Saw this on CNN! Avalable on stupid.com!!

presenting...

GLOBAL WARMING VANISHING LAND MUG

Want to see the effects of global warming without waiting ten or twenty years? Then use one of these frightening and informative Global Warming Vanishing Land Mugs.
Each mug is covered with a map of the world. When you pour in a hot beverage, the mug shows what happens when the world heats up and the oceans begin to rise... Land mass disappears before your very eyes!

WATCH Florida get swallowed by the Atlantic.
SEE valuable California waterfront property turn into a modern-day Atlantis.
WITNESS Central America dissolving into a few, small islands.

It's a mug with a message. It comes in a nice box, so you can give them to your environ-MENTAL friends!

Utility biking is what it's called!

I've been using a bike to get where ever I have needed to go in an effort to reduce car usage and parking fees. When deciding on what kind of bike to get, I specifically wanted a bike like I had seen in Asia and Europe (see figure below). It's not a mountain bike or racing bike. It wasn't a beach cruiser either. These bikes were used by people to get around, running errands and stuff. No frills like an extensive gear system or extremely light alloys. In the US, most bike riding has some sort of sport involved or is marketed toward children. While searching around for specific bike parts, I came across the wikipedia entry for what is called "utility biking." Apparently, it's the appropriate way to describe using bikes to run errands or to get around town.

Figure. Utility bike.
Source: http://clevercycles.com/blog/images/jorgbike.jpg


When looking for a "utility bike," I came to learn that there isn't a big market for utility biking in the US. I wanted a bike that was comfortable to ride and could carry things. Bikes built for comfort generally fall in the direction of beach cruisers. The ability to carry things are designed more toward the mountain or touring bike with various packing attachments and accessories. I guess, it is consistent for mountain bikers to also go backpacking, hiking, or camping. But I also recall my middle school days where I helped my brother deliver newspapers for a short time (boy, was that unprofitable). Anyway, to carry the newspapers, I had a front basket for my bike and my brother had a rack upon which he had canvas saddlebags.

When going about putting together my own utility bike, I took several of the things mentioned above into consideration. First when it came to bike frame I chose the beach cruiser. The beach cruiser has many similar characteristics to the utility bike. It had front and rear fenders to ward off spray from the wet ground. Having ridden a mountain bike, I've been splashed in the face and had a mudstrip up the back of my shirt or my backpack. It also had a chainguard to protect pant legs from catching on the gears and getting too dirty from the chain. The seat to a beach cruiser is also a bit wider and more comfortable compared to a mountain bike or racing bike. Mountain bikes and racing bikes are more narrow to allow the bicyclist to use their legs more efficiently. But sitting on a narrow bike seat for long periods of time is uncomfortable.

One last thing I learned about the frame came from watching a television program about the evolution bicycles and motorcycles. It has to deal with the body position of the bicyclist. The stance of the rider was compared to the various ways of horseback riding. The competitive horseback rider, exemplified by the showjumper or the racetrack jockey, sat very differently in the saddle from non-competitive horseback riders. The competitive rider generally sat leaning forward in the saddle, utilizing the legs more than a non-competitive rider. This made the saddle more narrow, bringing the legs of the rider closer, reducing air resistance or drag.

On the other hand, the non-competitive rider, exemplified by the cowboy or vaquero, sat more upright in the saddle. The saddle thus held more weight of the rider and was wider and more padded to increase comfort. Thus, a great difference emerged in the design of horse saddles. Horse saddles gave way to bicycle and motorcycle seats. Competitive bikes (ex. mountain and racing bicycles) and motorcycles (ex. sportbikes) still have the rider leaning forward while non-competitive bikes (like beach cruisers or touring motorbikes) have riders sitting more upright (see figure below).

Figure. Body position across bike frames.
Source: http://clevercycles.com/blog/images/


Since the sitting position between competitive and non-competitive riders differ, so does the shoulder position. By leaning forward, the center of gravity moves forward on the bike, employing the muscles and joints of the shoulders and arms. This can be a point of stress for some bike riders. By riding a beach cruiser, the center of gravity is closer to the bike seat and less stress is placed on the shoulders and arms. Overall, the beach cruiser best suited my riding needs.

Materials-wise, I ended up getting a beach cruiser made of steel instead of the more expensive, lighter metals, like aluminum or titanium. It was the only beach cruiser with front and rear fenders and chain guard. The chain guard is only a half chain guard and not a full chain guard as seen on some utility bikes. Full chain guards cover the gears and chain completely. I have yet to see a bike with a full chain guard sold in the US. I would like one to fully protect pant legs. I think the half chain guard is primarily designed to prevent pant legs from getting caught in the front gear(s) and then to protect against chain grease. But I still get grease marks from the bike chain on my pant legs.

Next, when it came to carrying things, I immediately thought of the old newspaper route. The large front baskets aren't really sold in large retailers like a Target and WalMart or in a specialized, outdoor retailer like REI. I bought mine at a small bike shop that caters to all kinds of bicyclists, which would include those with a paper route (see figure below). That was easy enough but I had a tougher time deciding what to do about getting a rack and saddlebags. The security of the saddlebag was my main concern. Looking online, I came across numerous discussions about the need to secure the saddlebag to the rack. The costs can also be great.


Figure. Front basket.
Source: http://bicyclesports.us/0675e890.jpg


However, I found a decent compromise in a one-piece metal rack and side baskets. I carry canvas bags and just plop them down into the side baskets. One problem, however. It looks like the rack wasn't designed to fit onto a beach cruiser frame. The rear wheel sits further behind the seat than it would on a mountain bike or different frame. As result, the rack does not extend far enough to easily attach to the bike frame, below the seat. This results in the rack tilting forward. But it is still usable and the I can carry larger items on top of the rack.

Well, my utility bike seems almost complete. However, I was looking for a specific bike part earlier. It is a center bike stand. Most bicycles come with a kickstand, where the bike leans to one side. However, there are also center bike stands that elevate the rear tire when used (see figure). This is more common on motorcycles in the US but is also common on utility bikes in Europe and Asia. Looking for a center bike stand is what started this while blog entry. A couple things still linger. I'd like to find a full chain guard.

Figure. Center bike stand.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Utility_bicycle_kickstand.jpg

Old arguments about paper and plastic cups

Every so often I awake to think about the rise of popular social trends and their environmental consequences. Just as many others may have observed, I have become acutely aware of the ubiquity of Starbucks coffee shops and coffehouses, in general. I have never purchased anything from Starbucks but have often entered several stores with friends or to look around. As a business major, I can't help but be curious about a successful business model.


"Starbucks first revolutionized the coffeehouse industry by marketing expensive, high-quality coffee as well as a "third place" between work and home - a warm, clean, and inviting environment where customers can go to escape from the chaos of daily life." [1]


From that description above, I understand why Starbucks has very little impact or influence on my life. As a general rule, I do not drink coffee due to health concerns. I tried not to drink coffee for several reasons, for example, it raises blood pressure, caffeine is a diuretic, and coffee stains one's teeth. But looking at journal articles, coffee and caffeine are rendered largely harmless, if taken in moderation (if an average consumer can reasonably determine the meaning of moderation).

"[F]or the healthy adult population, moderate daily caffeine intake at a dose level up to 400 mg day(-1) (equivalent to 6 mg kg(-1) body weight day(-1) in a 65-kg person) is not associated with adverse effects such as general toxicity, cardiovascular effects, effects on bone status and calcium balance (with consumption of adequate calcium), changes in adult behaviour, increased incidence of cancer and effects on male fertility. The data also show that reproductive-aged women and children are 'at risk' subgroups who may require specific advice on moderating their caffeine intake. Based on available evidence, it is suggested that reproductive-aged women should consume <=300 home main

I can't help but admire Starbucks with such broad appeal to many segments of the American population as well as the ability to compete and dominate in foreign markets. However, that's that a lot of cups and waste generated. I'm mostly thinking about the waste stream of paper coffee cups and plastic tops for hot drinks and clear plastic cups for cold drinks. I do not believe these are being recycled at all. I am not even sure if these cups can be recycled. I try to think of the usual fate of these cups as they leave the store. I imagine that most people dispose of them in regular trash receptacles that go to the landfill. The paper is biodegradable but I wonder about the plastic tops (for hot drinks) and the clear plastic cups (for cold drinks). I'd like to see a piece about this created by Chris Jordan (see previous blog entry). But I think that could be construed as commentary on a specific company rather than a culture.

Sort of like candy wrappers, coffee cups are mundane everyday items that accumulate into large amounts of waste. The only alternative I have seen is the marketing of mugs and cups that could then be used in the purchase of future beverages. Perhaps, akin to plastic bags at the supermarket, reusable containers is the most environmentally conscious choice. But that would force a change in consumer behavior. The convenience of disposal containers and not having to lug around a clean, appropriately-sized cup makes me think that disposable cups, paper, plastic, or in combination, will continue to be used.

But product packaging is essential to building a brand name.

[1] "Starbucks," http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Starbucks_(SBUX)
[2] Nawrot P, Jordan S, Eastwood J, Rotstein J, Hugenholtz A, Feeley M. "Effects of caffeine on human health." Food Addit Contam. 2003 Jan;20(1):1-30.
[3] "Starbucks."

Post-Halloween malaise

It's post-Halloween and I'm eating the leftover candy. After half the day has passed, I'm left with a pile of candy wrappers that will ultimately find its way to a landfill. Thinking back to my previous post about consumer waste as pop art, I began to think about the staggering amount of waste generated by Halloween and other holidays (I'm looking at you, Cadbury Easter eggs). Not much can be done with the little individual wrappers. After the fun of consuming the sweets, there comes a slight melancholy that only a pile of empty candy wrappers and the crash of the sugar rush could produce. The guilt of candy consumption and production of trash is a small offense but one that is committed frequently and ritualistically in American culture. Social rituals as holiday traditions can harm the environment in addition to drastically illustrate the wasteful habits of this culture.

Looking online, I was unable to find anything to ease my guilt. World.org didn't have much with regard to finding useful ways to deal with the inevitable waste generated by candy wrappers.

Candy Foil
Unwrap candy carefully and save the foil. Use the foil to wrap homemade candy.
Glue to a thin piece of cardboard (or thick piece of paper), hole punch, and sew to clothing as sequins.
Candy Wrappers
Use when making homemade candy. Make sure they are clean and dry.
String the wrappers together through the center to make a party lei. [1]

Their ideas seemed somewhat preposterous. "Party lei?" Come on! I'm not that handy either at making my own homemade candy. I recycle and the resulting pile of cans, bottles, and things can be quite unappealing. But things such as these are accumulated on a pretty regular basis as opposed to holiday candy or candy in general. It is not often that individual candy wrappers can be salvaged in resusable condition and in sufficient numbers to create a "party lei." Candy wrappers can't go in the recycling bin either.

The coolest re-use I have seen for candy wrappers is the handbag. The notion of it is novel and the brightly colored wrappers appear to catch the eye. However, I imagine that if the manufacturers were really serious about the business, they may opt for unused candy wrappers to prevent contamination of the product and reduce the cost of sorting through used candy wrappers. But, to me, it seems that the design and colors of the bag are its selling points. Without being told about the nature of the materials, I think the product can sell on its own based solely on its appearance.

It seems that many holidays generate a great deal of waste, for example, Christmas with its wrapping paper or any sort of gift-giving holiday. But holiday wrapping paper and the gift boxes must all be recyclable, I imagine. It's just all the energy and resources that go into making them seem to outweigh their relative usefulness. I'm not the kind that saves and reuses wrapping paper. I think people purchase new rolls of wrapping paper each year because they can't find their old wrapping paper or they don't like their old wrapping paper anymore. Recycled wrapping paper seems like a waste to me, too. The usefulness of wrapping paper is low relative to the cost of its production. I think paper should be used for more productive purposes, at the very least copier paper. Copier paper can be used all year long and doesn't go out of style.

[1] World Environmental Organization, "Recycling Database recycle: candy wrappers," http://www.world.org/reuse/candy.wrappers

Environmental impact of laundry

Every so often, I have a load of "dry-clean only" garments and I am reminded of the dry cleaning process and its inherent hazards. Cruising the Internet, I found a very informative article on http://www.science.com/. Below is a description of a standard operating procedure (SOP).

Tagging and inspection - Some method, whether it is small paper tags or little labels written on a shirt collar, is used to identify your clothes so they don't get mixed up with everyone else's. Clothes are also examined for missing buttons, tears, etc. that the dry cleaner might get blamed for otherwise.
Pre-treatment - The cleaner looks for stains on your clothes and treats them to
make removal easier and more complete.
Dry cleaning - The clothes are put in a machine and cleaned with a solvent.
Post-spotting - Any lingering stains are removed.
Finishing - This includes pressing, folding, packaging and other finishing touches. [1]

Doing my own laundry, I like to compare my procedure to that of the professionals. With regard to pre-treating stains, I must admit that I don't do that very often. That also is a reflection of the fact that I try to be very careful. When working with solvents or chemicals, I rarely wear clothing that I care enough about getting stains. For example, when painting or changing the oil in my car, it is common sense to wear items of clothing you don't care about, like an old, long-sleeve shirt and pair of jeans. I have a specific set of clothes I use only for working on my car, keeping them in the garage. However, by keeping them in the garage to isolate them from my other clothes, I forget to wash them on a regular basis. Although it does seem wasteful, I will most likely end up throwing away those clothes after a while instead of washing them. There is no shortage of old casual clothing that I no longer wear that can then be used for yardwork or working on the car. The old business clothing is more likely to be donated to the Goodwill or Salvation Army.

Nevertheless, some stains seem to be unavoidable at some point in everyone's lives. That, of course, would be food stains. Whether eating fast-food garbage or an over-priced restaurant meal, getting some on one's clothes happens to adults and children alike, albeit with varying frequencies. I learned something useful about pre-treating, perhaps common knowledge to some:

Simply apply water for wet stains (a stain that had water in it) and solvent for
dry stains (a stain that has grease or oil in it). Then, gently tap and blot
both sides of the fabric with a soft cloth so the stain "bleeds off" onto the
cloth. Then, rinse the fabric, let it dry and your cleaner will do the rest. [2]

How to treat wet stains is common sense but I didn't even know what a "dry stain" was, much less how to treat it. The greatest challenge, to me at least, was to treat the "ring-around-the-collar" on my business/dress shirts. I would place that in the "dry stain" category due to the oils contained on human skin that can't help but rub off on collars throughout the work day, even worse when giving presentations, going on interviews, etc. White dress shirts are the most noticeable victim of this affliction. I learned long ago to start wearing off-white or blue dress shirts. White seems to be the best backdrop to notice all the little stains one might come across and appears to be very obvious when its brightness starts to fade. After an exhaustive online search, there appeared to be a myriad of methods to treat the stain.

Common among the suggestions was to treat the stain immediately, washing the garment soon after its wear. However, this is contradictory to water-conserving practices. The suggested solvent varied from solvents specifically marketed to remove sweat/perspiration stains to pre-soaking in white vinegar or ammonia. In the dry cleaning industry, the solvent of choice is perchloroethylene or PERC.

Perchloroethylene (PERC) is the most commonly used drycleaning solvent. PERC can enter the body through respiratory and dermal exposure. Symptoms associated with exposure include: depression of the central nervous system; damage to the liver and kidneys; impaired memory; confusion; dizziness; headache; drowsiness; and eye, nose, and throat irritation. Repeated dermal exposure may result in dermatitis. [The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health,] NIOSH considers PERC a potential human carcinogen. [3]

Due to the adverse health effects of PERC use, alternatives have been sought. Among the alternatives and their respective advatages/disadvantages are described below.

Modern wet cleaning is a new method to clean by water immersion garments normally cleaned in solvent.
Advantages of Wetcleaning
Fewer health and safety hazards
Soil contamination and large emissions of air pollutants eliminated
More pleasant smell than solvent
Some soils are more easily removed (i.e. sugars, salts, drinks, body fluids, starch, and milk)
Comparable cost to cleaning with PERC
Burden of strict health, safety, and environmental regulations reduced
Disadvantages of Wetcleaning
Not currently a complete replacement for cleaning with PERC
Potential for fabric deterioration, structural surface changes, felting, loss of luster and shape, dye transfer or color change
Wools, silks, and rayons are more subject to fiber shrinkage or bleeding of dyes
Greases, oils, waxes, and resins are more difficult to remove
Large quantities of contaminated wastewater
Labor-intensive, requires highly skilled workers
Presents additional ergonomic risks to workers because it is more labor intensive [4]

Petroleum-based drycleaning has been used in garment cleaning for many years.
Advantages of Petroleum-Based Drycleaning
Generally considered less toxic than PERC based upon exposure limits. Toxicological properties not as well documented as PERC.
Because the vapor pressures are lower than PERC, exposures due to inhalation are generally lower
Established cleaning solvent that is effective at cleaning all types of garments
Generally less expensive than PERC
Disadvantages of Petroleum-Based Drycleaning
Presents fire hazards; PERC does not. Fire codes may limit where some shops using these solvents may be located.
Better living condition for bacteria growth. Bacteria cause the garments to retain unpleasant odors.
Lower vapor pressures result in a longer drying process than ERC.
Less effective at removing oil and grease stains than PERC
Higher insurance premiums than with PERC [5]

Liquid carbon dioxide is a recently developed technology that is not yet on the market.
Advantages of Liquid CO2
Environmental concerns such as soil contamination, air pollution, etc. eliminated.
Shorter expected cycle time than with conventional drycleaning, reduced garment pressing time.
Potentially more effective in cleaning suede, leather, and fur than with conventional dry cleaning.
Relatively high PEL of 5,000 ppm
Disadvantages of Liquid CO2
Potential safety hazards--high pressure system, asphyxiation
Questions regarding garment redeposition of stains that have been removed
Possible problems removing protein stains such as grass, lipstick, or chocolate
Possibly more expensive than PERC machines
Very new technology for garment cleaning applications that has not stood the test of time[6]

Sufficed to say, I have very little in common with current and future dry-cleaning practices with specific regard to the choice of solvents. However, perhaps the greatest commonality between individual and commercial clothes washing occurs during the finishing or pressing phase. Having done quite a bit of ironing in my time, I have noticed several occupational hazards common to both the professional and average consumer, for example, standing for long periods of time, the potential of burning oneself, and the stress of repeated movements. Such stress of repetitive movements in detail below:

Musculoskeletal disorders are caused by repetitive motions, awkward postures,
excessive reaching, and precision gripping. In the drycleaning industry,
ergonomic risks occur during garment transfer, pressing, and bagging. These
activities, combined with a high work rate and frequency, may cause physical
discomfort and musculoskeletal problems for workers. Disorders can include
damage to tendons, muscles, nerves, and ligaments of the hand, wrist, arm,
shoulder, neck, and back. [7]

I have gone on my own ironing binges, ironing some 25 dress shirts at a single sitting, and I have experienced the physical stress of repetitive motions and long periods of standing. In particular, I have found that the longer the time spent on ironing, the greater the possibility of burning oneself. This has happened on numerous occassions. Fatigue, coupled with a narrow ironing board on a plush carpet, has led to many burns. This has led me to seek more professional irons and acessories. I have long hated the average consumer iron with its metal sole plate, heavy iron with water reservior, and cord that inevitably wind around and gets caught on something. Cord minders and ways to counterbalance its weight have been developed (Figure 1).

Also, there are steam-only irons where the sole plate is not heated and the only potential for burning is getting scalded from a blast of steam. This, I would imagine, virtually eliminates the frequency of burns.

Lastly, the weight of an iron is decreased when using a gravity feed iron, where the water reservoir is separate from the iron (Figure 2). This decreases fatigue when ironing for long periods of time.

Figure 2. Gravity feed iron.

[1] Marks, Nate and Debra Luhring, "How Dry Cleaning Works," http://science.howstuffworks.com/dry-cleaning2.htm
[2] Ibid.
[3] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, "Control of Exposure to Perchloroethylene in CommercialDrycleaning (Substitution)," http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hc17.html
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, "Control of Ergonomic Hazards in Commercial Drycleaning," http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hc22.html

Consumer waste as pop art!!

Great interview on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central last night. The guest was photographer, Chris Jordan. His exhibit, "Running the Numbers," focuses on social issues such as consumerism and social welfare programs. The video of the interview can be found below (Video 1). One note about the video; it is hosted on the Comedy Central website because they want people to sit through a commercial before viewing it. They had all their content removed from YouTube for that purpose, I imagine.

Video 1. Chris Jordan on the Colbert Report.
Link:http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=111474&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true


The most striking example of consumer waste, in my opinion, was the George Seurat representation of Sunday in the Park in aluminum cans! Awesome! Pointillisme in the form of aluminum cans! Brilliant!! A little background In Figures 1-3, we zoom in on the piece.

Figures 1-3. Sunday in the Park in aluminum cans! Brilliant!
Source: http://www.chrisjordan.com/






As stated in his interview, Jordan tries to visualize the scale of American consumption and waste. In the aluminum can example, Jordan states that every 30 seconds, the US consumes over 100,000 aluminum cans (the exact figure is stated in the Colbert Report interview), only half of which is recycled. The visual representation of this appeared to stun the audience. But as Jordan explained, the waste stream of the US is divided into many smaller streams such that the total extent of consumption of a given product is virtually hidden or unknown.


The extent of US consumption is monitored by a myriad of government agencies. For example, the US Department of Energy (DOE) keeps statistics on energy consumption as well as forecasts (Figure 4). I imagine every industry monitors its own consumption or has a government regulatory agency that oversees it. But tracking the habits of individual consumers may be difficult to definitively ascertain. I was not able to determine the source of Jordan's statistics but I would regard them as credible.


Figure 4. Energy consumption statistics.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption/index.html



In addition to the appearance on the Colbert Report, I found a piece done on the Bill Moyers program (Video 2). It is an even better piece than that found on the Colbert Report. It goes into how he started and the process by which he photographs his subjects.


Video 2. Bill Moyers appearance (no picture available)
Link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/watch3.html

Jordan also has a website to show his work and give information about exhibitions around the country. In addition to his "Running the Numbers" exhibit, Jordan also has previous exhibits along the same theme of consumer waste (Figures 5 and 6).


Figure 5. Intolerable Beauty.
Source: http://www.chrisjordan.com/



Figure 6. In Katrina's Wake.
Source: http://www.chrisjordan.com/



Lastly, I found more video about Jordan's work on YouTube (Video 3): "Depicts the staggering numbers involved in American consumption as Americans consume 25% of the world's resources and produce 25% of the environmental destruction/pollution. "


Video 3. YouTube video featuring the work of Chris Jordan.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apwvV1fMNso

Amphibious houses!!

Due to the incoming storm and dreary weather, I stayed home and watched an interesting program on the History Channel about the Katrina disaster and impending failure of the California levee system in the Sacramento area (Figure 1). Among the levee and dike innovations is the residential adaptation to potential structural failures. And, thus, we get the amphibious home.

Figure 1. Modern Marvels: Levees.
Source: http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=191834

"Amphibious house?" you incredulously say. Yes, an amphibious house. "Well, how's that different from a houseboat? (Figure 2)" Well, amphibious is the operative word here. It is essentially a house that sits on a foundation that can float. Imagine a house built on stilts. Now those stilts are really pilings driven deep into the ground. Next, the house can move vertically up or down, contained by those pilings. Lastly, the house usually sits on dry land until the flood comes.

Figure 2. Houseboat.
Source: http://www.kvh.com/mediasupport/marine/images/houseboat_300.jpg

"Oh...well, why don't you just build a house on stilts, like you see in Florida (Figure 3)?" To that, I have no response. Perhaps, it's too inconvenient for people to live in elevated houses. "Well, what about connections to utilities, like electricity, gas, sewage, etc?" I imagine there must be some arrangement similar to that of houseboats or houses on stilts. In any case, amphibious houses appear to be another alternative to people living in flood-prone areas.

Figure 3. House on stilts.
Source: http://www.valuevacationrentals.com/images/property/prop5543_22659.jpg

I always thought that houseboats were cool, more affordable than conventional housing anyway. In addition, I imagine it would suffer less damage in an earthquake. But I also thought there must be significant disadvantages. For example, it could be a long walk from one's car to the houseboat, especially in the rain. Also, the odor at low tide can be compelling.

But back to amphibious housing. It seems like the cutting-edge of amphibious home design is, not surprisingly, abroad, the Netherlands to be exact. I was never certain what the distinction was between the Netherlands and Holland. However, if the information on Wikipedia can be trusted, I learn that "Holland is a region in the central-western part of the Netherlands [1]." In any case, the area is famous for being below sea level (Figure 4), among other things. So to combat the likelihood of flooding, they are exploring the use of amphibious homes.

Figure 4. The Netherlands is largely below sea level.

Source: http://www.fragilecologies.com/img/netherlands.gif

I found an interview online, on inhabit.com, of an architect specializing in amphibious homes. I think he was the same person on the History channel program. He is Koen Olthuis of WaterStudio.nl. Reading over the interview, it looks like amphibious homes have yet to reach widespread adoption. Some of what has been design and built are pretty much still houseboats but with that European modern-design asthetic (I'm not sure what to call it, exactly). Anyway, the pictures are intriguing and the article is worth looking at. I've attached some of the designs below (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4 and 5. Amphibious homes.

Source: http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/08/29/interview-koen-olthius-of-waterstudionl/

The full interview with Koen Olthuis is found on the inhabit.com website (there are also other related articles and resources):

http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/08/29/interview-koen-olthius-of-waterstudionl/

I found another interesting article online:

Dutch Answer to Flooding: Build Houses that Swim
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,377050,00.html

[1] "Holland," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland

I want a mobile home!

Thinking about housing made me think of mobile homes. Other forms of housing have significant drawbacks. For example, construction of dwelling units (single family homes, condos, apartments) are far more expensive and generate a great deal of waste. Manufactured housing is a way to decrease those adverse characteristics but that are, nonetheless, unavoidable. Attached housing, such as apartments and townhomes, have shared walls which conduct sound and increases the likelihood of spreading vermin or pests. As clean as an apartment may be, if the neighbor has roaches, you have roaches. Also, the poor health habits of one's neighbors can transmit across the walls through ductwork. For example, smoking or drug use. Or even worse, drug manufacture (Figure 1). The manufacture of methamphetamines is dangerous to one's health and extremely explosive. I recall a commercial where a young girl playing in her room in an apartment was above an apartment where methamphetamines were being manufactured. As the old saying goes, "you can't pick your neighbors."

Figure 1. Drug bust in residential home.
Source: http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/31/news/artcops.jpg


Though I can agree with high density housing as it decreases the building footprint per resident, for health and noise considerations, I would prefer to live in a mobile home. I think mobile homes are built with less waste as they are built in factories as opposed to conventional on-site construction. In addition, mobile homes have the possibility of being less invasive on the environment. Now the mobile home parks I have been through generally have paved the entire place with asphalt (Figure 2). But, it may be possible to employ permeable pavement (Video 1), bioswales, or something.


Figure 2. Mobile home park.
Source: http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/mobile_home_park_key_west_small.jpg



Video 1. Permeable pavement construction and demonstration.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CjHk5FhAdI


The building standards of mobile homes are historically inferior to that of conventional housing. However, strides have been made in mobile home construction that approach or nearly equal the quality of conventional housing. This has increased costs of mobile home construction but not nearly to the level of conventional housing. But then, of course, conventional housing is generally much larger, in terms of square footage, in addition to other costs such as those associated with building foundations. But who needs that much space? As an indicator of social position, wealthy people sometimes purchase large luxury homes. Ridiculously large homes that appear to serve nothing more than one's vanity. It reminds me of Coleridge's Kubla Khan, "In Xanadu did Kubla Khan A stately pleasure-dome decree..." (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Xanadu.
Source: http://www.alysion.org/poems2/xanadu.jpg

Remodeling waste

This is related to my earlier post about construction waste but instead of new construction, I'm interested in waste generated from remodeling. You see it on TV a lot, especially on home improvement television channels like, HGTV and TLC in the US (Figure 1). I've had some experience in remodeling. It's difficult and dirty stuff. I also have seen it while working in real estate, lots of flips and refinances that involve a great deal of remodeling.

Figure 1. Television shows about "house-flipping."
Source: http://www.aetv.com/images/generic_promo_images/320x240/photo_320x240_fliphouse.jpg


When people move into a new house, they almost always make changes. To sell their house, the old owners may have painted the interior and exterior a neutral color to appeal to as many people as possible. The new owners are likely to paint it again to suit their tastes. The same principle applies to built-in features, like kitchen cabinets, fixtures, sinks, toilets, appliances, etc. Consumer preferences almost always favor new amenities. Even if these things are still in relatively good condition, the new owners are likely to change them. Some appliances and fixtures can find a new life at second hand stores but most of the aforementioned items (cabinetry, fixtures, etc) will find their way into landfills (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Remodeling waste in landfills.
Source: http://www.reconnstructioncenter.org/images/landfill.jpg



I have never been a big fan of fixed cabinetry and the like. My tastes differ greatly from most people, reflecting my background in science, environmental conservation, business, real estate, and urban planning. As a result, I have a very specific design aesthetic. I also dislike fixing things to walls, like cabinetry. I like reconfiguring rooms as things change, such as my work habits, tastes, needs, etc. For example, what if a new piece of furniture is purchased that results in the need to reconfigure a room. A built-in cabinet or built-in shelves can limit the design options. I also don't like fireplaces. I know, everyone in real estate looks at a fireplace as a selling point but, from a practical point, I find them grossly inefficient and hazardous. Fireplaces are grossly inefficient compared to more modern forms of heating, such as central heating (which, itself, can share the same ductwork as cooling). Fireplaces are a common source of draft. Creosote build-up is a common fire hazard because most people are terrible at maintaining their fireplaces and chimneys, often called deferred maintenance in the real estate trade (Figure 3). And for those that burn wood in their fireplaces, smoke marks often develop on the brickwork, above the mantle, which is very unattractive.

Figure 3. Creosote build-up in fireplaces and chimneys.
Source: http://hearth.com/econtent/images/uploads/creosote1.JPG


So the big question is, why have built-in features, such as cabinets, at all. Perhaps, the fact that plumbing and electrical layouts are relatively difficult to alter or that these areas are often exposed to water lead to the desire to permanently affix cabinetry to walls and seal them with caulk. But some high end trends are moving toward kitchen cabinetry as furniture (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Kitchen cabinetry as furniture.
Source: http://www.estia.com.cy/cyprus_kitchens/limassol_estia_kitchens/limassol_kitchen_furniture.jpg


The hope to this trend is that less remodeling waste will find its way to landfills and go to architectural salvage stores instead. I've come across a great many things in architectural salvage stores. For example, hardwood flooring, base and crown moulding, fireplace mantles, and doors (Figure 5). Hopefully more items can be refurbished and reused. Also, its potential mobility means that owners can take their kitchen cabinetry with them as they move.


Figure 5. Architectural salvage store.

Source: http://chicago.apartmenttherapy.com/images/uploads/2006-08-16.urbanremains.jpg


I trace this trend back to professional kitchens such as those found in restaurants (Figure 6). I like professional kitchens because of their standards for cleanliness. Professional kitchens are required to be periodically cleaned from top to bottom. I find this cleanliness comforting, perhaps derived from my experience working in laboratories. I regularly cleaned my lab space to avoid contamination of my experiments as well as to safeguard myself against harm. The best examples I can remember are having worked with carcinogenic materials and viruses.

Figure 6. Professional kitchen.
Source: http://www.eldoradomfg.com/nss-folder/pictures/Tampa%20Bay%20cooking%20acadamy%20007a.JPG



Prolonged exposure to hazardous and infectious agents, coupled with poor safety protocols, can seriously injure or kill a person. I remember working in a virology lab where one person was known to have died after being infected by one of the viruses. In any case, a clean kitchen decreases the likelihood of food-borne illnesses. A kitchen with movable furniture allows for cleaning behind and under hard to reach areas. It also helps prevent the occurrence of roaches and vermin. A new series called Kitchen Nightmares, hosted by chef Gordon Ramsay, began this season. The premise of the show is that Gordon turns around failing restaurants. One of the restaurants had such poor hygiene that it must have undoubtedly struck fear into New York's many restaurant goers (Video 1). Having friends who have worked in restaurants, I don't eat out very often.

Video 1. Kitchen Nightmares with Gordon Ramsay.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDRYdN5hCQ

Construction Waste

Epiphany at the dump!
I have visited residential construction sites and noticed a great deal of waste generation, for example, wood, drywall, etc. The majority of this goes to the landfill. Oh, the landfill. I have such memories of the city dump. Going to the dump, too, I'm often reminded by the sheer excess of American culture (myself included). In particular, there are two city dumps located along the bay. I went to one of them, to dump construction waste, and I saw an algal bloom eminating from the base of the mountain of garbage upon which I stood. It was reddish in color, as though blood was seeping up from the below and mixing with the shallow water in the bay. I later thought, this land is going to worth a million bucks someday. It's waterfront. It's the future Mission Bay.

Mission Bay was literally a bay/marshland in the past. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake created a great deal of waste. Construction debris was dumped in Mission Bay as San Francisco was reconstructed. A hundred years later, it's the current campus expansion of UCSF as well as numerous commercial and residential projects. (More info about the project can be found here: http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/history/sitebody.php). I suppose, that in another hundred years, the whole bay will be looking for land to develop and strategically-located landfill would be gold.

Coming back to construction waste, the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) has looked into the nature and development of construction waste. I found a nice little pie chart in a report they produced. I found a color version, too (shown). Unfortunately, a lot of construction waste is easily recyclable wood. I know that whenever I have a little construction project, I inevitably produce a pile of scrap wood. For example, a fence was constructed with 4"x4"
pressure-treated wood for the posts. After the posts were set in concrete, a cut was made to make them all level. This left a pile of rather hefty-sized scrap wood. I have kept them for future use in other projects. i don't necessarily use them to construct a new project. For example, I used the 4"x4"s as a series of risers, similar in function as several saw horses or a large work table, when I was cutting drywall.

When I disasembled a wooden tool shed, I tried to salvage as much of the wood, in particular, solid wood without nails. I was able to salvage a series of solid 1"x8' planks that were used as shelves and without nails! There wasn't even any visible damage (from insects or water). To me, this was like finding gold. It would have probably cost over a hundred dollars for this material and I got it for free. Unfortunately, a contractor working on-site was more than willing to loot my findings. I was pissed for a long time because it took a long time to disassemble things without damaging the stuff I could reuse and I sorted them by grade & condition.

I haven't found a company or method to recycle used wood, removing the nails, and excising damaged portions, damaged from insects, water, etc. It would be great if asphalt shings could be recycled. The average roof is usually asphalt shingles. Having removed old shingles, it's a pain. Nails often come off with the various levels of shingles and ripping up old asphalt shingles releases dust into the air. I remember coughing up black stuff after removing old shingles. I also remember climbing over a pile of old shingles. I slipped, put a hand down to balance myself, and was pierced by a nail. Fortunately, it was a shallow puncture but painful, nonetheless.

I think builders are moving pretty well in reducing construction waste. Toolbase.org is a builder's web resource that has developed some Best Practices guidelines. Here is the exact link:
http://www.toolbase.org/ToolbaseResources/level3.aspx?BucketID=5&CategoryID=26

Bike issues

Biking has become a cost-saving mechanism for me, especially when traveling around a downtown urban area but...

Oh man, so many close calls...
Having experienced near misses with cars as well as seeing other bicyclists hit by vehicles (see photo), I don't like my chances of bicycling as a primary form of transportation.

Bicycling harkens back to my childhood, of ramp construction and subsequent injuries. My desire for speed and "air" has been largely superceded by the need for safety, in addition to a conscious effort to conserve the environment. I'm riding a cruiser now which is meant for a slow, comfortable ride. That's about my speed nowadays. A cruiser allows me to carry more crap with me to and from school or, potentially, to and from the market. The addition of front and rear baskets has allowed for greater carrying capacity. this has allowed me to ride without carrying anything on my person, such as a backpack.

I don't like backpacks, anyway. Using a backpack, as most people have experienced, can generate a great deal of moisture upon one's back. I remember my grade school days of walking home during the afternoon and coming home with a sweatcoated back, showing through my t-shirt. Also, walking all over campus on a clear, sunny day as a university student with a backpack full of biology, chem, physics textbooks resulted in bruises from the straps and backaches. I swear, science majors have the heaviest books.


Combine a backpack full of science-major textbooks and a mountain bike speeding around campus and you will ultimately get a spectacular accident. Mine came in the form of a Braveheart-esque collision (see photo) with a traffic bollard. The backpack full of books increased my momemtum going downhill. The weight of the backpack and its placement on my back elevated my center of gravity. The collision with the traffic bollard and my higher center of gravity sent me head over heels past my handlebars. Luckily, I had just cleared the pavement and landed in a grassy area.

Bicyclists on the road on a busy urban face a similar accident, tempting fate by darting in and between traffic or just riding on the roads. Bicycle versus vehicle is not even close. Bicycles always lose. I have yet to be struck by a car while on my bike, only close calls. When I see a person on a mountain bike or road bike speeding on the road or bike lane, I get a visceral chill, reminiscent of my own abrupt collision against an object of greater mass and velocity. Here's some youtube video (warning: may be disturbing to some viewers):

COPS, Riverside County 9/09/06 Bicycle Accident (~35 sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu3oQwllD98

COPS, Riverside County 9/09/06 Bicycle Accident (full version, ~7 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWDE0TKhWOs

In the current movement to increase bicycle awareness, notably, Critical Mass held in downtown San Francisco (see photo), safety is, perhaps, of the utmost concern. I don't think the streets of most cities, particularly charter cities like San Francisco, were ever designed or evolved with bicycle travel as a major form of transportation. They are largely afterthoughts, reconciliations after numerous or severe bicycle-vehicle collisions. I don't feel safe riding my bike in the bike lane next to fast moving traffic, especially in downtown areas. The only protection is a white painted line on the road, which sometimes feels like only a suggestion to some vehicle drivers.

I don't even feel safe riding with fast moving bikes. Pedestrians can be seriously injured by fast moving bicyclists. I've always made it a point to slow down around pedestrians or even dismount in heavy pedestrian traffic. When I don't feel safe in the bike lane, I ride my bike on the sidewalks.



Hey, where do I park my bike?
Eventually, I'll reach my destination and wonder where to lock up my bike. Going to a place like a school campus, there are bike racks throughout but other places, like City Hall or a market, one is hard pressed to find a bike rack. I think bike racks are regarded as unattractive to urban designers. I might have agree with this. Around the MLK library, the bike racks are kept away from the entrances. Bike racks, themselves, are somewhat unattractive. The most utilitarian form of bike racks, usually a serpentine length of metal tubing (see photo), can look like a scrap heap when filled with bikes of all makes and condition. Not only does it scratch off the paint from my bike but I have a hard time getting my bike to fit in the rack with my front and rear baskets. Having front and rear baskets makes it difficult use existing bike facilities.

Bikes and mass transportation
I have yet to try loading my bike on to public transportation, like the buses or BART. My bike's a cruiser, with a relatively heavy steel frame. I would have a hard time carrying it up and down stairs to get to the BART platform, as I have seen others do. There aren't bike escalators (see photo) at BART stations. I've seen escalators created to move shopping carts in department stores. I wish they had that for bikes but it would be difficult to retrofit BART stations. It's probably not cost-efficient, not enough riders bringing bikes to justify the cost. I was considering the purchase of a folding bike before but it would not have allowed for front and rear baskets.

I think dedicated bike paths/corridors, bike escalators, and stacked bike parking lots are something I won't see in the near future. The density, in terms of population and land use, is just not there. The US has the potential for greater expansion, outward past existing city centers and beyond the old suburbs. I believe that vehicular transportation, in particular personal vehicles, will remain the dominant form of transportation. Hopefully, future planning efforts will allow for safer, more convenient bicycle travel. The California Department of Transportation (DOT) has developed some guidelines for bicycle commuting and safety (see below). Some recommendations equally apply to driving vehicles, such as not drinking or wearing headphones, but most are meant to warn against vehicles, the greatest threat to bicyclists.

California Department of Transportation (DOT): Bicycle Commuting & Safety
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/commuting.htm