cid wrote:Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay! SPRING!!!!!
Got up to 70 today! Felt so good, turned the heater off in the car, opened the window, and just tooled along
enjoying the breeze...
Glad it warmed'n'thawed so I can get outside and dodder up&down the block
a couple times a day...still ain't completely recovered...legs are kinda shaky...but I can enjoy the outside
instead of the inside of the house!
SciFiFisher wrote:Still a drought in California. Governor Brown has imposed water restrictions. Everyone is being asked to reduce their water usage by 25%.
geonuc wrote:SciFiFisher wrote:Still a drought in California. Governor Brown has imposed water restrictions. Everyone is being asked to reduce their water usage by 25%.
And it was so wonderful to see all the lovely manicured lawns in Palm Springs when I was there recently. California has been in a drought for years and has been water-challenged for decades. Yet people still think it's OK to grow a lawn. There was grass by the sidewalks of apartment complexes, fer chrissakes.
SciFiFisher wrote:Still a drought in California. Governor Brown has imposed water restrictions. Everyone is being asked to reduce their water usage by 25%.
SciFi Chick wrote:SciFiFisher wrote:Still a drought in California. Governor Brown has imposed water restrictions. Everyone is being asked to reduce their water usage by 25%.
Not everyone. The farmers aren't being asked to reduce their water usage.
Thumper wrote:I was reading about the serious need to look at what agricultural uses of water make sense in CA. Almonds take ton of water. But they have great commercial value. Cattle take tons of water. Alfalfa is much easier to grow in the midwest without irrigation. CA may have to swallow the pride of being a big cattle ranching state and move to something that uses less water and gets a greater return.
Rommie wrote:Spring has finally sprung in NL! Put the engine back on the boat, and I have tulips on my roof.
geonuc wrote:Thumper wrote:I was reading about the serious need to look at what agricultural uses of water make sense in CA. Almonds take ton of water. But they have great commercial value. Cattle take tons of water. Alfalfa is much easier to grow in the midwest without irrigation. CA may have to swallow the pride of being a big cattle ranching state and move to something that uses less water and gets a greater return.
One of the thorniest issues is that of water rights. The US west, including California, has very strong property laws regarding water rights. It doesn't matter if cattle ranching is a losing proposition in terms of water usage. If that cattle rancher has superior rights to water then he or she gets the water. I think it would take a California constitutional amendment and a favorable US Supreme Court ruling to change that dynamic.
geonuc wrote:Perhaps the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which was shut down recently because of failed steam generators and public opposition to nuclear power, should be converted to a desalinization plant. Just a thought - I don't actually know if it's feasible. I do know that decades ago the city of Long Beach had plans for a nuclear desalinization plant.
SciFi Chick wrote:That sucks, because I'm pretty sure the only way you're going to get a constitutional amendment is when the rest of the country starts having food shortages as a result of California's water shortages.
vendic wrote:geonuc wrote:Perhaps the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which was shut down recently because of failed steam generators and public opposition to nuclear power, should be converted to a desalinization plant. Just a thought - I don't actually know if it's feasible. I do know that decades ago the city of Long Beach had plans for a nuclear desalinization plant.
Pretty sure convincing people that nucular (sic) desalinization is safe is going to be the biggest problem.
People still believe there is no climate change regardless of the amount of evidence piling up.
Try as I might for example to point out that the collective Republican politician's IQ only sums up to slightly over moron, there are people that refuse to acknowledge this overwhelming evidence too. lol
Gullible Jones wrote:Fisher, I'm not convinced that irradiated food is a such a good idea. Ionizing radiating induces chemical changes you wouldn't see from cooking most of the time; for instance, cross-linking of proteins, a la formaldehyde or methanol. Depending on how much cross-linking there is, the food might lose a lot of nutritional value. Not being radioactive doesn't mean it's undamaged.
(And that's brushing aside possible chemical toxicity. Remember cis vs. trans fats? The shape of large molecules can matter a lot, and ionizing radiation messes with that.)
BTW I can see cases where it irradiated food would be desirable - shipping food to isolated or disaster-stricken areas for instance. That it's edible and will keep would be useful in emergencies. But as a mainstay I'm not sure it would be smart.
Food Irradiation: What You Need to KnowFDA has evaluated the safety of irradiated food for more than thirty years and has found the process to be safe. The World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have also endorsed the safety of irradiated food.
Thumper wrote:Finally hit the 80's here. It's that strange brief time of the year where it's almost, maybe getting to be a little light out as I pull into work. This is to be followed by that even more strange brief time of year where a glowing bright ball is actually in the sky before I get to work. And for a week I actually struggle to root through my bag looking for sunglasses while navigating annoying traffic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests