wrote:

> Plus, when the salt is taken out, what happens to all that salt ?

There's your "sea salt"

On 5/25/2015 3:51 AM, wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:56:39 PM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Fully loaded, a dishwasher uses less water than other methods.
>>
> I've read that statement on sites in the past. Can I assume a
> dishwasher uses less water than sink washing because the
> belief is when hand washing the water is left running
> continually?
>>
>>
>> Not the way I wash them in two small square containers, and I don't have a
>> lot of dishes.
>>
>> Cheri
>>
>>
> When I wash dishes here the stopper is put in both kitchen sinks and
> one is used for washing while the other sink is used for rinsing.
>

Key words: Full load
Those two small containers probably use half what the machine uses.
That saves when doing just a few dishes, but if you can wait and fill
the machine, you could be ahead.

Many studies have been done. These took a sensible approach.
http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-de...s-greener.html

http://www.nrdc.org/living/stuff/gre...her-debate.asp

On 5/25/2015 6:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>


>>
>> That's known as grey water, and is illegal is some places,
>> yet required in other places.
>
> Why is it illegal?
>

It has the potential to pollute or contaminate. I'd use it to water the
roses, but not the tomato plants. I don't now if it affects a well.

There are methods to properly deal with it.
https://www.thenaturalhome.com/greywater.html

On 5/25/2015 7:14 AM, wrote:

>>>>>
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N601V20150415
>>>
>>> Why not use the desalinized water for agriculture?
>>
>> It is extremely expensive water and could not be produced on that scale and
>> be economically viable/
>>
>
> Plus, when the salt is taken out, what happens to all that salt ?
>

Build a potato ship factory next door.

The salt could be used for water softeners or winter road treatment.

On 5/25/2015 8:37 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/25/2015 12:52 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for
>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow.
>>>>>> Good
>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no such
>>>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that
>>>>> even
>>>>> smells a little of money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with
>>>> or
>>>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.
>>>
>>> Not the point I was making.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the answer is important in deciding the fate of water distribution and
>> almond growers. And to determine if you are being sold down the river or
>> made better.
>>
>> Is there a yes or no?
>
> Wall Street has been buying up orchards and massively over planting new
> trees during a drought so as to satisfy Chinese demand and reap higher
> rewards for investors. That makes the problem much worse if you are on trhe
> side of we need to conserve water if we are going to get through this..
>
> So are we better off? Depends on who you are I suppose.
>

At this stage, adding more planting would seem to be the wrong thing to
do. But cutting back production may be very costly in other areas.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/25/2015 6:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>
>>> That's known as grey water, and is illegal is some places,
>>> yet required in other places.
>>
>> Why is it illegal?
>>
>
> It has the potential to pollute or contaminate. I'd use it to water the
> roses, but not the tomato plants. I don't now if it affects a well.
>
> There are methods to properly deal with it.
> https://www.thenaturalhome.com/greywater.html

Thanks very much!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 5/25/2015 9:39 AM, taxed and spent wrote:

>
> We are very affected here in the SFBayArea. Starting June 1, we will be
> rationed with a warning for the first infraction, a small fine for the
> second and a heavy-duty one for the third.
>
> Our family has been doing all that we can, but I will not compromise health,
> safety, or cleanliness (as if anyone would)

On what will they base use or savings on? If it is past use, you'd fare
better on your quota by using a lot of extra water until June 1.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/25/2015 9:39 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>
>>
>> We are very affected here in the SFBayArea. Starting June 1, we will be
>> rationed with a warning for the first infraction, a small fine for the
>> second and a heavy-duty one for the third.
>>
>> Our family has been doing all that we can, but I will not compromise
>> health,
>> safety, or cleanliness (as if anyone would)
>
> On what will they base use or savings on? If it is past use, you'd fare
> better on your quota by using a lot of extra water until June 1.


You are not quoting ME, but you are incorrect, at least as far as my water
company is concerned. The base line is the average of all residential users
in 2013. So, since I use relatively little, I am not being penalized for my
prior thriftiness.

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:57:05 PM UTC-6, Cabrito del Bosque wrote:
> On 5/24/2015 8:01 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > "Janet B" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:45:24 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Janet B" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:39:02 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 17:08:09 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Are there many posters here from California? I haven't heard anyone
> >>>>>> speaking about it. Are you not all very worried?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course we're worried, but we're hoping for a wet winter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Be careful what you wish for. . .look what has happened to the drought
> >>>> in Texas. Boats, anyone?
> >>>> Janet US
> >>>
> >>> We get most of our water from winter snowpack. So no flooding problems.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I was really thinking of torrential rain hitting your burned-off,
> >> fragile hillsides.
> >> Janet US
> >
> > It's happened. Fire season is going to be terrinble this year.
>
> Be a crying shame if you were not incinerated, you asshole.

So now you are "picking on" Paul M. Cook...what a slimeball U are.
An unelected, unofficial moderator is suddenly threatening posters
on this forum when he isn't berating them and calling them assholes.
Desist thou fartlet lest the wrath of Gawd be loosed upon thee.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
:

>>> It takes one gallon of water to grow an almond, but 3.3
>>> gallons of water to grow a tomato. Almonds sell at a premium
>>> compared to tomatoes.
>>
>> That is cracker economics at its most risible. You cannot
>> grow a single almond, you have to grow a tree which will
>> produce many almonds (I would imagine close to 100 almonds
>> per tree if my experience in Andalucia is similar), each if
>> them requiring a "gallon" (or more accurately 4 litres) of
>> water. You can however grow a few tomatoes instead of a
>> hundred.
>
> One almond tree produces thousands of almonds.

In one batch or over the life of the tree?

> And the thing
> is they must be watered year round, you cannot let an almond
> orchard go fallow. They must be watered when not producing.

So it is cracker economics to compare water requirements of a
single almond to that of a tomato. Yes, it may require more water
for a tomato, but a tomato plant does not produce thousands of
tomatoes.

--

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice,
you have chosen the side of the oppressor " --
Desmond Tutu

On Sun, 24 May 2015 14:24:29 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:34:45 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 10:32 AM, notbob wrote:
>> > On 2015-05-24, William > wrote:
>> >
>> >> They may need to build massive desalinization plants on the California
>> >
>> > Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.
>> >
>> > nb
>> >
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N601V20150415
>
>Why not use the desalinized water for agriculture?

did anybody read the link?

William

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in
> :
>
>>>> It takes one gallon of water to grow an almond, but 3.3
>>>> gallons of water to grow a tomato. Almonds sell at a premium
>>>> compared to tomatoes.
>>>
>>> That is cracker economics at its most risible. You cannot
>>> grow a single almond, you have to grow a tree which will
>>> produce many almonds (I would imagine close to 100 almonds
>>> per tree if my experience in Andalucia is similar), each if
>>> them requiring a "gallon" (or more accurately 4 litres) of
>>> water. You can however grow a few tomatoes instead of a
>>> hundred.
>>
>> One almond tree produces thousands of almonds.
>
> In one batch or over the life of the tree? .

One season. 2,670 shelled pounds per acre in 2011.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:07:32 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:34:45 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2015 10:32 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>> > On 2015-05-24, William > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> They may need to build massive desalinization plants on the
>>>> >> California
>>>> >
>>>> > Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.
>>>> >
>>>> > nb
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N601V20150415
>>>
>>> Why not use the desalinized water for agriculture?
>>
>>It is extremely expensive water and could not be produced on that scale
>>and
>>be economically viable/
>>
>
> Plus, when the salt is taken out, what happens to all that salt ?

It has commercial applications.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 5/25/2015 12:16 PM, William wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 14:24:29 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:34:45 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2015 10:32 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2015-05-24, William > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They may need to build massive desalinization plants on the California
>>>>
>>>> Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N601V20150415
>>
>> Why not use the desalinized water for agriculture?
>
> did anybody read the link?
>
> William
>

Yes. Bottom line, it is expensive and not a quick solution. If built,
people will soon bitch about the cost on the water bill for both
construction and operation. Probably some is needed, at least for
emergency insurance, but is is not the 100% solution.

"taxed and spent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "taxed and spent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "taxed and spent" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 7:50:14 AM UTC-7, taxed and spent wrote:
>>>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>>> >>I have noticed several people here mention California. We have
>>>>>>> >>had a lot
>>>>>>> >>of stuff on tv about the lack of water there. We were shown the
>>>>>>> >>huge
>>>>>>> >>reservoirs with very little water in them. They were showing how
>>>>>>> >>people
>>>>>>> >>with lush grass and full swimming pools were being demonised.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Is anyone here affected? It sounds very frightening!
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Everyone in CA is affected. And since CA grows half the country's
>>>>>>> > food,
>>>>>>> > half the country is affected as well. My town is ordering a 35%
>>>>>>> > cutback
>>>>>>> > on water use with fines for offenders. NASA says this is the last
>>>>>>> > year we
>>>>>>> > will have water in the reservoirs. So next year we should be in
>>>>>>> > full
>>>>>>> > anarchy mode I expect. Fox News blames it on illegal immigrants.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I still have not heard any talk about adding storage capacity or
>>>>>>> groundwater replenishment basins, for the times we do have rain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, I haven't heard my wife talking about buying a safe for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> jewelry she expects to buy after she wins the lottery.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a bit different, isn't it. Years with heavy rains are quite
>>>>> frequent. We need to be putting more away for those non-rainy days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would take tax money.
>>>>
>>>> We have enough damns and reservoirs., What do you think has kept us
>>>> going? This is year 4 of extreme drought. Just how much capacity can
>>>> you plan for?
>>>>
>>>
>>> since a four year drought is pretty common here in California, and we
>>> have tripled our population without adding any more storage capacity, I
>>> would say we need more storage.
>>
>> We're in a 100 year drought. No amount of planning would have helped.
>
> foolish statement. adding x% to our storage capacity would have helped.

Adding a cistern in my garage would have helped but it only lasts so long.
Besides, getting repugs to go along with any infrastructure improvement is
impossible. They just whine that it is foolish and we can't afford it.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

"William" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 14:24:29 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:34:45 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2015 10:32 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> > On 2015-05-24, William > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> They may need to build massive desalinization plants on the
>>> >> California
>>> >
>>> > Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.
>>> >
>>> > nb
>>> >
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N601V20150415
>>
>>Why not use the desalinized water for agriculture?
>
> did anybody read the link?

Yes.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/25/2015 8:37 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 5/25/2015 12:52 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for
>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow.
>>>>>>> Good
>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no
>>>>>> such
>>>>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> smells a little of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with
>>>>> or
>>>>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.
>>>>
>>>> Not the point I was making.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the answer is important in deciding the fate of water distribution
>>> and
>>> almond growers. And to determine if you are being sold down the river or
>>> made better.
>>>
>>> Is there a yes or no?
>>
>> Wall Street has been buying up orchards and massively over planting new
>> trees during a drought so as to satisfy Chinese demand and reap higher
>> rewards for investors. That makes the problem much worse if you are on
>> trhe
>> side of we need to conserve water if we are going to get through this..
>>
>> So are we better off? Depends on who you are I suppose.
>>
>
> At this stage, adding more planting would seem to be the wrong thing to
> do. But cutting back production may be very costly in other areas.

You have to understand the immense power these growers have in this state.
It is as if Wall Street dictates to the government how we handle this and of
course they get preferential treatment. So the outcome is not what is best
for the state it is what is best for some a-hole billionaire. As always.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 May 2015 08:14:53 -0300, wrote:

>On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:07:32 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:34:45 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2015 10:32 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>> > On 2015-05-24, William > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> They may need to build massive desalinization plants on the California
>>>> >
>>>> > Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.
>>>> >
>>>> > nb
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N601V20150415
>>>
>>> Why not use the desalinized water for agriculture?
>>
>>It is extremely expensive water and could not be produced on that scale and
>>be economically viable/
>>
>
>Plus, when the salt is taken out, what happens to all that salt ?

It goes back into the ocean. The whole thing is an interesting
process.
Janet US

On Sun, 24 May 2015 18:53:26 -0300, wrote:

>>Time to invade Canada. We will be greeted as liberators and the cost of the
>>war will pay for itself with water revenues.


we have idiot Neocons who will take this and run with it...be quiet!

William

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 2:51:51 PM UTC-10, Nellie wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 3:32:44 AM UTC-7, Ophelia wrote:
> > I have noticed several people here mention California. We have had a lot of
> > stuff on tv about the lack of water there. We were shown the huge
> > reservoirs with very little water in them. They were showing how people
> > with lush grass and full swimming pools were being demonised.
> >
> > Is anyone here affected? It sounds very frightening!
> >
> > --
> > http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
>
>
> We are very affected here in the SFBayArea. Starting June 1, we will be rationed with a warning for the first infraction, a small fine for the second and a heavy-duty one for the third.
>
> Our family has been doing all that we can, but I will not compromise health, safety, or cleanliness (as if anyone would) It's tough because being the eternal optimist, I planted several things last Autumn thinking that 'yes indeedy we would have rain.' In January, I planted three rose bushes. Now I am committed to these living things I plan to save water on household chores and use what I have left of our ration on the outdoors.
>
> It is disheartening to see the golf courses all nice and green. My DH and I went to Sacramento last week and passed through agricultural country. I was shocked to see the new plantings everywhere; grapevines, of course, but also trees, lots of them, possibly almond; I couldn't tell from the car.
>
> It is sad to think about the animals that will have to do with less food because there will not be enough water for their hay or whatever else they eat. This happened the last time we had this severe of a drought and it was awful to read about.
>
> Other than the water issue there is the horrendously real danger of fire. That is very scary. You will be reading about that soon.
>
> Nellie

My sister-in-law's area in Oroville is prone to fires. They had one on the hill behind their house during fire season a few years back and her husband was on the hill spraying water with a garden hose. When they drove me through there, I thought the place looked like a tinderbox that was ready to explode. There were random black patches that were already burnt. Black and brown was the land. It's like ruski roulette down there in Southern California.

"William" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 14:24:29 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:34:45 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2015 10:32 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> > On 2015-05-24, William > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> They may need to build massive desalinization plants on the
>>> >> California
>>> >
>>> > Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.
>>> >
>>> > nb
>>> >
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N601V20150415
>>
>>Why not use the desalinized water for agriculture?
>
> did anybody read the link?


You can get a lot of information from a title.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:51:14 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>When I wash dishes here the stopper is put in both kitchen sinks and
>one is used for washing while the other sink is used for rinsing.


your rinse technique is not sanitary as there are numerous microbes
living in the sink basin. Your county health department would declare
your washed dishes unsanitary. They must be sterilized with fresh tap
water heated to at least 140 degrees (F).

William

"William" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:51:14 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>>When I wash dishes here the stopper is put in both kitchen sinks and
>>one is used for washing while the other sink is used for rinsing.
>
>
> your rinse technique is not sanitary as there are numerous microbes
> living in the sink basin. Your county health department would declare
> your washed dishes unsanitary. They must be sterilized with fresh tap
> water heated to at least 140 degrees (F).

1 teaspoon of bleach is all you need in the rise water.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...

> lol I hadn't seen that. It would be interesting to know if anyone has
> ever seen him/her/it ever contribute anything to a conversation other than
> insults and foul language.

Never. Just a potty mouthed old dog.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> lol I hadn't seen that. It would be interesting to know if anyone has
>> ever seen him/her/it ever contribute anything to a conversation other
>> than insults and foul language.
>
> Never. Just a potty mouthed old dog.

No surprises there then and I am missing nothing!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:00:12 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:43:58 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Janet B" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:37:58 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:39:10 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>>> >>I have noticed several people here mention California. We have
>>>>>>> >>had
>>>>>>> >>a
>>>>>>> >>lot
>>>>>>> >>of stuff on tv about the lack of water there. We were shown the
>>>>>>> >>huge
>>>>>>> >>reservoirs with very little water in them. They were showing how
>>>>>>> >>people
>>>>>>> >>with lush grass and full swimming pools were being demonised.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Is anyone here affected? It sounds very frightening!
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Everyone in CA is affected. And since CA grows half the country's
>>>>>>> > food,
>>>>>>> > half the country is affected as well. My town is ordering a 35%
>>>>>>> > cutback
>>>>>>> > on water use with fines for offenders. NASA says this is the last
>>>>>>> > year we
>>>>>>> > will have water in the reservoirs. So next year we should be in
>>>>>>> > full
>>>>>>> > anarchy mode I expect. Fox News blames it on illegal immigrants.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if there will be no water in the reservoirs, where will your
>>>>>>> water
>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>> from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>>>>water gets none.
>>>>>
>>>>> who were you wanting to take the water from?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Time to invade Canada. We will be greeted as liberators and the cost of
>>>>the
>>>>war will pay for itself with water revenues.
>>>
>>> You are in for a ghastly shock!
>>
>>We will free you from the clutches of socialism. You will finally have
>>free
>>market health care, vouchers for schools, your suffering rich will be free
>>from their tax burden and we'll keep those pesky foreigners from voting.
>>
>>Freedom for Canada!
>>
>
> I am taking your comments as sarcasm, unfortunately I have never seen
> a suitable emoticon for sarcasm


:S = sarcasm and is supposed to work, though I haven't seen it before
Googling.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:00:12 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:43:58 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Janet B" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:37:58 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:39:10 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>>>> >>I have noticed several people here mention California. We have
>>>>>>>> >>had
>>>>>>>> >>a
>>>>>>>> >>lot
>>>>>>>> >>of stuff on tv about the lack of water there. We were shown the
>>>>>>>> >>huge
>>>>>>>> >>reservoirs with very little water in them. They were showing how
>>>>>>>> >>people
>>>>>>>> >>with lush grass and full swimming pools were being demonised.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Is anyone here affected? It sounds very frightening!
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Everyone in CA is affected. And since CA grows half the
>>>>>>>> > country's
>>>>>>>> > food,
>>>>>>>> > half the country is affected as well. My town is ordering a 35%
>>>>>>>> > cutback
>>>>>>>> > on water use with fines for offenders. NASA says this is the
>>>>>>>> > last
>>>>>>>> > year we
>>>>>>>> > will have water in the reservoirs. So next year we should be in
>>>>>>>> > full
>>>>>>>> > anarchy mode I expect. Fox News blames it on illegal immigrants.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if there will be no water in the reservoirs, where will your
>>>>>>>> water
>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>> from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>>>>>water gets none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> who were you wanting to take the water from?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Time to invade Canada. We will be greeted as liberators and the cost
>>>>>of
>>>>>the
>>>>>war will pay for itself with water revenues.
>>>>
>>>> You are in for a ghastly shock!
>>>
>>>We will free you from the clutches of socialism. You will finally have
>>>free
>>>market health care, vouchers for schools, your suffering rich will be
>>>free
>>>from their tax burden and we'll keep those pesky foreigners from voting.
>>>
>>>Freedom for Canada!
>>>
>>
>> I am taking your comments as sarcasm, unfortunately I have never seen
>> a suitable emoticon for sarcasm
>
>
> :S = sarcasm and is supposed to work, though I haven't seen it before
> Googling.

Tend to do a wink ;-)



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7:06:30 AM UTC-10, BigC300 wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:51:14 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >When I wash dishes here the stopper is put in both kitchen sinks and
> >one is used for washing while the other sink is used for rinsing.
>
>
> your rinse technique is not sanitary as there are numerous microbes
> living in the sink basin. Your county health department would declare
> your washed dishes unsanitary. They must be sterilized with fresh tap
> water heated to at least 140 degrees (F).
>
> William

I have seen this done in old movies. It is pretty strange. OTOH, the plates washed this way ain't gonna kill you and at my house, we don't care about the declarations of the dept. of health. Hee hee.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:04:44 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> >> >> water gets none.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> >> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
> >>
> >>
> >> Shatner thinks so.
> >>
> >> Seattle may differ.
> >
> > I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> > that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
>
> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?
>
The same way we remove oil from one side of a boarder.

--

sf

On Sun, 24 May 2015 22:30:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 5/24/2015 2:42 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> >> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
> >
> > Who needs a reasonable distance? If oil can be piped from Mid-Canada
> > to the Gulf coast then water can go that distance too.
> >
>
> Willing to pay $65 a barrel for water?

When it's a choice between zero water and paying $65 a barrel, what do
you think?

--

sf

On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:17:45 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2015-05-24 6:51 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> Even three is luxurious. I can do it in less than a minute. It helps to
> >> have a hand held shower so you don't get a blast of cold water. I get
> >> into the tub and turn the water on hot and use the cold water to wet the
> >> soap and get lather up as the water is warming up. By the time I have
> >> hot water I am ready to rinse.
> >
> > It's pretty easy when you're bald and don't shave in the shower.
> >
> How much more time does it take to shampoo and rinse a hairy male head
> than a bald one?... I would say it is a matter of seconds. A long haired
> female might take a few seconds more. I find it hard to believe that it
> takes 5 minutes or more to shower. I know the hot water feels good, but
> if you are talking about showering to get clean, it can be done in a
> minute or two. The biggest waste of water is letting the hot water run
> while it comes up to temperature at the shower head. I use that cooler
> water for lathering up.

Just yanking your chain. I can do a 5 minute shower easily.

--

sf

On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:35:36 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:

> Or maybe it was in February, when a headline in Mother Jones blared, "It
> takes how much water to grow an almond?!" (Profoundly misleading answer:
> 1.1 gallons per nut.)

I think that was also when they (not necessarily Mother Jones) told us
that the orchards are irrigated by flooding. I don't know how much
truth there is to that though.

--

sf

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7:34:27 AM UTC-7, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/25/2015 9:39 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>
> >
> > We are very affected here in the SFBayArea. Starting June 1, we will be
> > rationed with a warning for the first infraction, a small fine for the
> > second and a heavy-duty one for the third.
> >
> > Our family has been doing all that we can, but I will not compromise health,
> > safety, or cleanliness (as if anyone would)
>
> On what will they base use or savings on? If it is past use, you'd fare
> better on your quota by using a lot of extra water until June 1.

They are basing it on water usage in 2013. This is a good thing for us because that was the year that we had the pool drained, re-tiled and filled again. Our number is quite high which is why I was able to plant a few tomato plants including the Mortgage Lifter (Hi Nancy!)

Nellie

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:59:37 AM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 2:51:51 PM UTC-10, Nellie wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 3:32:44 AM UTC-7, Ophelia wrote:
> > > I have noticed several people here mention California. We have had a lot of
> > > stuff on tv about the lack of water there. We were shown the huge
> > > reservoirs with very little water in them. They were showing how people
> > > with lush grass and full swimming pools were being demonised.
> > >
> > > Is anyone here affected? It sounds very frightening!
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
> >
> >
> > We are very affected here in the SFBayArea. Starting June 1, we will be rationed with a warning for the first infraction, a small fine for the second and a heavy-duty one for the third.
> >
> > Our family has been doing all that we can, but I will not compromise health, safety, or cleanliness (as if anyone would) It's tough because being the eternal optimist, I planted several things last Autumn thinking that 'yes indeedy we would have rain.' In January, I planted three rose bushes. Now I am committed to these living things I plan to save water on household chores and use what I have left of our ration on the outdoors.
> >
> > It is disheartening to see the golf courses all nice and green. My DH and I went to Sacramento last week and passed through agricultural country. I was shocked to see the new plantings everywhere; grapevines, of course, but also trees, lots of them, possibly almond; I couldn't tell from the car..
> >
> > It is sad to think about the animals that will have to do with less food because there will not be enough water for their hay or whatever else they eat. This happened the last time we had this severe of a drought and it was awful to read about.
> >
> > Other than the water issue there is the horrendously real danger of fire. That is very scary. You will be reading about that soon.
> >
> > Nellie
>
> My sister-in-law's area in Oroville is prone to fires. They had one on the hill behind their house during fire season a few years back and her husband was on the hill spraying water with a garden hose. When they drove me through there, I thought the place looked like a tinderbox that was ready to explode. There were random black patches that were already burnt. Black and brown was the land. It's like ruski roulette down there in Southern California.


Yes, it's bad enough in a year in which we have had rain, but this is truly horrifying.

Nellie

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:04:44 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of
>> >> >> pipelines,
>> >> >> water gets none.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> >> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Shatner thinks so.
>> >>
>> >> Seattle may differ.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
>> > that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>>
>>
>> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?
>>
> The same way we remove oil from one side of a boarder.

As in room and board?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 1:06:30 PM UTC-4, BigC300 wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:51:14 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >When I wash dishes here the stopper is put in both kitchen sinks and
> >one is used for washing while the other sink is used for rinsing.
>
>
> your rinse technique is not sanitary as there are numerous microbes
> living in the sink basin. Your county health department would declare
> your washed dishes unsanitary. They must be sterilized with fresh tap
> water heated to at least 140 degrees (F).

The health department doesn't concern itself with home kitchens.
The risk to public health is nil. The risk to Joan's family is
quite small.

I've always been a running-water rinser myself, here in the
Great Lakes State. Everything except sharp knives and really
big stuff goes in the dishwasher, so that doesn't leave much.

Cindy Hamilton

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in news:mjvifa$rnl$1@dont-
email.me:

>>>>> It takes one gallon of water to grow an almond, but 3.3
>>>>> gallons of water to grow a tomato. Almonds sell at a premium
>>>>> compared to tomatoes.
>>>>
>>>> That is cracker economics at its most risible. You cannot
>>>> grow a single almond, you have to grow a tree which will
>>>> produce many almonds (I would imagine close to 100 almonds
>>>> per tree if my experience in Andalucia is similar), each if
>>>> them requiring a "gallon" (or more accurately 4 litres) of
>>>> water. You can however grow a few tomatoes instead of a
>>>> hundred.
>>>
>>> One almond tree produces thousands of almonds.
>>
>> In one batch or over the life of the tree? .
>
> One season. 2,670 shelled pounds per acre in 2011.

Interesting. Any numbers on the percentage of production
converted to almond milk? It was practically unknown a few
years ago and now it's everywhere. It has given dairy
intolerants a leg up over gluten intolerants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798

--

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice,
you have chosen the side of the oppressor " --
Desmond Tutu

On Sun, 24 May 2015 17:08:09 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>> Nowhere. That's the problem and that is where we are headed. It could
>> get very ugly.
>
>Are there many posters here from California? I haven't heard anyone
>speaking about it. Are you not all very worried?

Well it's a little off-topic.

J.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 09:37:58 -0700, sf > wrote:

>There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>water gets none.

When the distance goes over about 500 miles of flat land, desalination
is cheaper, for the coastal cities.

J.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:32:35 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>I have noticed several people here mention California. We have had a lot of
>stuff on tv about the lack of water there. We were shown the huge
>reservoirs with very little water in them. They were showing how people
>with lush grass and full swimming pools were being demonised.
>
>Is anyone here affected? It sounds very frightening!

Water has been in short supply in California since forever, and we've
tended to tune out the warnings, but this time it seems to finally be
getting very real.

But even now it's complex. Even in this drought there is enough water
to go around if the 5% of the crops that are the big water wasters
were shifted to something else. Urban water usage is only about 15%
of the total, depending on how you count, and landscape is about half
of that.

There are some farms in the delta with historic, premptive rights to
water and they are slow to give it up voluntarily - just this week
agreed to cut back by 25%, but it won't even be monitored, and it's
also not clear that water that gets to them will be used by anyone
else anyway, it's already too far downstream.

Everyone has known for a century that the day would come when
California would have to do SOMETHING about water, and that day has
arrived. Desalination is pretty much the solution for the coastal
cities, but we might need 100 plants the size of the Carlsbad plant
being completed this year, and the anti-growth idiots like our
Governor Moonbeam are fighting it all the way. It might triple the
cost of urban water. BTW, do you know what it costs today, in Los
Angeles, for a gallon of water out of the faucet?

For agriculture the long-term solution is harder, they are used to
getting water at 1/10 the price of urban water or less, much less.
And they're not on the coast, so just pumping water there would raise
the price as well. I suspect a century from now you will see 10,000
square miles of California farmland covered by greenhouses.

I actually got in a bit of a panic about this just about a month ago,
when we got to the end of the rainy season and it punked out on us
again, and I read that the last 100 years of weather in California
have been unreasonably WET, the average for the 1,000 years before
that is about what we've been getting recently, or worse! Ooops.

It could get really bad since our politicians are such idiots. But it
is mostly fixable, if people would just get off their asses.

J.