Election Reform
I'm discouraged. How do we get politicians to represent ordinary citizens instead of billionaires, media companies, and rich multinational corporations? Reform has been made nearly impossible by the destruction of the electoral system, which has now become clearly dysfunctional. It is a money-driven system for protecting the current rulers.
In the current electoral system money is the single most important factor in success. This has debased and corrupted our political system. Most Americans know this and want reform.
However, most current office holders have their positions because they were able to raise the enormous amounts of money required for a winning candidacy. As a result, most elected politicians now (correctly) believe that their political survival depends on access to this money. In fact, as long as getting elected requires the enormous expenditures that it now does, elected officials will always be indebted to the sources of that money. The fact that big business, the military, and the rich nearly always get the legislation and political favors that they want is a perfectly rational and necessary consequence of the way that elections are financed. Even when a public-spirited president or member of congress gets elected, the large majority of our so-called representatives still do the bidding of the powers that put them in office and prevent any real reform
For our current government, politics is always more important than the welfare of the citizens. It is clear that the reform of the system will be blocked by the best efforts of those who profit from the current system. It now seems clear that nothing can be done until conditions get much worse. It may take a major economic and social disruption on the scale of the great depression of the 1930s to get most people to understand how badly they have been represented and to demand the major reforms that we need.
Possibly, a new third party will arise from the anger of the exploited majority and sweep most current officeholders out of office. Then we could get a new political majority that is not yet bought and paid for. There would then be an opportunity to make fundamental changes in the electoral system and to limit the uncontrolled power of corporations.
A necessary first step to clean up the system and restore political representation to ordinary citizens is to completely eliminate the need for raising money in elections. This is not easy, but it can be done. The key is to get the necessary exposure without the necessity of big money. It would also be good to limit the time devoted to the campaigns, perhaps two months for a presidential election and one month for all others.
All election related ads and debates should be carried on TV and radio without charge as a condition of the broadcast license. Paid political ads should be outlawed. The so-called "issue ads" placed to influence public opinion for the benefit of a particular candidate or party must also be banned during election periods
Obviously, airtime must be allocated in a fair and reasonable way. Candidates should qualify for minimal basic airtime simply by meeting the signature qualification for listing on the ballot. This would be a low fixed percentage of those who would be eligible to vote in that election. In order to avoid having the air time dominated by the many marginal candidates yet still permit them to be heard, it will be necessary to have unequal shares of air time. Here is one suggestion. The major parties should each start by sharing about 50% of the total time. The remaining airtime would be divided among the minor party candidates. Each week the airtime would be adjusted proportionally based on the preceding week's impartial polling results plus a basic allowance. In this way, a minor party candidate whose message resonates with the voters will be able to increase his or her air time each week and will have at least a fighting chance of beating a major party candidate.
In addition to the broadcasts, a taxpayer financed mailing containing statements from each candidate should be sent at least weekly during each election cycle. In these mailings each candidate will be free to comment on the positions and records of the other candidates as well as explaining his or her own position. This will result in a kind of running debate in print that everyone has access to. Each candidate can have equal space in this mailing, as the limits of airtime do not apply. The final mailing, arriving just before the election, should be devoted to candidates' final statements. At this point attacks on the opposing candidates and new charges should not be allowed because the other candidates will not be able to respond to them before the election.
The content of all of this material should be screened by a nonpartisan committee composed of nominees from membership supported watchdog groups of all political stripes such as the League of Women Voters, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Common Cause. If a candidate's material contains false or unverifiable statements then the screening committee will include a commentary pointing out the problem statements and include it following the candidate's material before publishing or broadcast. This should help to keep all the candidates honest. Censorship of the statements would be undesirable and possibly unconstitutional, but the constitution does not guarantee anyone's right to lie without being exposed.
It would be difficult to completely eliminate advocacy for particular parties or candidates outside of the formal structure of the campaign as outlined above. First amendment considerations preclude banning such things as print advertisements by individuals. Controlling advertising by corporations is a problem due to the fact that corporations are now considered to have the rights of actual people. That right is not in the constitution, and can be changed, but, given the present power of corporations, that will not happen anytime soon (with our current crop of politicians).
People should recognize that the credibility of such advertising is suspect compared to the fair treatment given to the candidates and their positions within the boundaries of the regular campaign. Since the broadcast media are owned by the people and are, or were until recently, required to be operated in the public interest, political broadcast advertising outside of the free airtime can be banned.
An important reform would be to get rid of the Electoral College system and adopt direct popular elections. Unfortunately this system is in the constitution, and, despite its dysfunctional nature, the states that benefit from it will do their best to keep it. A popular vote on it would probably get rid of it but that seems unlikely.
Another improvement would be to adopt the system used by several other democracies and have the voters rank the candidates. If there is no top rated candidate with a majority of the vote then the candidate with the lowest total vote is eliminated and the ballots recounted. This process continues until someone has a majority. This eliminates the spoiler effect of minor party candidates and the consequent reluctance to vote for them.
The result of these reforms will be the election of a candidate who is not indebted to big money contributors. The cost of running elections in this way would certainly be a trivial amount compared to the cost of even a few of the corrupt legislative favors that the large contributors now receive as the reward for the "election help" that they paid for.
The integrity of the election process must be insured by having voter verified paper trails for all voting and by having the process run by non-partisan election boards composed of citizens interested in keeping the process fair.
Election reform is an extremely important problem in America today. The importance of money in politics has crippled democracy and has resulted in a government by and for the wealthy and powerful.
Bill Isecke
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Killing Mosquitos and other dangerous insects.
By William Isecke
The control of mosquitoes, which has always been a major problem in tropical areas of the world, has now become a serious public health issue in the USA.
With the spread of West Nile Encephalitis to temperate areas of the world, the USA has become vulnerable to this disease. The public health response so far has been to spray large areas with insecticides. The spraying however, can only be a short term solution. Besides the well known problem of the insects developing a tolerance for the insecticides there are other disadvantages of this approach. Insecticides are poisons and they affect other species besides the target species. They kill other beneficial insects and wildlife including the natural predators of the pest species. The health effects on humans are not completely known and may be significant. Since poisons are not safe or effective, another method is needed.
The familiar backyard bug zappers typically use light to attract insects. They kill many insects, many of which are beneficial. Unfortunately, they kill few mosquitoes because these insects are not attracted to them.
A better approach to pest control is to directly target the troublesome species. In the case of mosquitoes, the female must find a blood meal from an animal in order to get the protein necessary for development of her eggs. She locates the animal host by following the plume of heat, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that the animal emits.
There are commercial devices to trap mosquitoes that take advantage of this behavior. One of them is called the Mosquito Magnet.( http://www.mosquitomagnet.com/). This uses propane and Octenol to provide the heat, carbon dioxide, and chemical plume to attract the mosquitoes which are then sucked into the device, killed, and collected in a bag. This device is advertised as being capable of eliminating the mosquitoes on one acre of land. However, it costs about $1400 and requires a 20 pound tank of propane every three weeks. There is also a model which costs $ 700 but only covers one half acre. It still uses the same amount of propane. This fuel requirement and the high cost limit its applicability. There is another similar device called the Dragonfly (http://www.mosquitosolutions.com/) this costs about $650 and uses an electrified grid to kill the mosquitoes. This device uses about 40 watts of electricity and must be plugged in to operate.
A stand-alone electrified grid that would kill any insect that came in contact with it may be a better solution. The design of this insect killing screen would differ significantly from current designs for electrified bug killers. It would not be desirable to use the same kind of power supply as is used in the common bug zapper because of the danger of shock and because the constant presence of high voltage generates ozone and ionizes the air. This causes a constant power drain which makes it dependant on plug in power. We can use low power and still have sufficient high voltage to kill insects if the high voltage is only generated when an insect is present. This can be done by energizing the grid with a voltage that is not high enough to consume constant power but is high enough so that when an insect contacts the grid a detectable current flows. This current is then used to trigger a high voltage pulse which kills the insect. The power necessary to operate this grid should be low enough to use battery power combined with solar cells
If the high voltage pulse is also high frequency then the grid can be safe for animals because the resulting skin effect prevents the current from penetrating below the skin. An animal will feel a slight burn but no shock. The heating effect of the pulse would be sufficient to kill insects because their small mass would result in a temperature increase that would be lethal. Even if the energy of the pulse is quite small, the insect’s legs or whatever part is in contact with the grid would be destroyed thus permanently crippling the insect and removing it as a threat. Another approach is to use only enough energy to temporarily stun the insect so that it will fall into a trap from which it cannot escape
The simplest way to use the grid is to intercept the mosquitoes that are seeking us. It is necessary to insure that as the insects attempt to get to us, they encounter the electrified screen first. For example, the electrified screen could replace a normal mosquito screen in a house or animal pen. If the screen is covering the opening where air that is attractive to mosquitoes is leaving the enclosure, then mosquitoes that attempt to enter would be killed. It may be that in urban or suburban areas, most of the mosquitoes that bite people outdoors have previously attempted to enter a dwelling and been stopped by a screen. If that screen had been electrified, those mosquitoes would be dead and not able to bite. A complete stand-alone trap that is designed to kill these insects can be built by using one or more chemical attractants inside an electrified grid enclosure
Of course, mosquitoes are not the only insects that are dangerous pests. Tsetse flies, bot flies, black flies, sand flies and many others can also be controlled in this way. The trap may also be used to protect cows and other livestock from the many kinds of flies that prey on them. Agricultural pests may be controlled in this way also. Perhaps the traps could be baited with pheremones for this purpose.
Another application is to use insects as a food source. Many insects are attracted by dead animals and these insects are often quite large. For example, an insect trap baited with a fish head and hung over a fish pond will provide a constant source of flies as fish food. The same thing can be done over a chicken pen.
There are several conditions which must be met for a device such as this to be successful. One is that it must be low cost. Another is that it must be low energy so that it can be used wherever the insects are found. In addition, it must be effective; that is it must have a significant effect on the problems caused by the insects. I believe that this device can be made to meet all of these conditions.
Alternative approaches
In tropical areas, bed nets have been used with some success to control malaria. The bed nets are made of fabric impregnated with insecticide, usually Pyrethrin. These nets must be re impregnated after about 6 months and they only kill the mosquitoes if they remain on the net for a long time (approximately five minutes). The nets do have the advantages of low cost and easy set up. Probably the biggest long term problem with the nets is the fact that the mosquitoes will develop resistance to the insecticide, typically within a few years.
It may be possible to use treated nets to replace window screens. This would kill mosquitoes that are attempting to gain entry to an inhabited dwelling instead of simply keeping them out if they remain on the net long enough to absorb sufficient insecticide. This may have the same result as using the electrified grids described above. Since mosquitoes typically do not travel very far, in areas such as suburbs and summer camps this technique may be sufficient to extinguish the local population of mosquitoes. In other areas, a combination of impregnated nets and electronic traps may be necessary to control mosquitoes
The long term safety and efficacy of the insecticide used to impregnate the nets must be established. We can anticipate that the mosquito population will develop resistance to whatever insecticide is used and its effectiveness will diminish over time.
The electrified grid has the advantage that it kills any insect that comes in contact with it, however briefly, and there is no possibility of insects evolving resistance to it. In addition, the method used by mosquitoes to locate their prey is fixed and it seems that it would be very difficult to evolve a new method that would allow the mosquito to find animal hosts and still avoid the electronic traps. Even if a preference evolved for a different combination of the chemical and other cues that animals emit, it will be a relatively simple job to modify the bait so that mosquitoes will continue to be attracted and killed.
The disadvantages of the electrified grid are cost, complexity, and the delicacy of the wire grid. It will probably be necessary to protect the grid by putting a heavy large mesh netting in front of it to protect against impacts by birds or bats.
It does not seem possible to completely eliminate mosquitoes and other blood seeking insects although the idea is tempting. I don't know what the ecological consequences of that would be, but I think that many people would be willing to find out. If these insects have any beneficial function it may be to make large areas of the world uninhabitable for people and thus protect the other life forms there from people. Of course, mosquitoes prey on any animal that they can reach which means that people are kept away but the animals must still live with the mosquitoes.
It seems that the age-old battle between men and mosquitoes will go on but we may gain at least some relief. As Oscar Wilde said "The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice." Maybe we can shift the balance a little bit toward science.
There are many questions remaining to be answered:
Do large numbers of mosquitoes attempt to enter occupied houses and come into contact with screens?
Can a stand alone trap, baited with Octenol and Lactic Acid kill significant numbers of mosquitoes?
Is it necessary to use heat and carbon dioxide in addition?
Can the power required be low enough to permit the use of solar cells and rechargeable batteries?
How can the other types of insects that prey on animals be attracted?
By William Isecke
The control of mosquitoes, which has always been a major problem in tropical areas of the world, has now become a serious public health issue in the USA.
With the spread of West Nile Encephalitis to temperate areas of the world, the USA has become vulnerable to this disease. The public health response so far has been to spray large areas with insecticides. The spraying however, can only be a short term solution. Besides the well known problem of the insects developing a tolerance for the insecticides there are other disadvantages of this approach. Insecticides are poisons and they affect other species besides the target species. They kill other beneficial insects and wildlife including the natural predators of the pest species. The health effects on humans are not completely known and may be significant. Since poisons are not safe or effective, another method is needed.
The familiar backyard bug zappers typically use light to attract insects. They kill many insects, many of which are beneficial. Unfortunately, they kill few mosquitoes because these insects are not attracted to them.
A better approach to pest control is to directly target the troublesome species. In the case of mosquitoes, the female must find a blood meal from an animal in order to get the protein necessary for development of her eggs. She locates the animal host by following the plume of heat, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that the animal emits.
There are commercial devices to trap mosquitoes that take advantage of this behavior. One of them is called the Mosquito Magnet.( http://www.mosquitomagnet.com/). This uses propane and Octenol to provide the heat, carbon dioxide, and chemical plume to attract the mosquitoes which are then sucked into the device, killed, and collected in a bag. This device is advertised as being capable of eliminating the mosquitoes on one acre of land. However, it costs about $1400 and requires a 20 pound tank of propane every three weeks. There is also a model which costs $ 700 but only covers one half acre. It still uses the same amount of propane. This fuel requirement and the high cost limit its applicability. There is another similar device called the Dragonfly (http://www.mosquitosolutions.com/) this costs about $650 and uses an electrified grid to kill the mosquitoes. This device uses about 40 watts of electricity and must be plugged in to operate.
A stand-alone electrified grid that would kill any insect that came in contact with it may be a better solution. The design of this insect killing screen would differ significantly from current designs for electrified bug killers. It would not be desirable to use the same kind of power supply as is used in the common bug zapper because of the danger of shock and because the constant presence of high voltage generates ozone and ionizes the air. This causes a constant power drain which makes it dependant on plug in power. We can use low power and still have sufficient high voltage to kill insects if the high voltage is only generated when an insect is present. This can be done by energizing the grid with a voltage that is not high enough to consume constant power but is high enough so that when an insect contacts the grid a detectable current flows. This current is then used to trigger a high voltage pulse which kills the insect. The power necessary to operate this grid should be low enough to use battery power combined with solar cells
If the high voltage pulse is also high frequency then the grid can be safe for animals because the resulting skin effect prevents the current from penetrating below the skin. An animal will feel a slight burn but no shock. The heating effect of the pulse would be sufficient to kill insects because their small mass would result in a temperature increase that would be lethal. Even if the energy of the pulse is quite small, the insect’s legs or whatever part is in contact with the grid would be destroyed thus permanently crippling the insect and removing it as a threat. Another approach is to use only enough energy to temporarily stun the insect so that it will fall into a trap from which it cannot escape
The simplest way to use the grid is to intercept the mosquitoes that are seeking us. It is necessary to insure that as the insects attempt to get to us, they encounter the electrified screen first. For example, the electrified screen could replace a normal mosquito screen in a house or animal pen. If the screen is covering the opening where air that is attractive to mosquitoes is leaving the enclosure, then mosquitoes that attempt to enter would be killed. It may be that in urban or suburban areas, most of the mosquitoes that bite people outdoors have previously attempted to enter a dwelling and been stopped by a screen. If that screen had been electrified, those mosquitoes would be dead and not able to bite. A complete stand-alone trap that is designed to kill these insects can be built by using one or more chemical attractants inside an electrified grid enclosure
Of course, mosquitoes are not the only insects that are dangerous pests. Tsetse flies, bot flies, black flies, sand flies and many others can also be controlled in this way. The trap may also be used to protect cows and other livestock from the many kinds of flies that prey on them. Agricultural pests may be controlled in this way also. Perhaps the traps could be baited with pheremones for this purpose.
Another application is to use insects as a food source. Many insects are attracted by dead animals and these insects are often quite large. For example, an insect trap baited with a fish head and hung over a fish pond will provide a constant source of flies as fish food. The same thing can be done over a chicken pen.
There are several conditions which must be met for a device such as this to be successful. One is that it must be low cost. Another is that it must be low energy so that it can be used wherever the insects are found. In addition, it must be effective; that is it must have a significant effect on the problems caused by the insects. I believe that this device can be made to meet all of these conditions.
Alternative approaches
In tropical areas, bed nets have been used with some success to control malaria. The bed nets are made of fabric impregnated with insecticide, usually Pyrethrin. These nets must be re impregnated after about 6 months and they only kill the mosquitoes if they remain on the net for a long time (approximately five minutes). The nets do have the advantages of low cost and easy set up. Probably the biggest long term problem with the nets is the fact that the mosquitoes will develop resistance to the insecticide, typically within a few years.
It may be possible to use treated nets to replace window screens. This would kill mosquitoes that are attempting to gain entry to an inhabited dwelling instead of simply keeping them out if they remain on the net long enough to absorb sufficient insecticide. This may have the same result as using the electrified grids described above. Since mosquitoes typically do not travel very far, in areas such as suburbs and summer camps this technique may be sufficient to extinguish the local population of mosquitoes. In other areas, a combination of impregnated nets and electronic traps may be necessary to control mosquitoes
The long term safety and efficacy of the insecticide used to impregnate the nets must be established. We can anticipate that the mosquito population will develop resistance to whatever insecticide is used and its effectiveness will diminish over time.
The electrified grid has the advantage that it kills any insect that comes in contact with it, however briefly, and there is no possibility of insects evolving resistance to it. In addition, the method used by mosquitoes to locate their prey is fixed and it seems that it would be very difficult to evolve a new method that would allow the mosquito to find animal hosts and still avoid the electronic traps. Even if a preference evolved for a different combination of the chemical and other cues that animals emit, it will be a relatively simple job to modify the bait so that mosquitoes will continue to be attracted and killed.
The disadvantages of the electrified grid are cost, complexity, and the delicacy of the wire grid. It will probably be necessary to protect the grid by putting a heavy large mesh netting in front of it to protect against impacts by birds or bats.
It does not seem possible to completely eliminate mosquitoes and other blood seeking insects although the idea is tempting. I don't know what the ecological consequences of that would be, but I think that many people would be willing to find out. If these insects have any beneficial function it may be to make large areas of the world uninhabitable for people and thus protect the other life forms there from people. Of course, mosquitoes prey on any animal that they can reach which means that people are kept away but the animals must still live with the mosquitoes.
It seems that the age-old battle between men and mosquitoes will go on but we may gain at least some relief. As Oscar Wilde said "The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice." Maybe we can shift the balance a little bit toward science.
There are many questions remaining to be answered:
Do large numbers of mosquitoes attempt to enter occupied houses and come into contact with screens?
Can a stand alone trap, baited with Octenol and Lactic Acid kill significant numbers of mosquitoes?
Is it necessary to use heat and carbon dioxide in addition?
Can the power required be low enough to permit the use of solar cells and rechargeable batteries?
How can the other types of insects that prey on animals be attracted?
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Sinking of the MS Explorer near Antarctica
Since I am scheduled to travel to Antarctica on a ship similar to the Explorer, I was very interested in the accident that caused the loss of this ship. After reading everything I could find about the Explorer, I thought that the ship may have been lost because the crew did not know of a technique that could have saved her.
I wonder why the Explorer was not saved by the old trick of passing a sail under the ship and pulling it up against the outside of the hole in the hull. The procedure would be to tie a long rope to each corner of a large square tarp or sail, then , starting from the bow, let the sail sink below the hull and then pull it back using two ropes on each side of the ship until the sail was centered outside of the hole. Then pull the sail tightly against the hull with the ropes. This should prevent any more water from entering the ship because the water pressure would cause a tight seal against the hole.
This procedure was described in one of Patrick Obrien’s books in the Aubury / Maturin series about the British navy in the early 19th century. The Explorer must have had enough rope and tarps to do the job but apparently nobody tried - or at least I could not find it in any published accounts of the accident that I found.
I wonder why the Explorer was not saved by the old trick of passing a sail under the ship and pulling it up against the outside of the hole in the hull. The procedure would be to tie a long rope to each corner of a large square tarp or sail, then , starting from the bow, let the sail sink below the hull and then pull it back using two ropes on each side of the ship until the sail was centered outside of the hole. Then pull the sail tightly against the hull with the ropes. This should prevent any more water from entering the ship because the water pressure would cause a tight seal against the hole.
This procedure was described in one of Patrick Obrien’s books in the Aubury / Maturin series about the British navy in the early 19th century. The Explorer must have had enough rope and tarps to do the job but apparently nobody tried - or at least I could not find it in any published accounts of the accident that I found.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
NEW EDUCATIONAL WEBSITE
The website is http:www.harrietisecke.com
Harriet is my wife and she has become an expert in many educational topics.
She does professional development for teachers on:
Preschool brain development
Early literacy techniques used in New Zealand
Techniques for teaching reading and mathematics
How to teach writing skills
Education by design
Many other topics in K-12 education
She also has written six children's picture books published by Childcrafteducation.com
Go to her site for more information and contact information
http:www.harrietisecke.com
Bill Isecke
Harriet is my wife and she has become an expert in many educational topics.
She does professional development for teachers on:
Preschool brain development
Early literacy techniques used in New Zealand
Techniques for teaching reading and mathematics
How to teach writing skills
Education by design
Many other topics in K-12 education
She also has written six children's picture books published by Childcrafteducation.com
Go to her site for more information and contact information
http:www.harrietisecke.com
Bill Isecke
Sunday, November 07, 2004
waiting for disaster
The recent attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon leads to the question of why there were no effective measures in place to protect against it. The type of attack was not novel. In fact there have been popular fictionalized accounts of the use of airliners as weapons. There were many warnings that a terrorist attack could be expected very soon. There had also been many well-publicized tests of the airlines' security systems which showed that they were easily overcome and weapons could be carried onto aircraft by passengers. There was also ample warning that terrorists would not hesitate to engage in suicide attacks. These attacks are common in the Middle East and have even been used against US military targets there. Now, in the clear light of hindsight, it is obvious that the improvements in airline security are necessary.
But why was it necessary to wait for disaster?
Mankind seems to be nearly incapable of taking steps to avoid easily anticipated disasters. If we consider a few types of disasters and recall the history of attempts to avoid them the problem is clear.
Having fire escapes in buildings, adequate lifeboats on ships, dead man controls on trains, and many other disaster avoidance requirements only came into use in response to major disasters. This was true despite the fact that these disasters are very easy to anticipate. Why was it necessary to experience a tragic loss of life before taking precautions that seem like simple common sense?
Perhaps the cost of the precaution seems more important than the potential disaster, which might not happen.
Even after new laws or building codes have been adopted, there is still widespread evasion often with official complicity. For example, in Florida, hurricane Andrew revealed that much of the housing that was destroyed did not have reinforcements required by the building codes that were in force when the houses were constructed. The fact that the houses were inspected and passed indicates official complicity or at least incompetence.
There is also a common tendency to design structures in a way that minimizes cost but does not prevent failure due to circumstances that are considered unlikely. The principle that the designers do not observe is that if the consequence of failure cannot be tolerated then, even if the probability is low, the possibility of such failure must be designed out.
The Titanic sank because its designer thought that only a small number of compartments could ever flood at the same time and therefore the internal bulkheads, which separated the compartments, did not have to extend all the way to the deck.
The World Trade Center towers collapsed because the supports that attached the floors to the vertical beams were strong enough to support the weight of the floor and it's contents but when the supports of one floor failed due to fire, the floor below was not able to withstand the force of the floor above dropping onto it. The floor beams could have been strong enough to support any number of fallen floors since the vertical columns that they attached to were strong enough to support all the weight of the building above them.
The designers of the World Trade Center either did not anticipate this failure mode or thought that it could not happen. Perhaps they thought that the sprinkler system would prevent the failure of the floor beams by controlling any possible fire. There were narrow stairways, not enough of them, and they were not sufficiently protected from smoke.
Of course now, after the disaster, we may hope that any future tall buildings will be designed to eliminate this particular failure mode.
There are probably now many similar disasters waiting to happen. Let's hope that we have learned enough to avoid at least some of them.
But why was it necessary to wait for disaster?
Mankind seems to be nearly incapable of taking steps to avoid easily anticipated disasters. If we consider a few types of disasters and recall the history of attempts to avoid them the problem is clear.
Having fire escapes in buildings, adequate lifeboats on ships, dead man controls on trains, and many other disaster avoidance requirements only came into use in response to major disasters. This was true despite the fact that these disasters are very easy to anticipate. Why was it necessary to experience a tragic loss of life before taking precautions that seem like simple common sense?
Perhaps the cost of the precaution seems more important than the potential disaster, which might not happen.
Even after new laws or building codes have been adopted, there is still widespread evasion often with official complicity. For example, in Florida, hurricane Andrew revealed that much of the housing that was destroyed did not have reinforcements required by the building codes that were in force when the houses were constructed. The fact that the houses were inspected and passed indicates official complicity or at least incompetence.
There is also a common tendency to design structures in a way that minimizes cost but does not prevent failure due to circumstances that are considered unlikely. The principle that the designers do not observe is that if the consequence of failure cannot be tolerated then, even if the probability is low, the possibility of such failure must be designed out.
The Titanic sank because its designer thought that only a small number of compartments could ever flood at the same time and therefore the internal bulkheads, which separated the compartments, did not have to extend all the way to the deck.
The World Trade Center towers collapsed because the supports that attached the floors to the vertical beams were strong enough to support the weight of the floor and it's contents but when the supports of one floor failed due to fire, the floor below was not able to withstand the force of the floor above dropping onto it. The floor beams could have been strong enough to support any number of fallen floors since the vertical columns that they attached to were strong enough to support all the weight of the building above them.
The designers of the World Trade Center either did not anticipate this failure mode or thought that it could not happen. Perhaps they thought that the sprinkler system would prevent the failure of the floor beams by controlling any possible fire. There were narrow stairways, not enough of them, and they were not sufficiently protected from smoke.
Of course now, after the disaster, we may hope that any future tall buildings will be designed to eliminate this particular failure mode.
There are probably now many similar disasters waiting to happen. Let's hope that we have learned enough to avoid at least some of them.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Power Tower Proposal
Letters to the Editor, New Scientist
Power Tower Extras
(New Scientist, July 31, 2004)
The planned Power Tower in the Australian outback(www.enviromission.com.au/intro.htm) can produce more than electrical power. It can also be used to provide much needed fresh water. In the outback area the ground water is plentiful but is too salty for drinking or for irrigation. This salt water can be evaporated in troughs under the solar collection surface. In this area the air will be very hot and able to evaporate all of the water leaving behind only solid salts. The value of the salts can be increased by using long troughs arranged like the spokes of a wheel for evaporation. This will result in individual salts crystallizing out in different areas of the troughs depending on their solubility. The salts can be collected separately and sold for high prices because they will have high purity. A large amount of water can be treated since hot air can hold much more moisture than cold air. As the hot humid air rises up the stack, it cools by expansion and some of the water condenses out and is captured inside the stack using drip nets.
The addition of the desalination component to the project will require a larger solar collector area but will also increase the amount of energy that can be produced. This is because the moist air rising in the stack will not cool as fast as dry air would since the water condensing out will release heat. This is the energy that drives hurricanes and should substantially increase the output of the turbines.
As the air leaves the stack at the top it will still have considerable moisture in it. This moisture will fall as rain downwind of the stack as the plume of hot moist air continues to rise. Thus a large area around the stack will become productive farmland. Some of the fresh water collected in the stack can be used for growing vegetables under the periphery of the solar collectors. This water will be recycled back into the system.
Two additional benefits of this addition are that the water filled troughs will provide heat storage and, in the long term, the salinity of the aquifer will be reduced since salt is constantly being removed.
William Isecke
541 Queen Anne Road
Teaneck, NJ 07666, US
201 836 8403
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)