Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power: Petr Beckmann
Message-ID: <2484@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Aug-86 17:34:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2484
Posted: Mon Aug 18 17:34:04 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 03:48:44 EDT
References: <546@gargoyle.UUCP> <521@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: Secular Humanist Conspiracy, Child Corruption Division
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.politics:18375 net.sci:1518
Summary: 

>>>[Beckmann] also says that deforestation in the Third World could play
>>>a significant role in reducing the "absorption" of carbon dioxide
>>>produced by coal burning ("absorption" into what?), and that "high
>>>labor intensity and troublesome handling" will be "far more decisive"
>>>in affecting coal use than will be all its environmental problems
>>>combined.  [Richard Carnes quoting the Ehrlichs]
>>
>>OK.  I give up.  Why is *this* one confused?  More BS about
>>nonstandard terminology, despite the use being quite clear and
>>straightforward?  [Wayne Throop]
>
>Since Wayne is quite knowledgeable about biology, I won't venture to
>correct him if he asserts that CO2 is absorbed into plants through
>the process of photosynthesis. [Richard Carnes]

No great knowledge of biology is required, this is high-school stuff:
CO2 diffuses into a leaf, photosynthesis consumes the CO2 producing O2,
the O2 diffuses out.  I can't see any other reason why the Ehrlichs
would object to Beckman's words other than this, that "absorption" is a
loose use of terminology.  But if this is the nature of the Ehrlichs'
objection, it's just a pointless nit-pick.  Surely they could restrict
themselves to ridiculing Beckman's *real* mistakes, no?
-- 
David Canzi

"We believe that all policemen and politicians can be rehabilitated.
	-- Simon Moon