Water, Water, Everywhere

One of the most horrid events of the late summer was the fire aboard the vessel Conception off the coast of Southern California. Thirty-four persons lost their lives. Investigations by the appropriate authorities are continuing, in an attempt to determine the cause of the fire. Possible ignition sources, according to Jennifer Homendy of the National Transportation Safety Board,

include the electrical system, photography equipment, batteries, cameras and phones that were plugged in and charging when the fire broke out.(1)

Investigators have determined that all crew members were asleep at the time of the blaze, despite a commitment to have someone awake.

“According to its certificate of inspection, the passenger vessel Conception was required to have a roving watch,” said Lisa Novak, a spokeswoman for the United States Coast Guard.(2)

As part of her investigation, Jennifer Homendy toured the Vision, a sister ship of the Conception. In order to examine the bunk room and emergency hatch, 

she had to climb a ladder in the back and maneuver over the top bunk. She then tried to crawl through the hatch."In order for me to really get at it I had to kind of twist around and push it out," she said. She also said she tried to find the hatch with the lights off, simulating an escape during the middle of the night, and couldn’t see anything.

In the course of her examination, she learned that 

[t]he only two ways to exit the bunk room each led to the same place -- the galley that was on fire. 

The need for a possible design change for safety’s sake is

now part of the investigation, and, ultimately, could lead to a change in federal regulations.

*

Yesterday it was announced that the Trump administration was revoking “an Obama-era regulation that shielded many U.S. wetlands and streams from pollution.”(3) Trump’s Anti-Enviromental Protection Agency is removing certain waterways from previously-established regulation.

Environmentalists contend many of those smaller, seemingly isolated waters are tributaries of the larger waterways and can have a significant effect on their quality. Denying them federal protection would leave millions of Americans with less safe drinking water and allow damage of wetlands that prevent flooding, filter pollutants and provide habitat for a multitude of fish, waterfowl and other wildlife, they said. "By repealing the Clean Water Rule, this administration is opening our iconic waterways to a flood of pollution," said Bart Johnsen-Harris of Environment America. "The EPA is abdicating its mission to protect our environment and our health.”

*

Let’s examine what we’ve got here. 

On the one hand, the National Transportation Safety Board may propose new regulations for boats that will—hopefully—prevent a recurrence of the Conception disaster.

On the other hand, the A-EPA will loosen water regulations, allowing more pollution, which will surely result in more disease and death for American citizens.

I guess it all means that in future when you see water, for your safety, jump onto a boat; just don’t drink it.

***

(1) https://www.yahoo.com/gma/conceptions-surviving-crew-members-describe-harrowing-escape-burning-225702526--abc-news-topstories.html

      (2) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/conception-boat-fire-crew-asleep.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage  

      (3) https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-revoke-water-protection-144829727.html

Blondie

Today we salute Goldilocks. Yes, I know she had the nasty habit of breaking into the homes of others—but she was, perhaps, the foremost empiricist among all the fairy tale characters.

She is worthy in a way that too many business moguls and politicians and pundits of a certain bent are not. Ideologues to the nth degree, they offer tautologies as counsel, question-begging as wisdom. “The government must not over-regulate the (fill in the blank) industry,” they spout—and to the unwary such a proclamation might pass as astute political advice. But as the philosopher Julian Baggini, points out, “An adviser can always be right yet not much use.” He goes on to offer a few examples of advice that is right but not of much use: “never buy anything that is too expensive”; “do not marry the wrong person.”

Something that is “too expensive” is beyond a reasonable valuation, and thus just as un-right as “wrong” is, by definition. Baggini slaps the wrists of the Greek wise men who supposedly came up with the injunction on the Temple at Delphi—“Nothing to Excess.” Their advice comes close to being “vacuous,” he says. The difficulty in life is in knowing “how much is too much, not that too much is bad.”

But as Goldilocks showed us, excess lies off to both sides of the ideal. There’s too hard, but also too soft; too hot, but also too cold. In testing the chairs, the bowls of porridge, and the beds, she was eventually able to discover the right level of comfort for sitting and sleeping and the right temperature for ingestion.

Our anti-regulation ideologues, in their proclamations, have no minds for testing. If they did, they would acknowledge that while something “over” is (by definition) bad, so is something “under” (consider plants that are over-watered and those that are under-watered). Under-regulation is just as bad a policy as over-regulation; the issue—as the question-beggers do not wish the public to recognize—is how much regulation is not too much, or not too little—but just right.

***

See: Julian Baggini, Should You Judge This Book by Its Cover?: 100 Fresh Takes on Familiar Sayings and Quotations