Avoid Delta and Atlanta

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Hatunen writes:

The Colorado River.

And what's wrong with the Colorado River? What treatment does the
water receive on arrival?


Carrying a thousand miles of dissolved minerals from cutting its way across
the continent, grotesque amounts of agricultural runoff including no small
dosage of organic phosphates and even the gentle reminders of all that
outhouse overflow, the effluent of countless boaters, and the treated sewage
of a bunch of towns and cities, by the time Arid-Zonians get to taste the
Colorado, it has a notable flavor and "True Grit". The Seine would be
clearer (if not "cleaner" in a potable sense)....

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:54:56 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

The Colorado River.

And what's wrong with the Colorado River? What treatment does the
water receive on arrival?

It's almost impossible to get completely rid of the taste,
although they do a fair job of it here.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:44:52 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

What matters is education. Educated people don't die from heat.

They die from heat just as much as they die from cold, and potentially
more so because it's harder to protect oneself from heat.

In fact it's easier. Humans can tolerate sustained periods of high
temperatures if they are educated as to how to survive.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Dave Frightens Me writes:

In fact it's easier. Humans can tolerate sustained periods of high
temperatures if they are educated as to how to survive.

No, they cannot. The only education they can receive concerns how to
avoid high temperatures and heating up. If they are exposed to high
temperatures and they heat up, they die, with or without an education.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TOliver writes:

Whiile the evidence is often not conclusive near the Equator, the Coriolis
Effect is worth a few moments of your attention.....

It is not significant with respect to water running down a drain.

(So substantial can it be that at higher latitudes, battleships' main
battery fire control systems were designed with it as an input to firing
solutions)

Battleships can fire shells over distances of dozens of miles. Water
running down a drain travels only a few centimetres. And even for
battleships, the effect is most significant at high latitudes, as you
observe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Frightens Me writes:

I suspect a flu or pneumonia would increase the chances of death,
don't you?

Yes, but this is independent of temperature.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mrtravel writes:

Many farm crops need a lot less water than what people put
on their lawn.

How much water do people put on their lawn, and how much water do farm
crops require?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Doug Anderson writes:

Healthy bluegrass needs about 18 gallons of water per year per square
foot.

They then conclude (not by multiplication, but by some more
complicated extrapolation) that lawns involve roughly 652,000 gallons
per acre per year for irrigation, and that golf courses involve
680,000 gallons per acre per year for irrigation.

680,000 gallons is 2 acre-feet. If it's a 50-acre golf course, that's
100 acre-feet per year.

If you do the conversions from this site
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impa...ogy/water_use/ you get
the impression that agriculture in AZ involves something like 8
million to 16 million gallons per acre per year. A lot more than
lawns or golf courses.

That's about 2450 acre-feet for 50 acres.

A typical home lawn will thus require about 0.138 acre-feet of water
per year, or 55 times less water than an equivalent amount of
farmland.

Caveat: some of this data is old, and may have changed.

I don't think plants change that much over the course of decades.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TOliver writes:

As a former city council member in a small city (rapidly over-laying what
had been cropland) with a water system using both artesian and lake water -
plus the rainfall, let me assure you that the city's demand for water far
outstripped the needs of the farmers who had cropped the land for
generations. Even with rainfall much higher than Central Arizona, 25"-30"
per year, water usage on residential lawns (especially hybrid grasses such
as St. Augustine and the popular shrubbery - most hybrids of tropical
shrubs) is far greater than any crop other than rice. Add household,
commercial and municpal use and "people" simply use more water than "crops".

My information _came_ from city governments. Maybe they were part of
a conspiracy to mislead me. They've misled others here, too,
apparently, based on the figures I've just seen.

Farmland requires a lot more water than residential areas.

And, incidentally, rice doesn't require as much water as you might
think. The reason it is often grown in flooded paddies is not that it
needs all the water, but simply that it tolerates flooding very well,
whereas weeds and insects that might attack the rice plants do not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TOliver writes:

Carrying a thousand miles of dissolved minerals from cutting its way across
the continent, grotesque amounts of agricultural runoff including no small
dosage of organic phosphates and even the gentle reminders of all that
outhouse overflow, the effluent of countless boaters, and the treated sewage
of a bunch of towns and cities, by the time Arid-Zonians get to taste the
Colorado, it has a notable flavor and "True Grit".

Isn't it purified before it is added to the water supply?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.