GreenYes Digest V97 #113

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:12:44 -0500

GreenYes Digest Mon, 19 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
No stumps, no service...dull green scissors
Statisticians minimize waste - (Forward)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to

Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 17:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <>
Subject: No stumps, no service...dull green scissors

GREENLines, Thurs., May 15, 1997 from GREEN,
the Grassroots Environmental Effectiveness Network,
A project of Defenders of Wildlife.
(202)789-2844x290 or email

"NO STUMPS, NO SERVICE": Environmentalists' bids to purchase timber
sales have been rejected by the Clinton administration, says an AP
article. Agriculture Undersecretary James Lyons rejected the
conservation groups' bids in part because it would be a waste of money
for the Forest Service to study the environmental effects of logging if
the logging was not carried out. "The government just hung a big sign
on the entrance to our national forests. It reads, `no saw, no stumps,
no service,'

CLINTON GETS A "D": A Green Scissors Report Card gives the Clinton
administration an unsatisfactory grade of "D" for its lack of
willingness to press Congress on environmentally-friendly budget cuts,
according to a Green Scissors press release. "The Administration is at
the top of the class on cutting subsidies for mining, grazing and use
of federal lands, but the President might need to repeat a grade for
his continued hand-outs to agribusiness, nuclear, and fossil fuel
industries," said National Audubon Society's Dan Beard.


Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 17:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <>
Subject: Statisticians minimize waste - (Forward)

>From: Dave Stewardson <>
>Subject: WASTE: Waste Reduction
>Reply-To: Dave Stewardson <>
>Dear all
>Regarding the topics of waste avoidance and reduction, our group are actively
>engaged in this sort of work. We are not Environmental specialists however
>(some of you may find this surprising) we are Statisticians. We have been
>supporting Industry for about 15 years now and push the joint ideas of SPC
>(Statistical Process Control) and DOE (Experimental Design, some call it
>Taguchi). It seems obvious but you don't have to deal with waste if you
>don't produce any. These, well known, methods and techniques have reduced
>waste in countless situations all over the UK (but mostly in the North in
>our case). Many engineers find DOE, in particular, difficult to follow and
>do not use it at all. Even today some leading UK Universities still push
>the 'change one variable at a time' way of designing, developing and operating
>industrial processes. This way they hardly ever get the optimum output,
>usually require greater energy and resource input and often create more waste.
>The DOE way (balanced pre-designed trials) will help optimise a process.
>The number of times we have been sent in to decrease variable input and output
>in order to increase quality, only to find that a changing a few parameter
>settings produces 10-25% extra output with 25-50% reduction in waste.....!
>If I gave you the figures you wouldn't believe them. This is especially
>true of older processes, run the same way year in and year out.
>Noxious emissions can be traced using these techniques as well (been
>there done that) and they give greater control to the people actually
>running the processes.
>Has anybody got any views on this? Can we put you in touch with your
>local Industrial Statisticians? The big selling point with regard to
>waste reduction, using this approach, is that the companies who get
>involved actually get more profit out of it. This can help make a waste
>reduction programme easier to swallow, and sell-on to the shareholders.
>Dave Stewardson
>University of Newcastle


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #113