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