Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!authorplaceholder
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power: Petr Beckmann
Message-ID: <26500030@inmet>
Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 12:45:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.26500030
Posted: Mon Jul 21 12:45:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 07:54:31 EDT
References: <529@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle.UUCP:-52900:inmet:26500030:000:1417
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Jul 21 12:45:00 1986


[mvs@meccts.UUCP ]
>In article <529@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
> Beckmann's chapter on coal contains a variety of confused assertions,
> one of which is that "in the United States, for example, the
> fertility rate has dropped below the `Zero Population Growth' level,
> but its population is still expanding." ...

>While I am not surprised that  Mr.  Ehrlich  couldn't  understand
>this, I am a little surprised that you couldn't. It takes decades
>for a change in the fertility rate to affect the population. Also
>it  is  not only the birth rate that affects the population size.
>If the average life time increases, obviously the population  in-
>creases.  If  memory  serves,  the fertility rate in the US is at
>something like 1.8, this is below the ZPG level of 2.1. Therefore
>as  Dr. Beckman writes, now, the US population is increasing, and
>it will continue to increase for some decades yet.

>(I am not sure how much immigration is increasing the  population
>either.  It might be a noticeable variable increasing the popula-
>tion also.)

Well, I'd say so! Legal immigration is half a million a year; illegal
is, by *lowest* estimates, as much; probably twice or thrice
as much. Natural growth is 0.6% (1984). Thus immigration is
*at least* as important as natural growth.

Beckmann is neither confused nor confusing on this; Carnes and 
Ehrlich are.

		Jan Wasilewsky