Holy cow they live right under that thing! We routinely get flooding and erosion out here, taught me the value of living on high ground.

quote:

Originally posted by Zecpull:
I love all the posts on Facebook that say Gov Brown spends 25 billion a year on illegals. .and he was told 12 years ago this Dam needed fixed. He sent a 100 billion request to Trump and will throw a stompy feet fit if he does not get his share. But the kicker in that 100 billion in infrastructure improvements he needs, He never mentions this Dam.

Jerry Brown became governor again in 2011. Arnold was governor 2003-2011. Certainly blame Moonbeam for all sorts of shit from his present and previous terms as governor but the 12 years ago math just doesn't work.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
No rational person plays Russian roulette if there is ANY chance of a live round in the box, or in the pistol, or in rhe room.

Ah. Seizing on one inconsequential analogy out of a discussion and trying to turn it into the heart of the matter: Old courtroom habits just won’t die, will they?

But as you pointed out the obvious, I’ll ask if no rational person will play Russian roulette with a gun, how about with deciding where to build one’s home? The answer is obvious because that we see all the time even if the odds aren’t quite as bad as spinning a six-shot cylinder. Everyone—everyone—makes one decision after another based on their analysis of probabilities. Most aren’t framed in terms of “100 year” floods or other firm numbers, but that doesn’t change their essential character. We can no more avoid considering probabilities than we can avoid breathing, and the smart ones among us learn a little about their laws and use them to the extent possible.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
No rational person plays Russian roulette if there is ANY chance of a live round in the box, or in the pistol, or in rhe room.

Ah. Seizing on one inconsequential analogy out of a discussion and trying to turn it into the heart of the matter: Old courtroom habits just won’t die, will they?

But as you pointed out the obvious, I’ll ask if no rational person will play Russian roulette with a gun, how about with deciding where to build one’s home? The answer is obvious because that we see all the time even if the odds aren’t quite as bad as spinning a six-shot cylinder. Everyone—everyone—makes one decision after another based on their analysis of probabilities. Most aren’t framed in terms of “100 year” floods or other firm numbers, but that doesn’t change their essential character. We can no more avoid considering probabilities than we can avoid breathing, and the smart ones among us learn a little about their laws and use them to the extent possible.

I seldom see anyone making decisions about where to build or buy their home based on probabilities in any express sense. I'm not sure an assessment of probabilities is worthwhile, or even accurate, or even understood. Mostly, they decide based on the kitchen and bathrooms, the size and layout, attractiveness of the decor, how are the schools, and how much the loan paymenys and taxes will be.

I suppose those who build up on the hillside are avoiding the possibilities. That avoids all the mumbo-jumbo, funny little greek symbols, weird math and faux objectivity.

The heart of the response, as far as I am concerned, is the misuse and inappropiate use of statistics. It reminds me of the man with a hammer.

Mostly statistics are a way to shoot target, then paint the bullseye around where you hit. It is the core of insurance, of course, card sharking, coin flipping, of course.

I won't speak to statistics (I have my own "relationship problems" with the subject), but it is awfully surprising to me how few people seem to check the FEMA floodplain maps when choosing a home. I suspect it may be priced in, but I'm not sure that's true either. I guess most folks just assume it can be solved by engineering and construction since FEMA maps don't identify places where it is prohibited to build so much as places whose owners have higher insurance rates.

The problem with many of these discussions is the misuse of words or at least failure to apply them rigorously. I provided a simple explanation of how probability works and now we’re on a rant about “statistics.” It’s true that probability theory is the foundation of statistics (or at least an extremely important part), but the problem with statistics is not that it’s not valid.

Probability theory is a form of hard mathematics that’s just as valid and trustworthy as arithmetic: The claim that if I throw a pair of dice two sixes will come up on average once out of 36 trials is just as firmly rooted in reality as the claim that if I add two beans to the two (and only two) that are already there, that will result in four beans being in the pot. It has nothing to do with politics, likes, dislikes, the phases of the moon, what god one worships, etc.

Unfortunately, statistics in the mass mind has come to mostly refer to claims about data, not about the mathematics used to interpret that data. To return to my example above, I was looking at the math, not the data. We’re perfectly justified in asking whether the people who claim that a flood of a certain size will occur on average once every 100 years know what they’re talking about. How do they know that? Some such questions can be answered in part by historic and geological data. If, for example, it could be determined that over the past 10,000 years a certain type of flood has occurred 100 times, then they would have one bit of evidence in support of the claim.

But if the data showed that 10 of the floods occurred in the past 150 years, it would be accurate but dishonest to say, “One hundred floods occurred in the past 10 millenniums, so based on that average, I believe we can expect them every century or so.” The raw statistics of such a claim are accurate, but the interpretation of the data is flawed at best and misleading at worst.

There are countless other examples in which the data is not reported responsibly or is interpreted to suit someone’s particular desired outcome. “Four out of five doctors have prescribed Wonderstatin for high cholesterol,” may be true, but how would our perceptions of the drug change if we knew that nine out of the 10 who prescribed it did so only once because tests showed no improvement in their patients’ conditions? That sort of thing relates to “statistics,” but it’s not statistics’ fault if only part of the tale is reported.

Understanding statistics, including probability theory, is the best way to not be misled by their misuse, not to just dismiss them as bunk or to say, “Well, no one understands that stuff anyway, so I’m certainly not going to be different and make the effort.”

quote:

Well, no one understands that stuff anyway, so I’m certainly not going to be different and make the effort.

Oh - like wimmens!

And now, back to your regularly scheduled flood watch and (apparent) good fortune of the folks downstream from this dam.

Oroville Dam Aerial Video - Feb 16 2017 1080p

Lots of interesting information on the spillway, its design and possible failure modes here: http://tinyurl.com/hqmuzbr

quote:

I seldom see anyone making decisions about where to build or buy their home based on probabilities in any express sense.

Through the years we have bought several homes. In every case part of my analysis was the surrounding landscape. We currently own 4 houses, and none of them are on a flood plane or lie at the foot of a hill from which a land slide might come. We live in the only one of them that might, I say might, be in danger of a fire because of all the trees surrounding the place.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

I seldom see anyone making decisions about where to build or buy their home based on probabilities in any express sense.

Through the years we have bought several homes. In every case part of my analysis was the surrounding landscape. We currently own 4 houses, and none of them are on a flood plane or lie at the foot of a hill from which a land slide might come. We live in the only one of them that might, I say might, be in danger of a fire because of all the trees surrounding the place.

That's great, but if everyone did that, there'd be a lot of people living in the streets.

flashguy

Man fights for his life in the hospital after being run over when he was carjacked as he prepared to leave flee the Oroville dam

Cody Bowles, 27, and Lucia Ripley, 31 were arrested and held on felony charges
They are being held on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and carjacking
The pair have been accused of carjacking and running over Cameron Asbury, 33
Asbury was loading his vehicle to flee the Oroville dam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...-life-carjacked.html

I don't understand , why there is no giant rush of water out of the primary out flow tube at the base of the dam.

did they close that tube ?
or is there SO! much water coming over the top
that its backed up , up stream and the discharge can not be seen ?

I think that outlet is from the powerhouse, and has been shut down due to a deluge of debris.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I think that outlet is from the powerhouse, and has been shut down due to a deluge of debris.

flashguy

If you go back to the original story(ies) that's exactly what the problem was. They were trying to solve that at the same time as the others, but don't seemed to prioritized it. Rightly so, I imagine.

Maybe Sweden will take them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...em-subs_digest-vrecs

41

Here are a lot of photos.

Many of the aftermath and clean up.

I believe they are trying to clean the deep pool area below the damaged spillway and the output area of the generation station area.

Divers on lake side are working to stop water leakage by the spillway gates to keep it dry below so work can be done.


More rain coming this weekend.

http://www.mercurynews.com/201...nt-starting-up-soon/

Wow what a mess! The chasm created under the spillway looks to be about 30-40 feet deep.

I get the impression the California Water Resources Board standards for sediment discharges associated with storm water discharges are being ignored.

I'm surprised the some eco-nazi group hasn't filed suit.

Now I am trained as an environmental engineer, not some dam engineer, but it looks to me like you guys had a bullet fired at point blank range hit you square in the forehead and bounce off.



And more rain is headed your way.... well good luck.