Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <2215@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 09:01:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2215
Posted: Wed Sep 18 09:01:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 11:24:02 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> <5965@utzoo.UUCP> <2196@mnetor.UUCP> <5975@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 20
Summary: 

In article <5975@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Precisely.  So we come down to comparing amounts of damage, rather than
>claiming that method X has impact and method Y has none.  Guess which
>method of large-scale power generation has the least impact?  (Look at
>the *numbers*, not the hysteria.)

    Large solar arrays probably have the least impact.  But this is 
only a guess.  We are not really looking only for the least impact,
but also one that is below a level that we can consider as unacceptable.
Like I said before, No way may be totally feasable.  Then the only
conclusion we can come to is that there is too many of us. The planet
will not support us!  Hence we have to reduce our population and
embark upon moderate scale power generation.  Before our decision is
made for us, and we are reduced in population by means beyond our 
control.

-- 
Cheers,      Fred Williams,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318