Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: stan's commentary

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I don't think architects can design the structural systems of buildings over 160 feet in CA (or that just might be L.A.) which is about 13 stories (or exactly the height of L.A. City Hall - not a coincidence). Also, see http://www.pels.ca.gov/pubs/building_design_auth.pdf.

 

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: ron buchko [mailto:ronbuchko(--nospam--at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:31 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: re: stan's commentary

 

vewry well said AND I'll bet most if not all professional engineers share the exact same position that you do.

rb PE

p.s. whomever feels that we (individually or collectively) can make a change in either direction is/are kidding ourselves: ENGINEERS have NO political clout..... and it's probably for the best. i.e. Why is it taht a professional architect can design high rise structures in CA but a PE cannot...... archictects are political by nature.



--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Andrew Kester <akester(--nospam--at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:


From: Andrew Kester <akester(--nospam--at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: re: stan's commentary
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 9:58 AM

Stan,

Why not throw all that info up on a myspace or facebook page, or whatever the kids are using these days, with all the links and other info? They are free and very easy to build a plain, informational site. Well done by the way. And I agree with your stance on ASCE's position, never quite understood why they were taking any stance on global warming. Stick to what we know, civil engineering, there are enough problems to address there...

 

I will keep this short and sweet.

 

I am a natural skeptic, so the jury is still out for me. I'm a lifetime Popular Science subscriber, I try to stay open minded to all new ideas especially scientific ones, even though I am very green at heart. I have always thought we can achieve a balance between economy and environment, the two go hand in hand rather than are at war.

 

Maybe we should approach the energy issue without considering global warming for now. Lets just say we have not been studying the earth, its climate patterns, etc. long enough to make any conclusions just yet, especially going with a new economic policy based on a theory that is still not completely convincing to all. Let's just say for now we humans have no impact whatsoever on the rise and fall of the earth's temperature, for arguments sake.

 

Then why not start getting off fossil fuels for lots of other good reasons?

-Lower foreign dependency on oil

-Keep dollars here and prevent them from going to countries with "questionable" resumes

-Lower our trade deficit, which I have seen figures it is + 30% due to oil imports

-Reduce pollution caused by coal and oil- air, water, soil

 

My monday morning quartbacking of politics would have said this would be a much easier sell to everybody. Why can't the jury on global warming be out but STILL attack our energy supply head on and make it a major issue?

 

The whole cap and trade idea seems overly complicated, and seems like it would result in tons of red tape, increased bureaucracy, and corruption...

 

Andrew Kester, P.E.

Orlando, FL