🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <c2gyblpzwrq.fsf@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU>, 
rfinch@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU says...
>
>In article <4psipd$p1c@mark.ucdavis.edu> ez059768@rocky.ucdavis.edu 
(Brett Valle) writes:
>
>   OK, even though your defeating the whole purpose of Doolittle's
>   "Flood Control Dam," I'll argue with your three points.  (1)
>   protect property - the dam lies on an active fault system that has
>   a significant chance of releasing in the next 50-100 years
>
>Now here's a crock.  Earthquake probability making, like hydrology, is
>basically a statistical, not deterministic, science.  That means you
>need data, lots of it, to determine return intervals.  And you just
>don't have that in Auburn.
>
So, Mr. Finch, you're arguing that since we don't know enough about the 
possibilities, we should go ahead and build the Auburn Dam anyway (and 
assume there won't be any problem - the ignorance is bliss approach)?

You've stated that hydrology and earthquake prediction are statistical, 
yet you value the 'saving of lives' based on hydrology over the 'loss of 
lives' due to an earthquake.  Isn't this logic a bit flawed, Mr. Finch, 
and somewhat biased.  Based on your statements, wouldn't a wiser choice 
be to study the project further or eliminate it outright as their is too 
many unknowns?  


Chris Donohue
WSU - Pullman, WA
cdonohue@wsunix.wsu.edu

"Question:  How many statisticians does it take to change a lightbulb?
 Answer:  Two, plus or minus three."
					- Anonymous