Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Dave Frightens Me writes:

If the cold directly causes the death (i.e., the flu or pneumonia
wouldn't have killed them with the cold), then it is.

If the cold causes death with flu or pneumonia, it causes death
without it, too.

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

Keith W writes:

As do the golf courses that Phoenix residents love so much

Golf courses occupy only a minority of the surface area of the city,
however. And I'm not sure that they need as much water as farmland,
since the growth of grass is limited compared to that of, say, corn.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
JohnT writes:

But, as I said, either may result in death. I didn't suggest an
association
with low temperatures.

But others did, and attempted to present cold and flu deaths as "death
from cold temperatures."

Irrelevant to this discussion. Pay attention.

JohnT

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:36:16 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

If the cold directly causes the death (i.e., the flu or pneumonia
wouldn't have killed them with the cold), then it is.

If the cold causes death with flu or pneumonia, it causes death
without it, too.

I suspect a flu or pneumonia would increase the chances of death,
don't you?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

JohnT wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

JohnT writes:


No, it is not. Hypothermia is an abnormally low body temperature, which
in
some cases may result in death.

Low = cold


As may influenza, or even a cold.

Neither of these is associated with low temperatures.



But, as I said, either may result in death. I didn't suggest an association
with low temperatures. Dim Mixi.



But, we were discussion heat or cold related deaths.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Keith W writes:


As do the golf courses that Phoenix residents love so much


Golf courses occupy only a minority of the surface area of the city,
however. And I'm not sure that they need as much water as farmland,
since the growth of grass is limited compared to that of, say, corn.


Isn't it usually limited due to cutting? Many farm crops need a lot less
water than what people put on their lawn. Additionally, the city
attracts people more likely to play golf.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
mrtravel writes:

But they still have seasons, despite the water going down the drain with
the spin in the opposite direction.

The hemisphere has no effect on the direction in which water spins
when going down the drain.


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

Mxsmanic writes:

Keith W writes:

As do the golf courses that Phoenix residents love so much

Golf courses occupy only a minority of the surface area of the city,
however. And I'm not sure that they need as much water as farmland,
since the growth of grass is limited compared to that of, say, corn.

Here is a source from Colorado State that tries to analyze golf
courses and their ecological impact:

http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/thil...lfresource.pdf

They say:

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.

(To me these numbers look closer than the sources of errors in their
extrapolation, so it looks like a wash between lawns and golf courses
on a per square foot basis.

Of course one of the nice things about Arizona is that the average
lawn is small: .12 acre according to this article. I bet most golf
courses are bigger than that.)


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.

Caveat: some of this data is old, and may have changed. And I have no
idea if it is accurate.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Hatunen writes:

The water problems come from the heavy agricultural use of
groundwater, which took well over 80% of the available well
water. The Central Arizona Project wouldn't have been needed if
the farmers around Phoenix hadn't clamored for it. Ironically,
the farms around Phoenix are now disappearing under subdivisions.

That should be good for the water supply, since residential areas
require far less water than farmland.


More nonsensical blather. The consumption of water for household (inc. lawn
and vegetation), commercial, municipal (parks and city services) and
industrial purposes in commercial areas far outweighs the amounts necessary
for agriculture in all but a few highly specialized crops. Most of the
world's crops are raised without irrigatiuon or any "water" other than
rainfall.

Agricultural water usage (in the US, at least) is measured in acre feet, an
inch of water in the surface area of an acre, (easily "measured" from
rainfall. The amount needed for an acre of farming in a year would hardly
serve the needs of an "acre" in the midst of a heavily populated urban area
(even if runoff could be recycled, but then runoff also occurs in
croplands).

TMO

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw writes:

That rather depends on what is being farmed but sounds flat wrong
to me. Residential districts use LARGE amounts of water. Plants
dont take showers and flush the loo several times a day.

No, it's correct. One reason that areas like Phoenix have not run low
on water as farmland has been converted to urban uses is that the
latter require far less water. For example, Tempe and Mesa (eastern
suburbs of Phoenix) are in the service area of the Salt River Project,
and are entitled to water from the Project in relation to their
surface area. The surface area occupied by the urbanization of these
suburbs provides more than enough water allocation for all the urban
uses, since it was originally intended as an agricultural allocation,
which requires far more water. Thus, the more the cities urbanize,
the less water they use.



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".

It's bad enough to be an utter fook, mxsmanic, but to be a blindly arrogant
fool and oblivious to your foolishness (and the titters and guffaws it draws
from your readers)compounds the atrocity.

TMO