NCDL’s revamped Web site is reviewed in this month’s Internet magazine.The National Canine Defence League’s (NCDL) Web site is reviewed in the October 2001 edition of Internet magazine. Reviewer Kim Gilmour gives it three stars out of five for design and two out of five for content.Gilmour notes that the charity has redesigned the site from scratch and has included “improved features” such as regular news updates and a bright interface. Unfortunately she argues that the site’s navigation is “mediocre and can get tricky.” Advertisement 13 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis The site was created by e-business integration company Red Banner. NCDL manages all the content. Red Banner told Internet Magazine that a project like NCDL’s could cost “around £20,000 – £50,000.”Online fundraising content includes the facility to donate by direct debit online.NCDL is gathering e-mail addresses from donors who give online but “there are no short term plans to use them in marketing activities.” Not surprisingly NCDL say that this is “a huge possibility.” Howard Lake | 30 September 2001 | News National Canine Defence League’s new Web site reviewed AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
News Updates’Prima Facie Dilutes Environment Act’ : Bombay High Court Retrains MoEF from Granting Post-facto CRZ Clearance Sharmeen Hakim10 May 2021 7:40 AMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court has restrained the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change from granting environmental clearance (CRZ) to any project, based on a recent office memorandum (OM) “allowing ex-post-facto CRZ clearance” to projects. In an interim order, a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed that the OM’s prima facie dilutes the rigours of the Environmental Act. The OM lays down the procedure for granting post-facto CRZ clearance to industries/agencies that might have commenced construction without prior CRZ clearance and thereby regularising such illegal construction, the order notes. Advertisement “In our prima facie view, contents of the Office Memorandum under challenge have the effect of diluting the rigours of the provisions of the Environment Act and other related enactments.” “In such view of the matter, we restrain the respondents from granting any permission/clearance on the basis of the office memorandum under challenge till August 31, 2021, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.”Advertisement The bench heard a PIL by NGO Vanashakti through its director Stalin Dayanand, challenging the OM issued by MoEF on February 19, 2021. Vanashakti was represented by Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond and advocate Zaman Ali, while Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh represented the Centre. On instructions, ASG submitted that no permission or clearance had been granted for any project after the OM was issued. The bench has directed the MoEF to submit its reply by June 21 and posted the matter for final hearing on June 30 2021. Advertisement Advertisement In its order, the bench refers to SC’s decision Alembic Pharmaceutical Limited vs Rohit Prajapati to say that the OM wrongly relies on it. In that case, a division bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi reiterated that the concept of ‘ex post facto’ Environmental Clearance (EC) is against the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence. “Quite unusual, the Government, despite being bound by the ratio decidendi of such decision, has neglected to follow the directions contained in the said decision which were issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.” Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement The bench asked those applying for fresh clearance to MoEF based on the OM to be informed about the pendency of the petition. The PIL states that the 2011 CRZ notification does not provide for ex-post-facto clearance. The office memorandum was issued by MoEFCC “without following any procedure under the EP Act.” The plea adds that a CRZ nod, always given before a project commences, requires the careful application of mind based on a study into likely consequences of any proposed development on the environment.The OM has been challenged on the following grounds. The office memorandum is passed without the authority of law and is ultra vires of CRZ 2011 and CRZ 2019 (yet to be enacted). It is an administrative circular that seeks to modify and amend the CRZ without following due process under the Act. “CRZ 2011 makes it very clear in Regulation 4.2 that CRZ permission is required before any activity undertaken…as it does in Regulation 8(i) of CRZ 2019.” The procedure under 5(3) of the Rules not followed. No public notice. “The Impugned OM in effect alters the CRZ Regulations in a manner unknown to law.” It is not even an emergency measure, as it’s based on a 2014 judgement. The OM is Violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. “Before the issuance of a CRZ clearance there has to be a careful application of mind based on a study into the likely consequences of a proposed activity on the environment… It is an enquiry that has to be made at a time prior to setting up of the industry to determine if that type of industry can be safely set up in a particular area. In the absence of a permission, there would be no conditions that would safeguard the environment.”TagsBombay High Court Environment Act Post- facto CRZ Clearance Chief Justice Dipankar Datta Justice GS Kulkarni Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
(Visited 311 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 There’s 100 times less of a radioactive element on the ocean floor than expected.According to commonly accepted theory, heavy elements are cooked inside stars and distributed via supernova explosions. One particular unstable isotope, Plutonium-244 with a half-life of 81 million years, should be a good tracer of supernova explosions in the earth’s vicinity. Since the earth is believed to have formed 4.5 billion years ago, any primordial Pu-244 should be long gone. New Pu-244 should have come from supernovae since earth’s birth. But there’s a problem. PhysOrg starts an article with the rumble of a paradigm shaking:Scientists plumbing the depths of the ocean have made a surprise finding that could change the way we understand supernovae, exploding stars way beyond our solar system.What happened? Dr. Anton Wallner of Australian National University and 12 colleagues went looking for Pu-244 on the ocean floor, thinking there should be some specks from supernova explosions during the past 100 million years. Earth should receive a sprinkling of this isotope because, according to theory, abundances of heavy elements should reach a steady state in interstellar dust.“We’ve analysed galactic dust from the last 25 million years that has settled on the ocean and found there is much less of the heavy elements such as plutonium and uranium than we expected.“The findings are at odds with current theories of supernovae, in which some of the materials essential for human life, such as iron, potassium and iodine are created and distributed throughout space….“We found 100 times less plutonium-244 than we expected,” Dr Wallner said.Scratching his head, Wallner wondered if theories of nucleosynthesis of heavy elements are wrong. Maybe it takes the collision of neutron stars to form this isotope. Where do large radioisotopes come from?The fact that these heavy elements like plutonium were present, and uranium and thorium are still present on earth suggests that such an explosive event must have happened close to the earth around the time it formed, said Dr Wallner.“Radioactive elements in our planet such as uranium and thorium provide much of the heat that drives continental movement, perhaps other planets don’t have the same heat engine inside them,” he said.His findings not only question nucleosynthesis, therefore, but add an additional constraint on habitability. Without the radiogenic heat to drive plate tectonics, it is unlikely a planet would be suitable for complex life. Wallner et al.‘s study is published in Nature Communications.We offer this astro-geo-physical tidbit to individuals who may wish to explore the implications. One possibility Wallner did not think to consider was whether the earth is younger than he assumes.
Review of “Is Genesis History?” that premiered nationally in theaters in a one-night Fathom Media event on Feb 23.It’s very difficult to get a hearing for intelligent design these days, let alone Genesis 1-11. And even if you got a public platform for Genesis, limiting it to a rational discussion of creation in six literal days and a global flood would seem miraculous. But that’s what Compass Cinema pulled off in secular theaters around the country for a one-night film event by Fathom Media. Some towns had to open additional theater space because of the demand. That happened in Littleton Colorado, I know, and in my hometown, a second theater was added. Both filled up, indicating significant interest in the subject.On ContentThe film consists largely of conversations by Del Tackett with leaders in the Biblical creation movement about scientific evidence supporting the historicity of Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood. The conversations occur at Grand Canyon, in museums and zoos, on a dinosaur dig and other locations. Del is founder of The Truth Project, a popular worldview apologetics course. In 2008, Del was among two dozen Bible scholars who participated in a special scholar’s rafting trip through the Grand Canyon sponsored by Canyon Ministries. I was on that trip and got to know Del, finding him to be a humble, godly, and very intelligent man, an excellent teacher who is genuinely interested in scientific questions. It appears that trip was very stimulating for him and all the other Bible scholars. We all saw profound evidence for the Flood with our own eyes as veteran guide Tom Vail steered us down the river. Details of the evidence were expounded by PhD geologist Andrew Snelling, who is also prominent in the film. Perhaps that trip was a turning point in Del’s thinking to take him beyond mere Biblical apologetics into full embrace of the historical Genesis.Tom Vail and Del Tackett conversing in Grand Canyon, 6/28/08.Photo by David CoppedgeThe experts interviewed—all credentialed scientists and scholars— are listed on the film’s website. Topics range from strata in the Grand Canyon, the nature of the Hebrew text, the extent of variability of original created kinds, the Biblical epochs contrasted with secular geological epochs, fossils and soft tissue in dinosaur bones, questions in recent-creation astronomy, world history after the Flood, and more. The variety of topics (necessarily covered briefly though sufficiently for film) provides a well-rounded answer to the point of the film: can Genesis be reasonably considered a true history of the world, given that the mainstream believes in a big bang and billions of years? Tying each scientist’s answer together is recognition of the importance of paradigms. The evidence does not speak for itself; it is always evaluated through a paradigmatic framework, especially for historical questions that cannot be repeated in a lab. Genesis provides an eyewitness account of earth history by the Creator himself. Secular science, without that advantage, constantly changes its stories. Several of the scientists remarked that what they were taught in school as fact is no longer believed. In conclusion, a pastor connects Genesis to the gospel and urges building one’s view of world history on the Bible’s reliable record instead of the shifting sands of science.On DeliveryProduction quality was OK but not great. Being used to the top-notch Illustra Media films, I thought the energy level was somewhat low, the music mediocre, and much of the scenery poorly shot. There was not a trajectory of interest leading to a climax; just a series of interviews at about the same energy level throughout. For its purposes, though, the producer needed to concentrate on the facts being shared; the audience benefited from each expert having enough time to explain his views. Each of the experts delivered key points with authenticity and credibility. Many of the face shots were a bit too close for my comfort, and often shaky, but not to a disturbing degree. Graphical elements were few. The interviews were tied together with pencil drawings that merged into live action, with a few others used to illustrate points. A few scenic shots and drone shots were eye-catching, but I could imagine someone watching the film once, and then listening to the soundtrack alone the second time. It was a film for the ears more than for the eyes.Line drawing from “Is Genesis History?” (Compass Cinema)On ImpactAs a presentation of the young-earth creationist view, the film was probably more effective by being low-key, fact-rich, and personalized than by trying to generate artificial interest with special effects, dramatic music and emotion. It was clear these were reasonable men, not scientific renegades or nuts as opponents are prone to portray them (see ridicule in the Baloney Detector). They all have PhDs from secular universities in their respective fields.Even though it was low-key, the film had very interesting moments. From reactions I sensed around me, the dinosaur soft-tissue demonstration by Kevin Anderson, when he pulled on stretchy tissue found inside a Triceratops horn that he and Mark Armitage had dug out in Montana with their own hands, was a high point. The images seemed to elicit gasps of astonishment, illustrating that facts of sufficient import need no extra dressing. The widespread flat layers of strata pointed out by geologists Steve Austin and Andrew Snelling also had visual punch for the catastrophist/Flood position. The audience was probably also surprised when Snelling revealed results of radiometric ages from the same rock he had collected that differed by millions of years depending on the method used. I thought Tackett’s opening was very effective. He stands in a deep canyon, hiking along a stream, sensing the vast spans of time that must have passed, only to reveal that the whole canyon was younger than he was! As the drone camera backs away, he explains that the canyon formed within a couple of days in a catastrophic mudflow at Mt. St. Helens since the 1980 eruption. The similarities to Grand Canyon in the subsequent episode are apparent, showing that you can’t always trust your senses if you didn’t know the true story of what happened. Later, Kurt Wise applied that point well to warn of flaws in uniformitarian interpretations of present processes.Group led by Dr. Steve Austin into the “Mini-Grand Canyon” at Mt. St. Helens, Aug. 4, 2012Photo by David CoppedgeAudience responses I heard outside the theater were uniformly positive. Everyone was smiling and commenting that they thought it was really good and were glad they came. There’s a lot of science in this film without being technical. Each viewer probably had their own favorite moments, whether the towering dinosaur reconstructions, swimming sharks, stars and galaxies, Grand Canyon, or a fossil dig in progress. I would like to see two impacts of this production: first, to encourage pastors to take a bold stand for Genesis as “true to what is there,” and second, to encourage young budding scientists to follow in the footsteps of these men whose dedication has given many Christians confidence for having reasonable faith, because God’s word is trustworthy. It fits the world as we see it. It’s history; His story.Update 2/24/17: Just got word that there will be encore showings on March 2. See the website for details. This indicates that interest was high. The publicity team says, “Our premier last night vaulted Is Genesis History to one of Fathom’s best releases!”It was good to see a spirit of unity among the participating scientists. They come from different organizations; sometimes that can result in divided loyalties. They also avoided infighting over different young-earth models, focusing instead on points of agreement. The producer and participants also wisely avoided disparaging comments about theistic evolutionists or old-earthers. Hopefully that will encourage viewers of those persuasions to consider the evidence itself.On the day of the showing, Paul Nelson felt it necessary to issue a “dissent” about his part in the film. On Evolution News & Views, he claims his views were misrepresented, mistakenly portraying a false dichotomy between old-age secularism and young-earth creationism as if those were the only two options. While his feelings are understandable and his arguments sound, I’m not sure it was necessary or helpful to call this a “dissent.” He could have called it a “clarification.” Nothing Paul says in the film is false; it’s only incomplete. The word “dissent” appears to put him at odds with not only the producer, but with Del Tackett and all the other honorable scientists who appear in the film. Paul is a good, wise and honorable teacher himself; let’s hope this issue will be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction in the DVD version.I’m glad to know many of the scientists in the film personally, and even more glad to know that many of them are supportive of Creation-Evolution Headlines. If you missed the film, I hope this review encourages you to see it if and when it comes out on DVD. —David Coppedge, reviewer(Visited 166 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Pulp-Based Computing: While there’s little information on these projects just yet, one thing is clear. The folks in MIT’s Media Lab Fluid Interfaces Group are exploring electrically active inks and fibers during the paper making process to create a new form of paper-based computing. Apparently the paper would react in the same way as regular paper; however, it would also carry digital information. While the project is only in its early stages and appears to be hooked up to a basic Arduino prototyping platform, theoretically this could be used to create a new type of Wacom tablet. Remember when Steven Levy wrote about losing his Macbook Air? A paper interface would take some serious getting used to. Siftables: Created by David Merrill and Jeevan Kalanithi, Siftables is a series of blocks that contain built-in motion sensors, graphical displays and wireless communication. The blocks can be programmed to interact with digital information and media to form a collective interface. Siftables have been used to create art displays, painting tools, calculators, games and even a music sequencer. Bug Labs also offers a similar open source block system for modular device interfaces. For more on alternative interfaces featured during 2009, check out our articles on the BiDi screen and the wearable Internet. Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Perceptive Pixel Multi-Touch Wall (Jeff Han’s new project) and Microsoft Surface: In the world of alternative interfaces, these two workstations are extremely well known. Certainly not the inexpensive, mainstream touch interfaces we’d hoped for, their size and price makes them unobtainable to the average user. However, for commercial uses, they’ve certainly got that wow factor. The products are used for story boarding, geo-spatial command, broadcast media, museum exhibits, hotels and Surface is even in Disneyland’s tomorrow land. Related Posts Scratch Input: Recently featured in Technology Review for his presentation at the SIGGRAPH Conference, Carnegie Mellon Ph.D student Chris Harrison created a gestural input interface using existing surfaces and an acoustic input technique. In other words, Harrison’s interface uses scratches to communicate with his machine. By taping a modified stethoscope to a wall, Harrison got users to perform six scratch input gestures at about 90% accuracy with less than 5 minutes of training. If Scratch Input were utilized by a mobile manufacturer, a phone owner could simply rest their device on a table top and use it to scribble out messages. Tags:#Apple#web dana oshiro Editor’s note: This story is part of a series we call Redux, where we’ll re-publish some of our best posts of 2009. As we look back at the year – and ahead to what next year holds – we think these are the stories that deserve a second glance. It’s not just a best-of list, it’s also a collection of posts that examine the fundamental issues that continue to shape the Web. We hope you enjoy reading them again and we look forward to bringing you more Web products and trends analysis in 2010. Happy holidays from Team ReadWriteWeb! Ever since Jeff Han demoed his Multi-Touch Workstation at the 2006 TED Conference, the world has been waiting for a high resolution sensory work experience. As a generation of hunched night creatures with intimate knowledge of our chiropractors, we’ve suffered and conformed to our traditional interfaces for too long. Touch was the future of workstations. But as articulated by ReadWriteWeb, the upcoming Apple tablet is not the workstation of the near future. It simply isn’t practical. For those of us who still want to gawk at the cool regardless of its practicality, here is an assortment of 2009’s most interesting interfaces. A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Sixth Sense: Sixth Sense is an extremely inexpensive interface ($350 to build the prototype) and it consists of some colored finger markers, a projector, and a camera on a necklace. Demoed at the TED conference, this interface has amazing potential. We reviewed this product as part of our post The Wearable Internet Will Blow Mobile Phones Away.Given Nikon’s release of yesterday’s first camera with a built-in pico projector and Mobileburn’s demo of the Samsung Anycall Show phone, these little projectors are about to start popping up everywhere. For Minority Report fans, we may actually see these projector based interfaces used up for everyday tasks; however, it’s more produce amazing entertainment for gamers.
Alex is founder of BuildingGreen, Inc. and executive editor of Environmental Building News. He also wrote Insulation: The BuildingGreen Guide to Insulation Products and Practices, which provides in-depth guidance on the selection of insulation materials. To keep up with his latest articles and musings, you can sign up for his Twitter feed. I’m often asked the question, “How much insulation should I install in my house”? It’s a great question. Let me offer some recommendations:First of all… it depends. It depends to a significant extent on where you live. And it depends on whether we’re talking about a new house or trying to squeeze insulation into an existing house.To simplify the discussion, let’s assume, for the time being, that we’re talking about new constructionAs for location, I’ll provide recommendations for three different climates, based on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) climate zones. These DOE climate zones range from Zone 1 at the extreme southern tip of Florida, to Zone 7, which covers the tip of Maine, stretches across the northern reaches of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota, and includes a few high-elevation places in the Rockies (see map). In my recommendations, I group these into three larger zones for simplicity.Cold climates: Zones 5-7Zones 5-7 cover much of the northern half of the U.S., from roughly the Mason-Dixon Line at the East Coast across the northern third of Missouri and the northern edge of eastern Kansas, then dipping south in the higher-elevation Plains States through northern New Mexico, northern Arizona, nearly all of Nevada (except the Las Vegas area), and the northeastern corner of California and the eastern three-quarters of Oregon and Washington.For these locations, I follow the widely quoted recommendations from Building Science Corporation and aim for the 5-10-20-40-60 rule. These numbers refer to the R-value recommendations for windows, foundation slabs, foundation walls, above-ground walls, and attics (or roofs), respectively.These recommendations are for “true” R-values, not the nominal values listed on insulation packaging. For example, if you install R-19 fiberglass batts in 2×6 frame walls, with the studs 16 inches on-center, double top-plates, and other elements of “standard” framing, the actual R-value of the whole wall with the R-19 insulation will be about R-15. The whole-wall R-value is lower because of thermal bridging through the wood framing.To achieve R-40 in the walls requires a lot of insulation — far more than is found in standard construction. This level of insulation, if combined with strategies for minimizing air leakage, will result in a house that will be affordable to heat even if energy prices double or triple. And if combined with some passive solar heating will result in a house that should never come close to freezing in winter, even if the heat is turned off.With window R-values, the recommendation refers to the “unit R-value,” a measure that averages the center-of-glass R-value and the R-value at the window edges — where the heat loss is greater (at least with high-performance windows). These unit R-values are the inverse of the U-factors listed on NFRC (National Fenestration Rating Council) labels found on most new windows: R = 1/U.Hot climates: Zones 1-2Zones 1-2 include the hottest areas in the U.S., covering most of Florida and a band west to central Texas, as well as southern Arizona and the Imperial Valley of extreme southeastern California.Here, I recommend a 3-5-10-20-60 rule: R-3 windows, R-5 under slabs and for any below-grade foundation walls, R-10 for above-grade foundation walls and slab perimeter (full foundations are rare in these climates), R-20 for above-ground walls, and R-60 for attics. These recommendations come from an informal conversation with John Straube of Building Science Corporation. Again, these are true R-values (unit values for windows).It will surprise some to see the recommendation for attics to be the same as in cold climates. This is because of the difference in temperature (delta-T) between the living space and the attic on a hot summer day can be as high as wintertime delta-T in a cold-climate between indoors and outdoors. With windows, I further recommend a solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of 0.3 or lower to minimize unwanted solar gain.Moderate climates: Zones 3-4Zones 3-4 include much of the southern half of the country, with the boundary between Zones 4 and 5 dipping south across the center of New Mexico and Arizona. This moderate region excludes Florida and the Gulf Coast, but includes most of California and the western edge of Oregon and Washington.For these locations, I recommend intermediate insulation values between those for cold climates and hot climates. I suggest a 4-5-10-30-60 rule: R-4 windows, R-5 under slabs, R-10 foundation walls or slab perimeter, R-30 above-grade walls, and R-60 in the attic or roof.What about existing houses?In new construction, the incremental cost of increasing insulation levels are relatively modest. With existing houses, retrofit insulation costs are usually much higher, so it is usually difficult to justify such high insulation levels. The exception is attics, where adding lots of additional insulation is usually quite affordable.So, in existing homes, determining reasonable insulation levels is project-specific. In a full gut-rehab (where the house is taken down to the structure, or the frame is opened up on either the interior or exterior), achieving close to the recommended insulation levels for new construction may be possible (though higher costs for extending window and door jambs and, sometimes, roof overhangs also need to be considered).And with windows, whether to replace or improve existing windows is a key question. Look for recommendations in future blogs.
I’ve now had a year with the Geyser heat-pump water heater (HPWH). With the exception of the puddle on the floor in July 2011, it has performed consistently.Its performance has not been thrilling, though. In the summer, it was making hot water at about 0.13 – 0.15 kWh/gallon, with incoming water in the mid-60°Fs and basement air temperature around 70°F. In the winter, with basement temperatures in the low to mid 50°Fs, and incoming water at 50°F or a bit below, this consumption ratio increased to 0.25 kWh/gallon.I switched to using only the upper electric element in mid-January 2012, and the consumption ratio was 0.31 kWh/gallon, so the HPWH was saving about 20% — actually more, since the HPWH was heating the entire tank, and the electric element only was heating the upper 30% of the tank. This was verifiable by the way with the infrared camera — a sharp temperature gradient below the element location. Water heating strategiesTo sum up how I’m thinking on how to make domestic hot water, given my preference to think in terms of electrically powered buildings to mate with renewable power generation:– Low DHW users, say up to 20 gallons/day, should use electric resistance in either a superinsulated tank or maybe distributed instantaneous electric heaters. (Caveat emptor: lots and lots of amps!)– Medium DHW users, say 20 – 50 gallons/day, should consider a heat-pump water heater. Pick the highest efficiency and one with a large tank, which keeps the electric backup off.– Large users of DHW should consider a solar thermal system. Look at the Wagner system, which is a clever packaged drainback system, as one possibility. A HPWH is also a dehumidifierThe other thing we’ve learned with the Stiebel Eltron HPWH is the effect it has on the basement humidity. We know a HPWH will both cool and remove moisture from the air, but we didn’t know if it would make that air higher or lower relative humidity. It could possibly cool the air and not remove enough moisture to keep the relative humidity from rising as the air was cooled.Image 2 (below) shows data recorded during a 3 1/2 hour run of the HPWH, and the conditions of the air at the start and the end.What we see is that the basement both cools and drops in relative humidity. As my friend and South Mountain colleague John Guadagno says, good stuff, good stuff! The reason it’s good is that the moisture content of materials is based on the relative humidity of the surrounding air, and lower moisture content means lower opportunity for mold. I agree with JG! Marc Rosenbaum is director of engineering at South Mountain Company on the island of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. He writes a blog called Thriving on Low Carbon. Better performance from a Stiebel Eltron unitIf I didn’t give myself the flexibility with the 85-gallon tank to do the HPWH or add solar thermal hot water I would have installed a 50-gallon Marathon instead. We have very good data from the Eliakim’s Way homes that show about 0.21 – 0.23 kWh/gallon. So over a year I’m not sure my HPWH and the larger tank saved me anything over a smaller electric water heater.One very significant factor is our very low hot water usage of about 13 gallons/day. This means that the HPWH spends a significant portion of its operating time working against the standby losses, which means that it’s cycling in the 110°F – 120°F water temperature range, where it is least efficient. And of course that energy is not being used to heat hot water to replace hot water we’ve used. BLOGS BY MARC ROSENBAUM Getting into Hot Water — Part 1Getting into Hot Water — Part 2Getting Into Hot Water — Part 3Basement Insulation — Part 1Basement Insulation — Part 2Seasonal Changes in Electrical Loads RELATED ARTICLES All About Water HeatersHeat-Pump Water Heaters Come of AgeGet Ready for Heat-Pump Water HeatersSolar Hot WaterSolar Thermal is Dead Where does a heat-pump water heater make sense?It’s worth noting that a HPWH takes heat from the house, at least during the heating season, so how you heat the house matters. Here are some cases to consider:1 – The HPWH is in a basement with a gas furnace and leaky uninsulated ducts that keep the basement at 70°F. The HPWH is operating efficiently because it is taking heat from nice warm air, and that heat is only indirectly getting to the living space. Probably a good application.2 – The HPWH is in the thermal envelope of a direct gain passive solar house with a wood stove backup. Again, the heat pump is operating in a favorable temperature regime, and the source of the heat is either the sun or firewood. And often during the winter the space may be overheated and the cooling is not objectionable.3 – The HPWH is in the thermal envelope of an electrically heated house. Each unit of energy removed from the air is replaced by electric resistance heat. Not a good choice.4 – The HPWH is in the thermal envelope of a house heated with minisplit heat pumps that operate at a COP of 2.5. The HPWH COP of 2 is effectively reduced to 1.4 because of the energy required by the heat pump to offset the cooling effect of the HPWH. If the house is in heating mode for six months of the year, and the rest of the time the cooling effect of the heat pump is negligible or welcome, then this changes to 1.7.And finally, the more the climate shifts towards being cooling-dominated, the better the HPWH looks. A HPWH in your house in Florida supplies free cooling and dehumidification as it heats water. I have data on another HPWH, the Accelera made by Stiebel Eltron.It was installed late this past winter in a deep energy retrofit that South Mountain Company did on a small house in Chilmark. The basement had about R-20 walls and an R-3 floor. There is a ducted minisplit heat pump air handler and insulated ducts in the basement as well as the Stiebel Eltron.The Stiebel Eltron has an 80-gallon tank which has the refrigerant heating coil wrapped around the outside of the tank beneath the insulation. It has a 1.7-kW backup electric element with a separate thermostat. This unit was set to make 130°F water. We installed a water meter on the cold water inlet and measured the electrical usage with the Powerhouse Dynamics eMonitor. Over the first six months, the household averaged 45 gallons/day of domestic hot water usage.As in other Martha’s Vineyard homes, the incoming water temperature varies, starting at 50°F in early March and rising into the low 60°Fs in August. Basement temperature began in the upper 50°Fs and rose to the upper 60°Fs.The HPWH made 7,980 gallons of hot water and used 477 kWh of electricity, a consumption ratio of 0.060 kWh/gallon — over three times more efficient than the 50-gallon Marathon tanks at Eliakim’s Way, which used 0.20 kWh/gallon over the same months in six houses that averaged 43 gallons per day.This performance is in a whole other ballpark than that of the Geyser. Also, the unit seems to have low standby losses. On days with no usage it was using about 1/2 kWh. My biggest question is, how long will this expensive device (the list price is about $2,600) last?
by Robin Allen MSPH, RDN, LDNThe recent foodborne illness outbreaks of E.coli and Norovirus has me greatly concerned. I love dining out but is it safe? How my food is being prepared? And what is the condition of those preparing my food? Have they washed their hands? Are they well? What about all those buffets and potlucks? How long has that food been sitting out? Are other people handling their food safely? I thought I would take this time to write some reminders to keep your holiday safe! The last thing anyone wants is to get sick around the holidays.I attended a #CDCFoodChat Twitter chat on food safety and picked up some good information to share. I highly recommend you read this informative sharing of information. First what has been in the news?There have been outbreaks of Escherichia Coli (E.-coli) in several states. E.coli are a group of bacteria mostly harmless but can cause diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, and vomiting. Food and water contaminated with human or animal feces are the modes of transmission. Swallowing tiny amounts of these foods that have been contaminated (yes it is disgusting) spreads the infection.Outbreaks of E.coli occurred in November 2015 in Oregon, Washington State, California, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New York. No specific food has yet been identified for this Illness, but Chipotle Grill appears to be the source of the outbreak. Outbreaks of E.coli have been linked recently to rotisserie chicken salad, raw clover sprouts (2 occasions), ground beef, ready to eat salad, organic spinach, and Spring Blend. Even my favorite, raw cookie dough has been associated with an outbreak. Foods most likely to be associated with E.Coli include unpasteurized (raw) milk, unpasteurized apple cider, and soft cheeses made from raw milk, eating an undercooked hamburger or a contaminated piece of lettuce. People have also gotten sick by swallowing lake water while swimming, petting zoos and other animal exhibits, and by eating food prepared by people who did not wash their hands well after using the toilet.How can you minimize your risk for E. Coli? Wash, Wash, Wash!Below are tips from Foodsafety.gov.Wash your hands thoroughly after using the bathroom, changing diapers, and before preparing or eating food.Wash your hands after any contact with animals, even your pets.Always wash your hands before preparing and feeding an infant, before touching an infant’s mouth, or touching pacifiers or other things that go into an infant’s mouth.Keep all objects that enter infants’ mouths (such as pacifiers and teethers) clean. If soap and water aren’t available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer. These alcohol-based products can quickly reduce the number of germs on hands in some situations, but they are not a substitute for washing with soap and running water.Follow clean, separate, cook, chill guidelines, found at FoodSafety.gov.Cook meats thoroughly. Cook ground beef and meat to a temperature of at least 160°F (70˚C).Prevent cross-contamination in food preparation areas. Do not cut vegetables on the same cutting board as raw meat. Thoroughly wash hands, counters, cutting boards, and utensils after they touch raw meat. Avoid consuming raw milk or unpasteurized dairy products juices (like fresh apple cider).Avoid swallowing water when swimming and when playing in lakes, ponds, streams, swimming pools, and backyard “kiddie” pools. Another recent foodborne illness has been the Norovirus or Norwalk Virus. The Norovirus is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United States and causes about 50% of all food-related illnesses. Norovirus is highly contagious and is usually spread by person to person contact. However, norovirus can be spread by consuming contaminated food or water or touching items that are contaminated. A food worker who comes to work infected with norovirus and handles food can cause or spread the virus. Contamination with norovirus can occur at any point in the food process, when it is being grown, shipped, handled, or prepared. Foods commonly associated with outbreaks of norovirus are produce, leafy greens, ready to eat foods handled by infected workers, salads, sandwiches, ice, cookies, fresh fruits, and shellfish (such as oysters). Any food can be contaminated if an infected person has handled it with vomit or feces on their hands.Recently a norovirus outbreak, again associated with Chipotle Grill sickened 141 Boston College students. The Boston College basketball coach blamed a recent loss because 8 players were sick with norovirus. Another outbreak of norovirus occurred in Simi Valley, CA where 234 people became ill, also associated with Chipotle Grill.According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), food workers can follow some simple tips to prevent norovirus from spreading:Avoid preparing food for others while you are sick and for at least 48 hours after symptoms stop.Wash your hands carefully and often with soap and water.Rinse fruits and vegetables and cook shellfish thoroughly.Clean and sanitize kitchen utensils, counters, and surfaces routinely.Wash table linens, napkins, and other laundry separately.Here are some more tips from the CDC to prevent foodborne illness from crashing your holiday.Clean, Separate, Cook, Chill, Stuff with careBuffets and the Two-Hour Rule. Perishable foods (like meat and poultry) should not sit at room temperature for more than two hours. Keep track of how long foods have been sitting on the buffet table and discard anything there two hours or more.Hot and ColdKeep Hot Foods HOT and Cold Foods COLD. Hot foods on a buffet should be held at 140 °F or warmer. Keep hot foods hot with chafing dishes, slow cookers, and warming trays. Do not re-heat food in your slow cooker.Cold foods should be held at 40 °F or colder. Keep cold foods cold on a buffet by nesting the serving dishes into bowls of ice. Otherwise, use small serving trays and replace them frequently. If you’re transporting cold foods, use a cooler with ice or commercial freezing gel.LeftoversDiscard all perishable foods (meats, poultry) left at room temperature longer than 2 hours. Immediately refrigerate or freeze remaining leftovers in shallow containers.If you have additional questions about how to store leftovers, download the FoodKeeper app. This app offers storage guidance on more than 400 items and cooking tips for meat, poultry, seafood and eggs.Don’t let foodborne Illness be an uninvited guest at your table this holiday season!References:http://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/downloads/global-burden-report.pdf accessed 12-21-15CDC Food Safety accessed 12-21-15Foodsafety.gov accessed 12-21-15http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/foodkeeperapp/ accessed 12-21-15https://www.foodsafety.gov accessed 12-21-15This post was written by Robin Allen, a member of the Military Families Learning Network (MFLN) Nutrition and Wellness team which aims to support the development of professionals working with military families. Find out more about the MFLN Nutrition and Wellness concentration on our website, on Facebook, on Twitter and on LinkedIn.
South Zone: 31 cases, an increase of 138.5 percent compared to 2017Calgary Zone: 206 cases, an increase of 7.3 percent compared to 2017Central Zone: 88 cases, an increase of 266.7 percent compared to 2017Edmonton Zone: 977 cases, an increase of 305.4 percent compared to 2017North Zone: 208 cases, an increase of 324.5 percent compared to 2017 In 2018, a total of 1,536 cases of infectious syphilis were reported compared to 161 in 2014, almost a tenfold increase. The government shares this rate of infectious syphilis has not been this high in Alberta since 1948.While congenital syphilis cases were rare before the outbreak, There were 22 congenital syphilis cases between 2014 and 2018, one of which was stillborn. Congenital syphilis, which occurs when a child is born to a mother with syphilis, is a severe, disabling and life-threatening disease.Consistent and correct condom use is an important protection against STIs such as syphilis.As with other STIs, the symptoms of syphilis may not be obvious.Health experts recommend sexually active people, regardless of gender, age or sexual orientation, get tested every three to six months if they:have a sexual partner with a known STIhave a new sexual partner or multiple or anonymous sexual partnershave a previous history of an STI diagnosishave been sexually assaultedIt is critical that anyone who is pregnant seeks early prenatal care and testing for syphilis during pregnancy.Anyone experiencing STI-related symptoms should seek testing and speak to a family doctor to find testing and treatment options.In the 2018 case counts for infectious syphilis by AHS zone: EDMONTON, AB – Infectious and congenital syphilis rates have escalated across the province over the past five years, with a sharp increase in 2018.Due to the rapid increase in syphilis cases, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, has declared a provincial outbreak and is encouraging Albertans to get tested and protect themselves.“We need to emphasize for all Albertans: Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) are a risk to anyone who is sexually active, particularly people who have new sex partners and are not using protection. I encourage anyone who is sexually active to get tested regularly. Anyone in Alberta can access STI testing and treatment for free,” said Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Chief Medical Officer of Health.
Guwahati: The Indian women’s cricket team suffered a five-wicket defeat to England in the second T20 International, surrendering the series with a sixth straight loss in the shortest format. Chasing 112 for an unassailable 2-0 lead in the three-match series, England completed the task in 19.1 overs, holding nerves after losing a few quick wickets. Opener Danielle Wyatt was Engalnd’s star performer with the bat, top-scoring with an unbeaten 64 off 55 balls. During her stay in the middle, Wyatt struck six boundaries, and was ably supported by Lauren Winfield (29). Also Read – Dhoni, Paes spotted playing football togetherWhile Wyatt held one end firm on the way to her fourth T20 half- century, England needed three back-to-back boundaries by Winfield to take the game away from India. Opting to bowl, England produced a brilliant performance to prevent the hosts from putting up a big score at the Barsapara Cricket Stadium, with Katherine Brunt emerging as the most successful bowler. The veteran seamer returned figures of 3/17, sending back stand-in skipper Smriti Mandhana (12) and Jemimah Rodrigues to put India on the backfoot. Also Read – Andy Murray to make Grand Slam return at Australian OpenThe wicket of Mandhana was important for England as the opener had powered India to 24 for no loss in 2.3 overs before Brunt had her caught behind. Coming in to bat at one drop, the young Rodrigues (2) did not last long, getting bowled by Brunt. In the next over, the dismissal of Harleen Deol by left-arm spinner Linsey Smith (2/11) left the hosts in a spot of bother at 34 for three. The experienced Mithali Raj, in the last leg of her career, top-scored with 20 off 27 balls, while Deepti Sharma and Bharati Fulmali contributed 18 each. England were off to a steady start but slow left-armer Radha Yadav did not let the opening partnership flourish, disturbing Tammy Beaumont’s stumps in the fifth over. Leg-spinner Poonam Yadav had Amy Jones caught and bowled in a soft dismissal and Ekta Bisht picked up two wickets, including the big one of skipper Heather Knight, to leave the visitors in trouble at 56 for four. But Wyatt and Winfield saw England through with their 47-run partnership for the fifth wicket. India bowled tightly and conceded just three extras in comparison to England’s 18. England won the first match by 41 runs.