I'm happy to report I got my second COVID-19 vaccination. I got the Pfizer and had virtually no reaction. Only a shoulder that was tender after the second shot, but only if I pressed on it.
My wife got the second Moderna shot, and she had just a little fatigue and sore shoulder for a day or two.
We'll still wear masks in public and avoid crowds, but a lot of stress has evaporated. We may get the flu, but probably will not have a serious case.
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Death from COVID-19 vs death from vaccine
2020-03-15 COVID-19 USA deaths 534,000 1.8% chance of dying from COVID-19 Age 75-84 COVID-19 deaths 141,384 Compared with 5—17-year-olds, the rate of death is 45 times higher in 30—39-year-olds, 2,800 times higher in 75-84-year-olds, and 7,900 times higher in 85+-year-olds.
Over 92 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 8, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,637 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Over 92 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 8, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,637 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Saturday, March 13, 2021
support Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee over efficiency and vehicle emission standards.
Please support Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee over efficiency and vehicle emission standards. The California agreement is a useful starting point that all automakers should join to fulfill the goals of the Paris climate agreement and slow the climate disruption caused by vehicle emissions.
The SUVs and trucks can just as well be electric, which would further lower emissions and help the environment. Gasoline powered vehicles should be phased out as soon as possible. If they are not offered by auto companies, no one will buy them except as used. Transportation emissions is the single biggest U.S. contributor to climate change, so changes to vehicle emissions will have a large impact on our pollution footprint. Most of the large SUVs and trucks I see are single-occupant commute vehicles, except for contractors' vehicles. There is no reason these cannot be electric, or at least high mileage vehicles.
See https://enewspaper.marinij.com?selDate=20210313&goTo=A01&artid=2 for the complete article.
The SUVs and trucks can just as well be electric, which would further lower emissions and help the environment. Gasoline powered vehicles should be phased out as soon as possible. If they are not offered by auto companies, no one will buy them except as used. Transportation emissions is the single biggest U.S. contributor to climate change, so changes to vehicle emissions will have a large impact on our pollution footprint. Most of the large SUVs and trucks I see are single-occupant commute vehicles, except for contractors' vehicles. There is no reason these cannot be electric, or at least high mileage vehicles.
See https://enewspaper.marinij.com?selDate=20210313&goTo=A01&artid=2 for the complete article.
Wednesday, March 10, 2021
concern about the availability of clean, inexpensive water for my home's drinking and cooking
I sent this to my senators and representative:
I am very concerned about the availability of clean, inexpensive water for my home's drinking and cooking. Bottled water is too expensive and contributes to plastic pollution. My local water company cannot guarantee uninterrupted service, nor purity, and the cost increases every year.
I would like to supply my home with drinking and cooking water from Source Hydropanels installed on or near my home. Does the government have, or do you plan to offer, rebates or other incentives for this technology? If not, I suggest this would be a valuable and beneficial program.
If you are unfamiliar with Source (previously Zero Mass Water), see https://www.source.co/residential/ [google 'source water company'. For our family of 6, the two panels would cost $5,500 to $6,500 and provide 10 liters (~2.6 gallons) per day drinking/cooking water for at least 15 years (~55,000 gallons) for ~$0.10/gallon. It would be helpful to have some kind of tax credit, rebate, low-cost loans, or other help with the cost.
This technology could provide a service similar to the solar power/battery systems that are reducing the need for PG&E electricity while assuring customers an uninterrupted supply of electricity. Providing drinking and cooking water would similarly reduce the demand on water resources and ensure a reliable, safe source of water. This would be especially important during the increasingly frequent natural disasters, such as hurricanes and other weather-related disasters, earthquakes, fires, droughts, etc.
I am very concerned about the availability of clean, inexpensive water for my home's drinking and cooking. Bottled water is too expensive and contributes to plastic pollution. My local water company cannot guarantee uninterrupted service, nor purity, and the cost increases every year.
I would like to supply my home with drinking and cooking water from Source Hydropanels installed on or near my home. Does the government have, or do you plan to offer, rebates or other incentives for this technology? If not, I suggest this would be a valuable and beneficial program.
If you are unfamiliar with Source (previously Zero Mass Water), see https://www.source.co/residential/ [google 'source water company'. For our family of 6, the two panels would cost $5,500 to $6,500 and provide 10 liters (~2.6 gallons) per day drinking/cooking water for at least 15 years (~55,000 gallons) for ~$0.10/gallon. It would be helpful to have some kind of tax credit, rebate, low-cost loans, or other help with the cost.
This technology could provide a service similar to the solar power/battery systems that are reducing the need for PG&E electricity while assuring customers an uninterrupted supply of electricity. Providing drinking and cooking water would similarly reduce the demand on water resources and ensure a reliable, safe source of water. This would be especially important during the increasingly frequent natural disasters, such as hurricanes and other weather-related disasters, earthquakes, fires, droughts, etc.
support the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 to make daylight saving time permanent
Today I asked California senators Feinstein and Padilla to support the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 to make daylight saving time permanent.
Sunday, March 7, 2021
Source water for drinking and cooking suggestion
Sent a reply to Marin Water suggesting Source Water Hydropanels
I'm planning to build an ADU in Marin County. I would like to supply it with drinking and cooking water from Source Hydropanels installed on or near my home. Do you have, or do you plan to offer, rebates or other incentives for this technology? If not, I suggest this would be a valuable and beneficial program.If you are unfamiliar with Source (previously Zero Mass Water), see https://www.source.co/residential/. For our family of 6, the two panels would cost $5,500 to $6,500 and provide 10 liters (~2.6 gallons) per day drinking/cooking water for at least 15 years (~55,000 gallons) for ~$0.10/gallon. It would be nice to have some kind of rebate or other help with the cost. This technology could be similar to the solar power/battery systems that are reducing the need for PG&E electricity while assuring customers an uninterrupted supply of electricity. Providing drinking and cooking water for Marin would similarly reduce the demand on Marin Water sources and ensure a reliable, safe source of water.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
