-material-processed basis, Gutowski said.
>
>Gutowski hopes these challenges can be overcome
>through the development of new technologies, the
>creation of new policies and, maybe most
>important, the public's willingness to foster
>change and absorb some of the costs. "People
>will pay more in the short run for
>environmentally friendly products," he said.
>"There will be a cost to this, but I don't think
>it will be something we can't manage."
>
>Gutowski added that one of the most important
>things we can do is "educate our students and
>citizens about the high cost of our ____
>large-scale production and consumption on the
>ecosystems that presently support life___ as we know it."
>
>*
>2004:
><http://www.it-environment.org/publications/hybrid%20PC%20LCA%20abstract.pdf>http://www.it-environment.org/publications/hybrid%20PC%20LCA%20abstract.pdf
>.
>Energy intensity of computer manufacturing:
>hybrid assessment combining process and economic input-output methods
>Eric Williams United Nations University 53-70
>Jingumae 5-chome, Shibuya-ku Tokyo,
>Japan Phone: 81-3-5467-1352, Fax: 81-3-3406-7346, Email: Williams@hq.unu.edu
>
>Abstract
>
>The total energy and fossil fuels used in
>producing a desktop computer with 17-inch CRT
>monitor are estimated at 6,400 megajoules (MJ)
>or 260 kg respectively. This indicates that
>computer manufacturing is energy intensive: the
>ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is
>11, an order of magnitude larger than the factor
>of 1-2 for many other manufactured goods. This
>high energy intensity of manufacturing, combined
>with rapid turnover in computers, results in an
>annual life cycle energy burden that is
>surprisingly high: about 2,600 MJ per year, 1.3
>times that of a refrigerator. In contrast with
>many home appliances, life cycle energy use of a
>computer is dominated by production (81%) as
>opposed to operation (19%). Extension of usable
>lifespan (e.g. by reselling or upgrading) is
>thus a promising approach to mitigating energy
>impacts, as well as other environmental burdens
>associated with manufacturing and disposal.
>Publishing information: Energy intensity of
>computer manufacturing: hybrid analysis
>combining process and economic input-output
>methods”, E. Williams, Environmental Science &
>Technology 38(22), 6166 - 6174 (2004). http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/
>
>
>
>>"..the very act of manufacturing a computer
>>degrades the environment by using massive
>>amounts of resources-clean water, intensive
>>labor in clean rooms-and producing toxic waste
>>in quantities that far outweigh any potential
>>positive effects that one computer could have on the world.
>>
>>In fact, these are the resources used to make one 8-inch wafer:
>>
>>4,267 cubic feet of bulk gases
>>3,787 gallons of waste water
>>27 pounds of chemicals
>>29 cubic feet of hazardous gases
>>9 pounds of hazardous waste
>>3,023 gallons of de-ionized water
>>
>>Not only is semiconductor manufacturing the
>>worst air polluting industry, it also uses
>>several million gallons of water a day."
>>
>>Excerpted from "Chips Ahoy: The hidden toll of
>>computer manufacture and use," by John C. Ryan and Alan Thein Durning:
>>
>>*

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 9 11:05:54 2007