FWIS3

Now, most of y'all know I spent a number of years on the road -- semis, buses, steel trucks...so I'm relatively comfortable out there.I find a good speed the vehicle likes, and I'm off -- little
gold Chebby likes it at 2500 rpm (68 or so mph) and will run there all day.
When it gets a bit nasty, no prob...I just slow to what's appropriate.
But up'n'back to Toledo today...upwards was a chore, with snow'n'sleet, wind, drifts, whiteouts...
Coming back, it was beyond a chore...it was seriously U-G-L-E-Y...I was comfortable at about 50 whien everyone else was doing 42!
And there were tight spots in construction where it got down to 3rd gear and 25 mph!
Tomorrow's supposed to be more of the same, with a Weds warmup...
I got the ice scraper ready for the morn...

Well, spring is here in MN, at least for the interim. We're actually heading toward a high that is average for May 17th!

I have to say it was a pretty calm and boring winter--not much to complain about. Although we did have our frigid moments, it was about average for MN and since I choose to continue to live here I don't have the right to complain. And considering much of the country had more below-average days, we actually come out ahead.

The biggest anomaly was the lack of snow. We only got about 2' total, and with the occasional thaws we never had more than about 5" depth. It melted bare to the ground twice--well, now three times. The complaints about that: lack of snow for sledding and skiing. When we did have enough, it got worn down very quickly. Also, the lack of snow as insulation could be bad for perennials.

There are two good things about the snow deficit. One is that our biggest "storm" was about 5" total so we had very little instances of problems with the commutes. I take this over the craziness on the east coast any year.

Also, the roads are clear earlier than normal, so I'm back to riding my bike! I should get in 5 commutes this week!

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!

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!

Put yer jacket on. That's a cold day in winter here in California.

I don't know about California droughts, but it's been raining here for 4 days. It's darker right now than it was at 7:00am. I don't walk across the yard for fear I'll fall in and drown. There appears to be a nesting pair of Mallards swimming across the yard up by the road.
But all the mowers are ready to go if'n it ever dries out.

Rain and thunderstorms last night and today. Lots of pretty lightning last night. I can hear whitewater in the creek out back. More expected today and tonight.

Still a drought in California. Governor Brown has imposed water restrictions. Everyone is being asked to reduce their water usage by 25%.

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.

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.

It's So Cal... They are *special*.

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.

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.

No, they aren't, yet. I think it is because agricultural water usage is a far more serious matter, from the standpoint of volume and necessity, and should not in my opinion be subject to blanket restrictions. Crops require water to thrive and people need crops. California needs to seriously address the issue of agricultural water use in terms of what should be grown in the region and what should not. Rice, for example, maybe should be discouraged.

There are some industries that use a lot of water, too. Perhaps they should move somewhere else.

On the other hand, placing blanket restrictions on non-agricultural water use has value. There are many, many ways people can cut down on water use by eliminating activities that use water excessively. Car washing and lawn watering, for example. Shorter showers and efficient toilets. Ensuring municipalities have the resources (money from taxes) to maintain efficient water systems is also important. Leaking pipes lose a lot of water.

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.

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.

Spring has finally sprung in NL! Put the engine back on the boat, and I have tulips on my roof.

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.

Rommie wrote:Spring has finally sprung in NL! Put the engine back on the boat, and I have tulips on my roof.

Our meager tulip patch has come and gone.

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.

Wow. I didn't realize that. 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.

BTW, I wasn't suggesting, earlier, that there should be blanket restrictions on agricultural usage. I was just pointing out that there aren't blanket restrictions, which is worth noting when discussing the new restrictions.

IMO, California really needs to look at imitating Australia more. That would go a long way towards conserving the water.

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

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.

I think only a California constitutional amendment would be required, but that would be challenged as a violation of the US constitution. Hence, the need for a US Supreme Court ruling. There might be other legal avenues available. I don't know.

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

A bit like the GMO and vaccination issues, opposition to nuclear power, even in the face of climate change and the other geo-political issues with energy, seems to be more of a Democrat thing than Republican.

There seem to be a lot of issues with anything to do with nuclear. For example, we can irradiate food to make it safer from spoilage and give it a very long shelf life. But, convincing people it's safe is practically impossible. And when you start trying to convince people about safe nuclear power.... well, we all know how that goes.

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.

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.

FDA 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.

Food Irradiation: What You Need to Know

Consider this: Virtually every outbreak of E-coli could have been prevented for the last 30 years if people had accepted the scientific fact that irradiated beef was safe.

What does this have to do with water conservation and changing human behavior? See above.

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.

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.

Move to California. You will soon start cursing that bright ball in the sky. And the 100 degree weather.

Spent the last 10 days getting roasted by that ball in FL. Home to 10 days of upcoming thunderstorms here in OH.