🚀 go-pugleaf

   >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 

Yes, because the current proposal, an expandable dry dam, addresses
what we have some kind of knowledge of (hydrology), deferring until
later what we know very little about (earthquakes, and exactly what
causes them).

   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,

No, see above.  It's probably why the expandable dry dam proposed has
the support of the two repubs and two dems in the greater Sacto area.




-- 
"Nada burra la chamaca." A.G.
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer or news host.
rfinch@toe.cs.berkeley.edu