I just completed a “little” video project and am writing this as a sort of celebration of completion (I hope). For the past few years I have been presenting a six hour seminar at the System Safety Society’s (SSS) annual conference. The Executive officers decided that a service that we should be providing to our membership includes a series of tutorial/seminars covering some of the more important aspects of the profession. Since nobody was stepping up to this I agreed to do it one time as a kind of “placeholder” of the idea, with the understanding that the SSS would form a team to work on these seminars. I partnered up with a friend, Russ Mitchell, on this project. I developed and presented an introductory class on the technical aspects of the profession, Russ did the same for the management aspects.

Of course, during the intervening year nobody else offered to assist, so we got to do it again and the next conference. This was of concern to me because while I thought my presentation was “adequate” it was by no means representative of the best that we can do as an organization. I threw it together in a hurry because the decision to do this was close to the conference date. Unfortunately, the second version wasn’t much better. Basically it was the same presentation with a few changes to reflect things I had noticed the first time around. I was still presenting to new/novice individuals (after-all it is an introductory course), without the assistance or feedback from our seasoned members. Without critical feedback I essentially did this same as before.

Then it came time for the third year and not only didn’t I get any feedback or assistance, but this time was a “covid year” so it had to be done via zoom rather than as an in-person standup presentation. This new venue demanded several changes to the presentation, but the biggest change was that I recorded it as a zoom presentation. That was pretty good, but it was just slides with me talking in the background. Perhaps it was perfect – since I got no feedback it is hard to know.

This year it happened again, now it seems to have become “my” presentation! It was supposed to be the Society’s presentation, representing the desires and directions of the Society as a whole. Instead, it is now just whatever I want it to be. Not a good situation. However, I decided to attempt to “spiff it up” a bit and use an actual video camera instead of the zoom camera, and edit the presentation using a video editing suite in the hopes of making it run smoother – giving me the chance to stop, go back, reshoot etc. I put the camera far enough away so that I could stand or sit on a stool during my delivery. I shot myself against a green screen, and put the slides, photos and video clips in a box next to me in post production (I overlaid the various parts five layers deep – the background, the slides, the header icons, the footer icons, and myself.) I don’t know if it made it any better, but it was a more interesting project to me.

My first “studio” was intended to be the pottery studio I had just finished building for my wife. I has good lighting an appropriate blank wall to shot against. However, the AC hadn’t been installed yet and therefore the room got pretty warm in the Sacramento Valley summer. So hot that I was quickly drenched in sweat – totally unsuitable for presentation purposes. I therefore moved to a room in the house that has air conditioning. Much better, but I had to install so many lights that I still could only go for about 30 minutes before becoming visibly wet. That was alright, it limited my “on screen” time to something more tolerable. I ended up spending several days setting up the space to get the green screen correct, placing the camera, testing the audio, moving production lights around to get them right and that sort of thing.

As usual, the shooting of the raw material is the quick and easy part. It is the editing, blending, adjusting in the video program that burns up hours. I have done this a few times in the past for some little “travel logs” of places we have visited. I find that it takes about an hour of editing for each minute of finished product. I would take more to get it really “right” (and would usually take some reshooting of things that I didn’t get quite right but wished I had). Since I had six hours of material, at that rate it would take me 360 hours of editing – not in my preferred schedule. So I took the route of making a pretty rough video and only spent about 15 minutes per minute (about 80 hours). I came out “ok” – but not what I would have liked to do. I guess I could have saved a lot of time by just giving it “live” in zoom.

The good part is that I am done. An even better part is that my current opinion is that I won’t do it again next year – they can just replay this video. Of course, what is going to happen and we will have a live conference and I’ll end up giving it live again. But in the mean time we can use it for an on-line webinar. Who knows, maybe we can even charge for it and make a few bucks to support the desperately poor SSS. Almost all of our income comes from the annual conference, and the last two years of zoom conferences really depleted our resources. I am afraid that the Society will dissolve if we don’t find some better ways to get some income – soon. This webinar was my attempt at doing something along those lines. Hopefully it will work, but probably it won’t. Anyway, I finished the project in a rather amateurish way, but had fun and learned a lot along the way.

I have a bunch of relatives that refuse to get vaccinated. They have a lot of excuses for this, including “loss of personal freedom”, “it hasn’t been tested long enough”, “we don’t know what might come from it x-years from now,” “it is a liberal conspiracy,” “covid is not dangerous, it is just like the normal flu,” and more.

That brings up the question of whether or not it is “acceptable” for them to not get vaccinated. My opinion is that it is perfectly fine for them to take that approach. Perhaps it exposes them to what they consider an “acceptable risk” and they are willing to take that chance. My risk acceptance criteria is different than that, but we all use different metrics and criteria – so have at it. No vaccines, no masks, your choice. Sort of.

The “sort of” part is similar to having a desire to drive an automobile really, really fast – extremely dangerously fast. Is that alright? Certainly – as long as you do it where you don’t endanger others, especially others that don’t want to partake in your risk decisions. You can drive 250 mph as much as you want, but not down my street or on the freeways. As a society we place very few limitations upon the amount of danger an individual can engage in as long as it remains personal to them. That means the results of their risky behavior are local to them, not “shared” with others, with the environment, with the economy, with the medical system or anything else. If you want to take the chance of killing or maiming yourself, have at it as long as you aren’t endangering me, damaging our shared resources or costing me anything.

Not getting vaccinated, and not wearing a mask (etc) is the same situation as engaging in other forms of risky behavior. As long as you strictly quarantine for the duration, have at it. That means NO contact with others. No grocery stores, no restaurants, no schools, no parties, no doctors, no hospitals, no gatherings of any sort. Engaging in any of these sorts of activities exposes you, and thus others, to being infected and continuing the pandemic – in which case you are impacting our shared resources and it is no longer acceptable for you to make these choices for me or others. If you want to create a “pod” that include more people in strict quarantine with you, that would be great! Perfect in fact, much better than masking and vaccinations. However, should the quarantine be broken and someone in the pod gets infected – they shouldn’t be able to shared resources such as the use of medical or hospital facilities. They knew the risks, made their choices, and that is how it should end. If they survive, great. If not, so be it – that’s life. Easy as pie.

Of course the problem is that none of those that are not going to play by the rules involving vaccinations, masks, distancing, sanitation, etc will play by these rules either. They definitely want to have their cake and eat it too. So now it comes down to the question of how do we (society) enforce it. Do we do like automobiles and create a “covid patrol” sort of like the highway patrol? Monitoring, investigations, fines, arrests, jail time including convictions for manslaughter should someone die because of your risky behavior? This is obviously what should happen because people clearly won’t self monitor – which is why we have the highway patrol.

Without an enforcement agency it is up to individual morals, ethics, patriotism and love of community. We know where that lands – people are very happy to enforce those traits for others, but not so willing to self monitor and self control. Given the inability to enforce a strict quarantine (the only known viable option to vaccinations, masking, distancing and sanitation at this time), about all that we can do is say “shame on you” for endangering your friends, family, neighbors and the United States of America. The 800,000+ deaths belong squarely on your shoulders, and any additional deaths and sicknesses pile on them too. If you refuse to take the necessary protections, them YOU are responsible for what happens in the future. Sure, it might be that it would all continue in any case, we can never know the future – but we do know what will work for now and if you don’t control your actions we do know it won’t stop. Kind of like driving 200 mph down the freeway. Perhaps you can do it and nobody dies – perhaps not. If enough people do that surely many will die. We really do have to work together to get past this – and quarantining is a great solution, perhaps the best. So for all of you that don’t trust the vaccine, go for it – we can talk on zoom and might get together again in a few years (or however long it takes for this to pass). Otherwise, do the next best things – and you know what they are.

I had a lucid dream the other night that is perhaps writing about. It started in a new mountain cabin being built by a friend of mine that died last fall. He wasn’t there, but I knew who had built it. It was a nice “woodsy” sort of place, with stairs leading up to a sleeping loft. I was casually inspecting the workmanship, thinking that he had done a better job than I would have expected (I wasn’t aware of him having woodworking skills or experience), but the design of the stairs was not so great. No handrail, not a big enough landing at the bottom, too steep – that sort of thing. While looking the place over my brother (who died about two years ago) came in to visit and we discussed the building a bit. He “comes to visit” me now and then, so that wasn’t really so out of the ordinary – but it did help me realize that I was in a dream and in the realm of the dead. My brother told me that our friend Rocke was in the other room if I wanted to go talk to him, which I did. He was in his old comfortable easy chair, just kind of chilling out. He seemed quite pleased that I can come to visit, and then told me about the heart attack that killed him. He described it as mostly a lot of pressure, not much pain, and he wasn’t frightened because he was ready for something to come along at some point. He seemed quite content and in good sprites (pun intended). About that time a young girl (perhaps five years old) came into the room to talk to him. He excused himself to give her his full attention, so I said my goodbyes and added that I looked forward to seeing him again. He said that was unlikely, he just stopped by for a little bit to let me know that all is well with him.

So there, yet another odd dream about meeting up with lost friends and relatives. I have had these after each of the most important people in my life died. My older brother, my mother, my father, and the brother that was in this dream. I suppose it is all in my head, just my mind saying goodbye to loved ones – but it is always so comforting to see them, get a chance to say my goodbyes without too much drama happening, and that they seem at peace (or happy) with the situation. These dreams aren’t “normal” fleeting dreams where things keep changing and all that. They are solid, lucid, full color dreams that I recall for many years afterward. The first that I had with my brother included being in a rose garden, smelling the strong bouquet of the flowers. Since then I have heard “dream experts” claim that it is impossible to smell in dreams – I know that is in fact false because I did it.

I don’t put too much stock on these dreams. I don’t think that I am somehow talking to the dead, but I don’t discount that possibility either. Whatever is happening is a “real” experience, one that I like and helps me accept the passing of loved ones. Is the event somehow an experience of a “real” thing? Who knows, and I don’t think it actually matters much. I am certain that our experiences of life are by and large dreams that we create in our mind’s eye – so these aren’t all that much different no matter how I consider them.

I had an interesting, and confusing, experience earlier this week. I was sitting in my home office working on a project at my desk when a stranger appeared in my window asking for assistance. My home is located in the middle of a very large agricultural area in California, the closest “town” (of about 20 people) is located five miles away – it is where my post-office box is located (we are too far out in the unpopulated rural area to get postal delivery). There aren’t many (any) strangers wandering by out here. My office window opens directly onto the front porch, so anyone going to the front door passes with about five feet from me. It is extremely rare for anyone to come to the front door, so it is always a bit of a surprise when they do. This time I say a guy walk by my window and assumed it was an Amazon delivery guy or something like that. But it wasn’t.

The young man standing at my window asking for assistance appeared to be perhaps in his 20’s. He was pretty scruffy, bedraggled, and possibly “dangerous”. However, there we were so I talked to him. He said that he had gone to a local Indian Casino with a buddy the previous evening. He went into the casino, leaving his friend with the car. When he came out again the car and his friend were gone. So then he was stuck about 20 miles from town, without a car, without any money, and without a cell phone. Nobody besides his friend knew where he was, and he didn’t know his way around the neighborhood (or this part of the Sacramento Valley), not even knowing how far he was from his home. So he did what he did, which was to start walking toward his home (hopefully). He said he had walked all night, and all morning until finding me at around 2:00 pm.

He looked like he had just walked for hours in the 100 degree heat. It is only 15 miles, so even if he only walked 2 miles per hour it is only 7 or 8 hours, so I assumed it felt like walking for 16 hours. I suspect he actually slept under a bush or something some of that time. In any case, it was too hot to send him back out to continue walking and he was too scruffy (and potentially dangerous) to invite in (especially in these times of the pandemic). He was trying to figure out how to get the rest of the way home, about 60 miles on country roads. So that brought me to the question of “what do I do now?”

I thought about calling emergency services to get him some help. Being on the local fire department, I knew that would bring fireman and at least two big fire trucks – impressive, but would do no good. It would also eventually bring a local sheriff – who would probably take him to some sort of holding facility until such time that they decided that he was safe to let go. They would let him out, putting him ten more miles from home but still without money or transportation.

There aren’t any public transportation services, such as buses, anywhere around here so I couldn’t give him 20 dollars and tell him to get a bus. I suppose I could pay a taxi to take him home, costing at least $150, perhaps more.

I asked him to sit on a bench on my front porch to wait for a little while I thought about it and finished a project I was working on. My wife gave him some sandwiches and fruit (and the rest of my bag of Cheetos!!). I finished up my project in about 30 minutes and went to check on him. He seemed alright, polite and friendly. So I decided to give a ride home (a three hour round trip for me). It went fine and we shared stories along the way. His story of his life was a troubled one. His mother is in prison, he lives with his older brother, his car broke down and he has no money or income so it stays that way. His “work” seems to be a little gardening for people now and then and searching for gold in the Feather River. Neither sounded particularly lucrative. I left him with a few dollars that I had in my wallet – which probably went for beer. Now I will need to get a covid test in a couple of days

So there I was sitting in my office, wondering what the proper and compassionate thing to do might be. Was taking him home the correct choice? I felt like I was putting myself in harm’s way by doing that, but also felt like at some point you just do that sort of thing. I did it fairly regularly as a volunteer fireman – doing dangerous things for total strangers for no pay is part of that job. I asked my wife is she was good with me taking the chance, and she was – so we were sort of partners on this choice. I thought about what an old friend of mine that died last year would have done – he would have done what I did. Was giving him money helpful? Or did that just turn into a hangover? Maybe that is out of my hands – I offered help, if he accepted it as help that’s good, I hope it wasn’t leading him into a bad thing.

This experience reminded me once again that it is such a sad situation when there are so many young people in a similar situation everywhere you look. Homeless folks, people with homes but not enough income or potential for the future, people couch surfing as a way of living. I wonder if we (Society) are going to find a solution, or will this just keep getting worse? It looks to me like we have more people than jobs – so maybe there is no solution. That situation is getting worse as automation continues to increase. Right now there are lots of jobs open because of covid, but nobody is taking them I suppose in part because it is dangerous to do so, it is more fun to not work, and welfare might be sufficient to get along without working. The Federal government was providing assistance of up to $300 a week since last December, ending in three days from now on September 4. I suppose you could live on $300 a week ($16,000 a year), but not comfortably. This is the equivalent of $7.50 a hour and doesn’t get you very far. (For comparison, the poverty level in California is $12,500 a year for a single person.) There are other sources of income, such as food stamps, that help with this so perhaps it is workable. Cutting off that flow of Federal money in three days is going to make this a pretty tough time. I don’t think many people avoid working because their life is so cushy living on the dole. However, perhaps it is not very enticing to go to work when the pay for working is below the poverty line – and just cuts off some of the other benefits.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to let people live in abject poverty because employers can keep pay so very low. It isn’t like those at the bottom of the ladder have much bargaining power – they are in a “take it or leave it” situation. I have no answers, but spending a couple of hours with that young man really remindedd me to feel a tiny bit of the plight of so many folks today. I sometimes sit down and talk to homeless folks (at least I did before the pandemic), and found them to be just plain down and out, with no good way to claw their way to a better life. They are stuck – it seems like we need to find ways to be more compassionate and helpful.

I am hesitant to talk about covid again, but since it is apparently going to be around for awhile longer I will give it another shot. As a System Safety engineer, I have some pretty well developed ideas about topics such as “risk”, “acceptable risk”, “hazard” and things like that – and assumed that my points of view are pretty well in line with my colleagues in the system safety profession. Based upon some things I have recently heard and read by some of them, apparently I am not correct about that assumption. Last week I attended a three day System Safety conference where there were some discussions on this topic, and I see current Facebook posts by others that remind me how difficult this issue seems to be. Our differences seem to be wrapped up in an odd mixture of misunderstanding the science behind the problem, feelings about moral and ethical responsibilities that we have for each other, a desire to “get on with it”, and the proper boundaries of personal “freedom” in a large highly interdependent society like we have in the United States (and worldwide for that matter).

An issue that I came upon at the conference was a presentation concerning how covid is transmitted and how vaccines work. It was an excellent, and interesting, presentation until it came to the final conclusions. One of the final conclusions was along the lines of, “If a vaccine prevents the virus from entering human cells, then it is impossible for that person to create more viruses and therefore impossible to spread the disease to others. Therefore, it is impossible for a vaccinated person to create more viruses and become contagious.” The first part is fairly obviously true, and the second part is obviously false based upon current data. The vaccine does NOT prevent the virus from entering the cells (or maybe it doesn’t prevent the virus from entering all cells), and it does NOT prevent a person from catching it, or spreading it. ). The CDC, other health agencies, the daily news broadcasts, and personal discussions with others in the profession make this point over and over and over again. The vaccine is far from 100% effective in preventing infection, and far from 100% in preventing its spread. It is pretty good (around 95%) at preventing serious illness and death of the vaccinated person. The last number that I heard is that it is something like 53% effective in preventing infection and 0% effective at spreading the infection once infected. That’s pretty good, but certainly not nearly good enough to stop the pandemic on its own.

This last point that it is not good enough to stop the pandemic on its own is a critically important part of how we should be moving forward. I am not privy to the “inside” discussions on the topic, but it appears that the hope is to tamp down the symptoms for long enough for almost everyone to get it but not get too sick in the process – in the hopes that natural immunity will kick in to let us achieve something close to “herd immunity.” Maybe this is the approach, but whatever the plan is that seems to be the likely future.

There are two parts to the story of how we should move forward. One part is related to personal safety. Personal safety is enhanced by vaccinations because it greatly reduces the chances of getting really sick, or dying. This is good to a level of something like 95%. Masks are not very effective at providing personal safety because it is almost impossible to seal the mask to the face, letting large amounts of contaminated air past the mask. Anyone that has attempted to properly fit a mask according to OSHA or NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency) understands that while they are good at keeping out big chunks of stuff (dust masks), they don’t do much for smaller particles. A dust mask does not protect from exposure to vapors or gases. When aerosols are present (which is all of the time), distancing is effective, as is staying out of enclosed buildings where aerosols are likely to be present (stores, night clubs, restaurants and the like). Distancing in outdoor situations where there are breezes is probably pretty good. So, you can minimize infections to yourself by masking (to avoid breathing big gobs of gook), isolation and distancing, and you can minimize the severity of an infection with vaccinations.

Then there is the question of the safety of others. Vaccinations reduce the probability of infection if exposed by about 50%. That is pretty good – but certainly not complete. One of the possible issues is that since they have the potential to reduce symptoms without stopping the creation of virus particles, vaccinations have the likely outcome of creating more “stealth” spreaders. Therefore, it is important to implement actions to prevent spreading the virus to others even though being fully vaccinated. The same old protections apply as since the beginning of the pandemic, wearing masks, washing hands, distancing and avoiding in-door venues with others beyond your immediate “pod”.

Masks are very important to protect others when being around people because they are effective as stopping particles from being ejected toward another person. These particles can easily be ejected 6 to 10 feet just by talking, coughing, singing, breathing and more with a big sneeze. The particles can cause spreading because they can contain a very large number of viruses that can get inhaled directly by others, and by contaminating surfaces with moist, infected droplets. Masks are not particularly effective at stopping aerosols (aerosols are particles so small that they float with the air streams, not settling out due to gravity) when breathing in , therefore they are not very protective for the wearer. Billions of aerosol particles are release simply by breathing, and perhaps by evaporation off of the skin. These particles are quite small, but huge in comparison to the size of a virus – therefore they can contain a significant viral load. It is estimated that it takes a few hundred virus particles to cause infection, and that tens of thousands (or more) can easily be included on a single aerosol particle. However, while not being very good at breathing in, masks are fairly effective at stopping the these tiny particles when breathing out (protecting others).

A thing that is often not understood about aerosols is that they are FAST, and gain their speed by interactions with the air – not so much by the projection forces when expelled. Think about cigar smoke in a room. There is almost no projectile forces involved, but it doesn’t take very long to smell the cigar. This means that it didn’t take very long for the aerosols (the smoke) to get across the room. If you can smell the smoke (or anything else), you could have been exposed to a virus riding on an aerosol particle of a similar size. Aerosols travel at about 500 mph, generally in a complex path that quickly “fills” a very large space.

To prevent exposing others it is important to not become infected; it is important to wear a mask, wash your hands regularly, remain isolated as much as possible, get tested if you might have been exposed (to get treatment and fully quarantine yourself if you get infected), and get vaccinated.

For some unimaginable reason the issue of “freedom” seems to creep into the equation. l really don’t get it, but have come to some conclusions on the topic. The first is that personal freedom extends to those things that impact the safety of yourself – it does not extend to situations where your actions impact the safety of others. This idea has been deeply embedded in social rules, laws and regulations for thousands of years – it is not something new. The USA has hundreds (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of instances where laws have been created based upon this framework. In fact, it might be that almost the entire set of laws and social agreements is based upon the concept of “your freedom stops where my nose begins.” You are not free to shoot up a school, to speed through a residential district, to …. you get the picture. So, since we are clearly in a historically risky pandemic the idea of having the personal freedom to spread it is ludicrous. Of course you do NOT have, and should not, have the freedom to cause others to contract the disease and die. That isn’t freedom, it is murder.

However, you DO have the freedom to take the risks as long as you don’t impact others. I have become firmly convinced that this means staying totally away from situations where you might get infected and/or transmit the virus to others. That means an effective quarantine – either alone or in conjunction with a group of your choice – as long as the entire group remains quarantined. If a group wants to create a “bubble” and everyone is willing to stay within that bubble, that would not only be acceptable – it would be perfect and is likely to be the only way we get out of this problem. Have at it!!! However, this means that you have to stay in that bubble if you get sick – no side trips to the doctor or a hospital. If you want to go to a hospital, then that hospital has to be “inside” of your bubble. Otherwise, you have made your choice and society has no responsibility for your care.

So it is an easy choice in my mind – either do everything you can to work with all of society to control and eventually get past the pandemic , or take your own path. I am convinced that either approach is fine, but not both. This is a situation where you can’t have your cake and eat it to. Make a choice, that’s fine – but don’t make MY choice for me.

A neighbor (and friend) sent me a link to a rather disturbing article in the Washington Post questioning the science behind the predictions of global warming. (https://wapo.st/3jVaArg) He sent it as a idea for a “conversation starter” for our little group of neighborhood friends when we get together for our periodic social gatherings. I am not sure how well that would work out as a conversation starter but it did cause me to write a response – perhaps mostly to help myself clarify my thoughts on the topic. I hope you can access the link, but if not it is an opinion piece by a columnist named George F. Will (whom am unfamiliar with and have no knowledge of).

This article is full of rather odd comments that appear to be logical, but aren’t really. For example, he mentions that CNN stated that oceans are warming at the same rate as five Hiroshima bombs per second – and then points out that the sun provides the equivalent of 2000 bombs per second – and then jokes that the comparison makes it clear that the five bombs per second are not important. Those are rather odd units of energy, but the point is that one is talking about changes in the temperature of the ocean, the other is taking about how much energy the sun provides to the earth, which is normally in balance so there oceans normally stay the same temperature. These are totally different topics and there is no comparisons to be made. The issue is that the oceans are heating up, not that there is a lot of energy in sunshine. He also points out that climate and weather are different (as if he is pointing out something different from what is emphasized constantly by the science community), and therefore there is no possible link between changing in weather and changes in climate (and then he adds that of course climate is changing because of what people are doing). He then goes on to say that humans are responsible for almost all of the climate changes, but since there are some difficulties in separating the purely human impact from the “nature” impacts, there is no point in doing anything to try to modify that impact. Then he says that there has been no detectable changes in hurricanes in the last hundred years (a false statement) – he claims that the reason that they are not detectable is that we have better monitoring so the old values are worthless as comparisons (again, a false statement), therefore since the evidence is less than perfect there are no impacts on hurricanes and hence no impacts on weather by climate changes (not related even if it were true). Then he launches into sea level rising not being caused by melting glaciers (perhaps true, and never claimed to be the cause in any case – the current cause is understood to be mostly due to water getting bigger as it gets warmer). He then makes a point that since glaciers might not be causing oceans to rise means that the average temperature in the USA is about the same as it was in 1900 (perhaps true for that year, but totally unrelated to his discussion which at this point is about sea levels). There are a bunch of other disjointed and meaningless comments before he gets to the final summary “zinger” that the projections by the UN that a 3% C increase might impact the economy by 3% by 2100 – and he then explains that during that time the economy is projected to grow by $400 trillion by 2100, and decrease by $388 trillion because of climate change – which is almost a push and therefore the whole concern about climate change (and presumably carbon dioxide levels) is not worth considering, there is no threat if the economy isn’t projected to crash.

Perhaps it would be an interesting place to begin a discussion. My personal opinion is that it is BS, but not just because much of what he says is false, but rather because of so much that was left out. He claims to be making a rational argument to support his contention that climate change is not a problem, but there is really just a bunch of disjointed statements. This is an example of stringing together “facts” taken out of context and then using them to create a narrative that suggests predictions of future actions that happen to suite the person’s philosophy. It would require much more to explain all of the things that we left out, glossed over, or incorrectly interpreted than it took to write the article.

Suffice it to say, my view is along the lines of “ok” – but so what? The author focuses his attention on what journalists say the scientists say, even though the scientists say no such thing. He is attempting to make the point that since journalists make incorrect, and misleading statements concerning what the scientists are saying that somehow the science is wrong.

A similar thing is happening with the covid issues, especially over the issues of masking and vaccinations. It is almost impossible to find any news that correctly states what the science folks are saying and have been saying for months. The problem isn’t with the scientists, the problem is that the journalists (and politicians) that are ‘interpreting’ the science know almost nothing about either the science, or even how to listen to what scientists are saying. Unfortunately, politicians seem to be even worse than journalists in that regard.

For example, yesterday I heard on the news that all school employees need to either be vaccinated OR tested weekly. This is close to one of the stupidest things that I have heard so far. For one thing, it takes significantly less time than a week to go from “testing clear” to being contagious. Obviously weekly testing won’t catch that, and it wouldn’t be a once in awhile failure to catch the problem, it will be every time someone catches it and then takes it to the schools. The science says that this approach will not work. For this approach to work the testing has to be frequent enough to be able to catch that someone has been infected before they have a chance to spread it – and that isn’t compatible with the once a week model. I am not even certain that it works at all. In addition, the science says that being vaccinated does not stop a person from being infected and spreading it. As far as I can determine, it probably doesn’t even reduce the likelihood of being contagious. The vaccinations minimize the outcome, but not the frequency. So what good does that do for the kids who haven’t been vaccinated ? None. So according to “science” the new demand is not likely to be very effective. Does this mean that the science is wrong? Nope – it means that it is being interpreted for to achieve goals other than protecting the students.

The same things are happening with the stuff about climate change. It isn’t that the science is “wrong” (understanding that by definition science is never “right”), but it is being interpreted to meet other goals.

Just my humble opinion, still interested in talking about these things, but the discussion is complex and long.

I live in the middle of California, in the great Sacramento Valley about 20 miles north of Sacramento, the state’s capitol. I am surrounded on all sides by miles of flat, arid land dedicated to a vast agricultural economy. Because of this situation, the needs of my community are quite different from those in the urban areas of the county. During a recent county election, there was a change in the membership to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, including the person that represents the rural portions of the county. The new supervisor has been holding “town hall” meetings in an effort to better understand the needs and desires of her constitutes – but has been doing so by holding meetings in town, without notifying or inviting the folks from the rural areas. Because of this, she is finding out what folks from urban districts think about the needs of the rural areas instead of finding out what her constitutes think. Because of this, a number of us in rural areas have made attempts to express our views to her in writing, with the hopes that she will periodically reach out and hold town hall meetings with us. I posting my letter in this blog in an effort to share my views, for whatever they may be worth.

My letter:

Dear Madam Supervisor,

I have been discussing what we observe as being important in our area with my wife and a few friends. We have identified a few issues that are currently on our list of “most important problems”. This in no way means that they are the only concerns, or that they will remain the “most important” – but for now they are as follows (in order of importance):

1) Ensure a dependable, affordable, source of water for domestic purposes.

Without this there is a great risk that the property values of the residences in rural Yolo County will crash and people will be forced to give up their homes, losing most or all of the value of their investments in their homes.  Therefore, in many ways this is an existential, top level, concern.  Without water there is no life.  Currently many of the residential wells are either going dry, being ruined by sand intrusion, or failing for other reasons.  It is my understanding that part of this is caused by the lack of recharge during the current drought, and some is being caused by a massive increase in the use of subsurface water to support recent changes in crops.

2) Stop the current high rate of subsidence in the area.

Currently there is a very high, and accelerating, problem with subsidence in the Zamora area (and perhaps the entire rural region of northern Yolo County).  The folks that seem to know about such this point to the recent increase in use of subsurface water in the lower aquifer as being the primary cause.  Once this aquifer compresses because of removal of water it cannot be “pumped back up” – it is permanent.  This subsidence is already destroying local infrastructures, such as houses developing new cracks in walls and foundations.  We have heard that it is a significant concern to the road (and freeway) infrastructures, and is likely to turn areas “near” flood zones to being “in” flood zones.  Residences tend to be build outside of historic flood zones, but as the ground subsides relative to the river beds the boundaries of those areas changes to include the homes and other facilities.
The likely outcome of increasing subsidence is similar to a lack of water because frequent flooding will make the area unlivable.

3) Replace the slow, poor and sporadic internet connections in rural Yolo County with modern high-speed, affordable solutions.

As Society moves toward more and more dependence upon the internet, good affordable high speed connections are becoming a necessity instead of a luxury.  Many of the people in the rural areas are in the category of “low income” and therefore can’t afford expensive, slow solutions such as satellite internet or similar solutions.  The best solution would be to “wire” the rural areas with fiber optics that serve the community are low (or free) rates so that everyone can benefit from on-line training and access to medical care and other important benefits (especially in times of possible continuing pandemics). 

4) Fix and/or replace the roads, bridges and drainage systems in the rural parts of Yolo County.

The rural roads are being torn up by a combination of age, heavy usage and neglected maintenance.  Currently, many (perhaps most) of the roads “worn out”, either being patched periodically or closed.  The patches fill potholes, but leave a terrible road surface that quickly degrades into new potholes.  The edges of the roads are crumbling, encroaching on the travel lanes, narrowing the width of the lanes resulting in most people illegally traveling straddling the center divide and destroying shoulders and drainage ditches. It is time to repair or replace the roads, not just keep attempting to put on many layers of band-aids. Roads, bridges and culverts need to be fixed, replaced and/or carefully inspected for damage and wear.

5) Re-engineer and upgrade drainage systems.

New agricultural practices have negatively impacted county maintained drainage. The vast new almond orchards have resulted in major changes to the patterns and quantify of storm runoff across the County.  Land has been “leveled”, denuded, and shaped to ensure maximum runoff from the orchards during storm events (in order to prevent damage to the trees).  This has resulted in greatly increased runoff volumes that now overwhelm what used to be adequate drainage systems.  All parts of the drainage system needs to be re-evaluated, re-engineered  and upgraded sop that it is sufficient to contain storm water.  Due to the increased levels of runoff created by new agricultural practices, local flooding of previously “safe” residences and other facilities are becoming common, as are road closures during storm events.

Other issues: In addition to these problems, there is an over-arching issue concerning allocation of water.  Currently there are almost no region-wide monitoring or limitations on water use in the rural regions.  Therefore, the only “costs” associated with the use of subsurface water drawn from “the commons” (aquifers that we all share and depend upon) are those associated with drilling and maintenance of wells, and the highly subsidized cost of power to run the pumps.  This results in the current situation that appears to be a “run on water use” that is typical of California.  It is our opinion (and the opinion of those scientists that study such things), that this approach of laissez-faire water management of subsurface water sources (wells) is a recipe for disaster.  We believe that given the obvious near and long term impacts of global warming and increased populations this management approach needs to change into a much more sustainable, and equitable, allocation of water allowing the demand to follow the availability of the resource instead of over using resources in an attempt to meet demand.  The use of shared resources such as water needs to mirror the ability to sustain the resource rather than the current approach of creating a need and then “mining” available resources to meet that artificially creating need. 

In a previous posting I discussed some issues that I am concerned about with regard to the relicensing of the Upper North Fork Feather River Hydoelectric Project, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) Project 2105. Based upon those concerns, I wrote a letter to the commission in the hopes of applying some tiny pressure to reconsider some of the demands for re-licensing. I wrote the letter a month ago, but perhaps it is appropriate to share it here.

Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 888 —

1^st Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426-0001

Subject: Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2105; California SWRCB proposed Certification and Water Quality Conditions

Your honorable Kimberly D. Bose,

This letter is in response to the plan to use water from Lake Almanor to cool water in downstream sections of the Upper North Fork of the Feather River (UNFFR).  The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) proposed three alternatives to complying with Condition 6 – Water Temperature Management – of the water quality certification in order to approve licensing of FERC Project No. 2105.  Each of the alternatives is intended to add cold water to the UNFFR with the goal of improving cold freshwater habitat (i.e., rainbow trout habitat) by reducing river water temperatures to below 20°C. 

Alternative 1 is to release supplemental results of up to 250 cfs from Canyon Dam from June 16 through September 15 and the installation of thermal curtains at the Prattville intake and the Butt Valley Reservoir.  Alternative 2 is to install thermal curtains without supplemental releases from Canyon Dam.  Alternative 3 consists of stand-alone releases from Canyon Dam of 250 cfs from June 16 through September 15. One of the main problems with these proposals is that there is very little scientific evidence indicating that achieving that goal will achieve any improvement to the rainbow trout habitat, or the health of the cold water species in the river.

 It is far better to fix the things that are causing the problem of insufficient cold freshwater habitat (primarily rainbow trout) in the river rather than change things that are not causing the problem.  Wasted resources spent in an attempt to slightly modify the river temperature could much better be used to improve the habitat in the tributaries and river basin. The regulations require “reasonable” accommodations to reduce negative environmental impacts of actions.  The “action” under consideration is the re-licensing of an existing project.  Spending a lot of money, and putting a healthy lake at risk, is not a “reasonable” because it is unlikely to have a significant positive impact on an unknown problem. 

 After studying the various documents provided by the SWRCB I conclude that there are several major problems with the modeling and hence the development of the three alternatives.  In addition, according to top scientists in the field, issues with the rainbow trout populations in the river (if any issues exist) are far more likely to be the result of problems in the tributaries and the river basin itself than the slightly elevated average river temperature during a couple of months in the summer. 

The following discussions summarize a few important concerns with the proposed alternatives imposed by the SWRCB as conditions for re-licensing project 2015:

1. It is not at all clear that reducing the water temperature in the river by approximately 1 or 2 degrees during the summer months will significantly improve fish habitat for fish or other organisms.  The stated goal is to improve cold water fish habitat (represented by Rainbow trout) in the UNFFR enough to cause a “rebound” in fish populations as might have existed prior to the installation of the dams and associated power plants on the river. (The population size is a conjecture; there is no substantiated evidence of what those populations might have been.)

• Studies have shown that the optimal temperature environment to achieve maximum growth and vigor for rainbow trout isn’t one that is constantly below 20°C but rather one with daily fluctuations between approximately 17°C and approximately 24°C.  Spending some time in “warm” water (up to approximately 24°C) appears to be beneficial to trout.   A single cutoff temperature, such as 20°C has very little value for determining the best environment.  (The single value appears to have come from an old source that was very likely based more upon a “hunch” than solid scientific studies.)

• The health and abundance of rainbow trout in the UNFFR is determined to a large extent by the habitat within the many tributaries to the river.  These tributaries are the locations where spawning occurs and where fish grow to adult size.  Once fish grow sufficiently, they enter the river proper, but spend much of their time congregating around the many underwater streams providing “pools” of cold, fresh water. 

The key to improving rainbow trout habitat is to focus on the many tributaries that act as nurseries for the fish.  Once the trout are mature enough to enter the river proper they are capable of finding “micro-environments” suitable to their needs. Changing the average temperature of the river by a degree or degree and a half is unlikely to have any significant impact up the suitability of the river for cold water fish, including rainbow trout. 

• The target temperature of less than 20°C does not appear to be based upon any consideration of the habitat, the fish or the environment.  The target appears to be based upon meeting a requirement in a regulation. There is no evidence that the fish population is stressed, endangered or smaller than it should be to maintain a healthy balance within the river system.

• The studies sited in the EIR don’t indicate that there is a degraded or damage fish population, but do indicate that if there is such a degradation that it could be caused by a number of causes including lack of adequate gravel beds for spawning, the introduction of non-native predatory fish, the lack of sufficient shading opportunities, warm water, etc.  There is no evidence provided concerning whether or not any of these possible issues exist, or if they actually degrade the fish environment. The only evidence provided is that the average water temperature is higher than the regulation for a few weeks a year.

High water temperatures during the months of July and August are identified as possible contributing factors, but no evidence is provided to indicate which of the possible factors are most important or which factors should be improved for the most cost effective, and environmentally sound, solution. 

• It is well known that the biggest impact upon the health and success of rainbow trout in the UNFFR depends upon the conditions of the many small tributaries.   Several simple, relatively low cost solutions have been proposed by the American Indians native to that area.  PG&E has offered financial (five million dollars) and other support to assist them in implementing those proposed solutions.  However, the State Water Board (SWRCB) turned those solutions down, apparently because they are not in the SWRCB’s jurisdiction.  The SWRCB appears to only be interested in solutions that they can mandate and control, not necessarily solutions that improve the ecosystems, fish habitat or the fisheries of the river.  

• The temperature studies of the impacts of removing large volumes of cold water from Lake Almanor were almost exclusively focused on the impacts to the cold water rainbow trout habitat in the lake.  The proposed “solution” to the predicted large scale rainbow trout kills is to periodically stock the lake with hatchery raised, “catchable” rainbow trout.  The studies did not address impacts upon other organisms requiring a consistent cold water habitat.  Based upon available documentation, it seems that no comprehensive studies were performed concerning the changes to the warm water portion of the lake.

 A significant concern is the potential for increased water temperatures resulting in a significant growth of algae.  The existence of algae blooms would in turn change the albedo of the water, making the water darker and therefore absorbing more solar radiation – resulting in a feedback loop of further warming the water, thereby increasing the algae…  This type of feedback loop has the potential to result in yet another lake becoming a giant green pond (similar to what has happened to Clear Lake in Clear Lake County). 

• The studies and modeling described in the EIR used to determine the impacts for the various alternatives were performed almost 20 years ago, based upon weather history up to that time.  Apparently no attempt was made to forecast future climate conditions caused by global warming. The highly optimistic proposals were based upon an assumption that each of the three alternatives could potentially lower the river temperatures to below 20°C (an approximately 1.5°C reduction in temperature).  It is my understanding that new models based upon the projected “global warming” weather regime have predicted a much lower reduction in temperature, closer to 0.25°C – which is insufficient to move the river temperatures into the “safe” zone.  If the newer projections are true, then there is little to be gained by either of the three proposed alternatives for removing cold water from Lake Almanor – none of the alternatives are worth the taking the unknown risks introduced to the Lake Almanor hydrologic system.

SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS:

It is unlikely that decreasing the average temperature of small sections of the North Fork of the Feather River (UNFFR) by a degree or two will result in any measureable improvements to the fish habitat in those sections or in the entirety of the river. However, there is a very real and significant risk to Lake Amanor associated with changing the thermal characteristics of the lake.  Until much better, up-to-date modeling of the broader potential impacts of the proposed changes “prove” that the risks to the lake are less than the benefits to the river, then it is not appropriate to “experiment” on a functioning system. The potential for a minor improvement to the river environment do not justify the risks associated with removing the cold water from Lake Almanor, especially in light of the possibility that decreasing river water temperatures might actually result in a poorer environment for the fish.  

New information indicates that the new weather conditions associated with global warming will result in less than a 0.25°C reduction in river water at the critical locations on the UNFFR.  This is not enough to result in a significant improvement to the fish in the river, but will certainly result in significant degradation of fish habitat in Lake Almanor.  The correct approach from an environmental point of view is to focus on the habitat on the UNFFR rather than focusing on an attempt to lower the temperature of the river beyond what is feasible, reasonable or practical given the forecast global changes to weather conditions.  The lake should not be put at risk in an experiment that perhaps a slight drop in water temperatures at a few locations on the river will result in a significant (or measureable) improvement to the fish.   

As a minimum, the studies supporting the EIR should be repeated based upon new estimates of future weather conditions, using newer more accurate models.  The modeling needs to be expanded in scope to include all of the impacts to the lake environment, including impacts on the warm water environment and impacts on cold water species beyond rainbow trout.  The potential impacts upon the river cold water species should be further investigated to better determine the overall anticipated improvements due to changes in water temperature caused by the three alternatives.  In addition, additional habitat improvement alternatives (such as those proposed by the local Native American tribe) should be investigated to determine impact, cost and feasibility.

Respectively,

One of my covid projects has been to fix up a stall in our little barn to be a pottery studio for my wife. It has been a VERY slow process, giving me a project that has lasted for the biggest part of a year. I started with a rather rustic stall without doors, windows and only three walls. Over time I managed to put in another wall separating the space from my “shop” (really just the barn), insulated, sheet-rocked, changed the lighting and a few other odds and ends. I think it came out well. The MINI-Split HVAC isn’t installed yet, but it is close. Here are a couple of photos:

It turned out nice enough that I am not sure I want to “give it up.” I think it could make a pretty pleasant office or perhaps a “man cave”. I have a work bench that will be installed under the windows looking out into the back yard. The windows with small panes look into my shop area, not to the outside. I liked the old windows and didn’t have an outside wall for them, so I put them into an interior wall. It was a pretty fun project, I only worked on it an hour or two at a time to fit into my other projects. The reason for the low ceiling in the alcove is that it makes an overhead storage space in my shop.

PG&E Project 2105 is a large “project” owned and operated by PG&E that includes several electrical power plants on the North Fork of the Feather River, including Lake Almanor in Plumas County. The project of putting power plants on this portion of the Feather River began in 1910, resulting in the entire stretch of the river and lakes in this region making up a large, highly managed, power generation system. The Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project (UNFFR Project) is located on the North Fork Feather River in Plumas County. It consists of three reservoirs with dams: Lake Almanor, Butt Valley reservoir and Belden forebay; five powerhouses; tunnels and penstocks connecting the reservoirs to the powerhouses; and transmission, operation and maintenance, and access facilities. The five powerhouses include eight hydroelectric generating units with a total nameplate capacity of 362.3 megawatts (MW).

This project came up for re-licensing in 2004, but has been stalled since that time because of a new requirement imposed by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) to draw cold water from Lake Almanor in the hopes of cooling a stretch of the Feather River located about 20 miles downstream that has been deemed to be too warm to support the native rainbow trout population. The average temperature of the river in some locations gets to approximately 23°C during the months of July and August. EPA regulations state that water temperatures above 20°C are dangerous for cold water fish, including rainbow trout.

There are many problems with those regulations, not the least of which is that they don’t actually conform with science. It turns out that for rainbow trout to achieve maximum growth rates they require a varying thermal environment shifting between about 16° C to 24°C on a daily basis. 20°C is NOT an absolute limit as it is treated in the regulations. The conditions in the UNFFR are quite varied, with deep cold pools provided by underground springs, and many small tributaries feeding the river that provide spawning and brood waters at the “nursery” for rainbow trout. The 20°C limit was set decades ago before enough studies were performed to have a good idea of the conditions necessary for a healthy fish population. It was just a guess, that was never intended to be the final answer, it was more or less just a place-holder until better information became available. Better information has become available, but the regulations have not been changed.

It is clear that if there is a problem with the rainbow trout in the river, it is almost certainly not because the average river temperature exceeds 20°C for a couple of months out of the year. The native trout are well suited to the environment in the river and congregate around the cold pools when necessary. The fish spawn and remain in the tributaries, not in the main body of the river. Decreasing the river temperature by dumping more cold water into it from Lake Almanor will have no impact on the critical spawning habitat in the tributaries. In fact, there is no evidence that increasing the water temperature will have any beneficial impact on the cold fish populations, with the available science pointing strongly to the conclusion that water temperatures are not a danger to the fish.

However, drawing cold water from Lake Almanor is a known high risk option. In fact, the SWRCB acknowledges that their plan will result in large scale fish kills to the large and robust native rainbow trout population in the lake. Their solution to these fish kills is to annually plants tens of thousands of hatchery raised trout to maintain a large enough population to satisfy the sport fishermen. They intend to plant “catchable” sized fish since they know that the environment will be unable to support the fish once they draw out the pools of cold water at the bottom of the lake.

In addition to the problem of killing the rainbow trout that current live in the cold pools at the bottom of the lake, they expect the overall water temperature of the lake to increase due to the removal of the cold water. However, they don’t know how much warmer the lake will become because they have not studied that outcome – they are focused on river temperatures, not lake temperatures. There appears to be a real, but unquantified, risk of the lake warming sufficiently to induce algae blooms that could result in a feedback loop of more algae resulting in darker water, resulting in more solar induced warming, creating more algae – etc. That would be a terrible thing to happen to the beautiful, clear waters of the lake.

An additional problem with their proposed cold water withdrawl plan is that it is in addition to the water that is currently needed for hydroelectric production and irrigation. Currently the lake is operated in a way that provides adequate flow for a massive amount of sustainable hydroelectric power production, irrigation needs in the Sacramento Valley, and maintaining a healthy ecosystem in the river – while keeping lake levels relative constant in support of other needs such as recreation and maintaining beach front for the thousands of homes and cottages surrounding the lake. Removing large amounts of additional cold water will probably result in a significant disruption to the lake levels, threatening the human uses, and also the wildlife (such as nesting grebes) that have come to depend upon the current lake levels.

I think this entire thing is a travesty with some people whose job it is to regulate things doing so without stepping back and including the entire system under study. They are focused on a single outdated target number rather than the health of the ecosystem that the number is supposed to represent. I am totally in favor of regulations, and understand that they are necessary in order to make sure that projects “do the right thing.” However, the regulations need to be implemented with a large dollop of sound science. The law being enforced specifies that reasonable measures be taken. To me, that means that the solutions to the problem do not cause more problems. It is not appropriate to move the problem from one place to another, nor is it appropriate to mandate actions just because of the existence of an unsupported number. I think the fact that the risk has been flagged as “at risk” because of water temperatures is a clue that perhaps there might be a problem. That means that it is probably worthwhile to study the problem to see if the fish are actually at risk, or actually being harmed. That study should include the other possible sources of harm that were identified along with water temperatures, include lack of proper gravel in stream beds, lack of adequate access to tributaries, the presence of introduced predatory fish, and others.

In addition to all of these problems, the studies projecting the amount of cooling that could result from these actions were performed in 2000, using engineering models that were based upon past historical data using what are now out-of-date computer models. The newer models, using current projections of water cooling with global warming indicate that the impact of the cold water releases with be on the order of 0.2°C, or less. That means that the water will be drawn from the lake but will have essentially zero impact on the temperatures of the river water. There will be a lot of costs, a lot of risks to the lake, and no resulting positive outcomes. The problem is that once a regulatory “machine” gets started, and regulators have made their pronouncements, it is extremely difficult to stop the train before the train wreck happens. The machine has a lot of momentum and just keeps rolling along.