Sunday, July 26, 2020

Successful Use of HCQS When Given Early for COVID

Eminent professional confirms what I have believed for months.

I had seen a study of the viral loads in patients' blood samples after being given either placebo or one of the components of the triple-component drug, hydroxychloroquine sulfate, azithromycin, and zinc, or given the HCQS compound with Azith and Zinc.

In a few days, and only for the HCQS compound, viral loads went to zero, patients cured.

Double-blind RCT studies are not the only paths to truth.

Risk management does not always point to waiting for all possible useful information.

On My Getting Older, a Pre-requiem

Last night, a person who loves me said it was hard to watch me losing some of my abilities, especially observing my trouble walking under the influence of arthritis.

I replied that I have long accepted the inevitability of some decline, and I still appreciate what is left, diminished as it is.

My beloved, stoic, and heroic wife, Tina Su Cooper, quadriplegic and ventilator-dependent for the past 16 years, agreed with me one day a few years ago that if that day were our last day on Earth, it had all been worth it.

I have about a 50% chance of living into my mid-80s and a 25% chance to making it into my late-90s, (my mother lived to 98), and I am living carefully to maximize the time left and to be here for Tina if I can.

So, last night, I told the one who asked that the following poem by Robert Louis Stevenson might well be my requiem, too:


Under the wide and starry sky
Dig the grave and let me lie:
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you grave for me:
Here he lies where he long'd to be;
Home is the sailor, home from the sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.

I doubt I will gladly die, however.
Perhaps "gladly" if in continuing pain or perhaps after great 
disappointment, but probably sadly with
reluctance to leave those I care about.
But life has been plenty. 

We live in particularly favorable times,
all things considered, so different from
Hobbes's description of the
state of nature, where life was
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Short may have been the best part.

Over a century ago, Robert Browning wrote,
"Grow old along with me.
The best is yet to be,
The last for which the first was made."
How many of us would agree?

Later that evening, I engulfed my usual mound of prescriptions and over-the-counter supplements, some of which, I hope, do some good. 

After we are born, there is only one guarantee. Two, if you include taxes.
So be it.

WATER WARS, Ch. 11, Evaluation of Options

Water Wars Sharing the Colorado River
an extensIve analysIs and evaluation of options for assuring adequate water supplies in the Colorado River Basin was published in 2012 by the Bureau of Reclamation, and we summarize it here. [Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Executive Summary, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, December 2012]
The report makes the following warning: “The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the southwestern United States….Nearly 40 million Americans rely on the Colorado River….there exists a strong potential for significant imbalances between the supply and demand for water in the coming decades.”
From 1906-2011, the Colorado River had average natural flow of 16.4 maf/year. The Study was done to predict imbalances for the next 50 years, 2010-2060. The Study area was the hydrologic basin area plus adjoining states that receive water from the Colorado.
Four water-supply scenarios and six water-demand scenarios were studied to try to predict the future needs.


        Observed Resampled (past 100 years).
        Paleo Resampled (past 1250 years)
        Paleo Conditioned (mix of Observed and Paleo)
        Downscaled GCM (warming climate from 112 Global Climate Models), which predicts a nine percent decrease in flow at Lees Ferry and higher-than-historical frequency and variation in droughts, which are predicted to have lengths of five years or more 50% of the time in the upcoming 50 years.


To get a good depiction of future consumptive use demand, a set of six scenarios was developed:
        A. Current Projected
        B. Slow Growth (18.1 maf, 49.3 million people)
        C1. Rapid Growth 1 (20.4 maf, 76.5 million people)
        C2. Rapid Growth 2
        D1. Enhanced Environment 1 •          D2. Enhanced Environment 2
Comparing the medians from the supply and demand scenarios, the likely imbalance by 2060 is 3.2 maf, with a wide range of uncertainty. Some of this can be met with reservoir storage to smooth out variability. By 2010, the ten-year running average of demand had already exceeded the ten-year running average of supply, and the trends were for this difference to increase.


        Increase Supply
        Reduce Demand
        Modify Operations
        Modify Governance
The criteria used to evaluate the options were
        Technical (feasibility, risks, viability, flexibility)
        Social (recreation, policy, legal, socioeconomics)
        Environmental (permitting, energy needs, energy sources, other environmental factors)
        Other (yield quantity, timing, cost, hydropower, water quality)
Where possible they were evaluated based on cost, $/maf, year available, and potential yields (2035, 2060).
Adding all options gave additional yearly flow of 5.7 maf by 2035 and 11 maf by 2060. Ruling out some options considered infeasible gave additional flow estimates of 3.7 and 7 maf for 2035 and 2060.
Four portfolios of options were then chosen: B, C, inclusive A=B+C, and selective D = options shared by both B and C.


Criteria came from analyzing:
        Water delivery
        Water quality
        Recreational use
        Flood control
        Ecological resources
Reliability was measured against keeping Lake Mead at 1000 ft above mean sea level and keeping the 10-year flow at Lees Ferry at 75 maf. Conclusion: without action, it will be difficult to meet these goals using the Baseline arrangements for the next 50 years.
Over 20,000 simulations were run for each portfolio.
Study Table 4 shows the % of years in which the criteria were not met when analyzed using the Baseline model and Models A,B,C,D. For all criteria except flood control, the Baseline model performed worst of the options. Of the resource criteria, Baseline failed most often at keeping Lake Mead at 1000 feet above msl. By that criterion, all portfolios and the Baseline option failed 30% or more of the instances, and they failed almost as often at keeping the Colorado River flow above the targeted value. As expected logically, the inclusive Portfolio A did the best and the exclusive Portfolio D the worst at meeting the criteria.
Study Figure 4 Shows the various options and their cost estimates and the percentage of the 2010-2060 years in which the system is vulnerable. There are wide ranges of vulnerabilities, and the costs vary as well, but are limited to about $2 billion to $7 billion per year.
The report does not choose the best option, leaving that to others.


The authors note that the study is limited by available data, assessment methods, current models:
The Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) was used to model behavior and assess impacts.
The CRSS uses historical inflows based on USGS data for four tributaries downstream of Lees Ferry, making the Lower Basin predictions subject to substantial uncertainty.
The model assumed reduced agricultural use, as such flows will be diverted to urban use instead. This may not be correct.
A limited set of options was considered, and future developments and technological change may make other options important.


Improved modeling of future supply and demand will continue. Demand can be assumed to increase, making shortages more likely, and no one option is likely to be optimal. Investment in conservation, reuse, and augmentation will be needed to improve reliability and sustainability.


Nothing in the Study is to be used as part of any litigation in a variety of possible actions outlined in this Disclaimer. 

Note that although governmental command-and-control activities might seem adequate to handle the need for clean drinking water in the future, there are practical political and economic factors that get in the way, as pointed out in a recent article in The City Journal:
In 2014, amid a drought, 2/3 of California voters voted for Proposition 1, to have a bond for $2.7 billion worth of water storage projects, as part of a larger $7 billion Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act. Four years later, no funding for water storage had been passed by the state water commission. This contrasts with the relatively rapid creation of the San Luis Reservoir, with a capacity of 2 million acre-feet, done five years from 1963-68, facing far fewer challenges in the courts.
Mid-2018, the California Water commission announced plans to fund projects with Proposition 1 money, only a third of the projects actually related directly to water storage. The proposed storage sites will add a capacity of 2 million acre-feet, compared with the annual residential water use by Californians of 4 million acre-feet per year. The Sites Reservoir, the largest of the projects, is expected to be completed by 2029, at a cost of about ten times the cost of the comparable San Luis Reservoir finished in the mid-1960s in one-fourth the time. Litigation is a major factor in the added costs and time for completion. [https://]


Sharing the use of water resources raises many possible equity issues, some of which we discuss next. Essentially, these come down to who uses how much of the resources and how. To make progress in analysis of policy options, the problem needs to be stated clearly, and its boundaries marked (Hardin, 1968). We start with the simpler cases and build from there.
A single body of water, such as a lake or inland sea, has inlets and outlets, with users around its shores and on its surface. Like a common grazing area of earlier times, it is susceptible to the “tragedy of the commons,” where each user benefits more directly from using than from contributing to its well-being, its maintenance. Biologist Garrett Hardin (1968) popularized the term and showed that for finite resources we cannot obtain “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Each user is tempted to use as much as wanted and to contribute nothing. A solution is to obtain enforceable agreements among all involved or to have rules enforced by a governing body. Then, one must be able to verify what is being done. A lake may be in one governmental jurisdiction, allowing simplified enforcement of one set of laws. A larger body of water may have multiple governing authorities, requiring agreements among them on rules of use and manner of enforcement. If the body of water can overflow its banks, then issues of compensation for damages are added.
The lake will likely have inlets and outlets, and the control of these flows adds another dimension to the complexity. What is done upstream is of particular concern, and likely needs agreements, laws, and policing.
Similarly, a river has upstream and downstream regions, with upstream behavior affecting the flow and its quality in the downstream areas. Again, agreements or laws and enforcement will seem desirable.
In the case of the “lake” or the “river,” the agreements or laws may have sharp-edge restrictions, yes/no, or an attempt may be made to put prices on various types and amounts of “use.” Enforcement again becomes critical.
Monitoring the level of a lake or inland sea is relatively straightforward in comparison with determining the carrying capacity and the amount of water carried in an aquifer, which is a region of porous solids, liquid, and air. Again, there are inputs and outputs and issues of capacity, volume, flow, and quality.
If these considerations were not complex enough, we have the added issue of the degree to which current use and users will impact future use and users and how to manage the somewhat different concerns of the two populations, complicated further by the likelihood of technological and demographic changes.

I will continue serializing here the Microsoft Word transcription of the final galley proof .pdf copy ot WATER WARS, and the book itself  is most conveniently found at

or at DWC's author's book title list

Monday, July 20, 2020

Transport of CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 As an Aerosol

As a retired former expert in the field of aerosol science, I concur with this fine article, which expresses the understanding I have had for months of this plague's modes of transmission:

Saturday, July 18, 2020



© craigslist - Map data © OpenStreetMap
264 East Drive near Well Road
compensation: $37.90 per hour plus annual bonus
employment type: part-time
You will be part of an elite team of RNs and LPNs who provide around-the-clock skilled nursing care at our home for my wife, a multiple sclerosis patient who is quadriplegic, on a ventilator, fed and medicated through a gastric tube. We have done this nearly 16 years and currently need overnight help. As other openings occur, current staff are given preference. Home is at the Lake Osiris community outside of Walden. Dr. Cooper at 845.778.4204

    Wednesday, July 15, 2020

    Sunday, July 12, 2020

    WATER WARS, Ch. 10, Policy Options

    Water Wars Sharing the Colorado River

    Population growth and rising standards of living mean that more clean water will be needed. Where will it come from? In the abstract, we need to think about ways of generating more clean water, using it more efficiently and wasting less, and sharing it better, where “better” will have different definitions to different interests, because “where you stand depends on where you sit.”
    The global scale of the water crisis caused formation of international mechanisms for research and regulation of the problem. The mechanism “UN - Water Resources”( is aimed at the realization of the profile tasks. It coordinates the actions of 26 international organizations in the UN system and contributes to solving the problems in the field of water supply and sanitation identified in the discussions at the world summits on sustainable development and climate conferences (UNESCO, 2009).
    In 2003, having stated that water is essential for sustainable development, including the preservation of the natural environment and the reduction of poverty and hunger, and that without water we cannot ensure the health and well-being of the population, the UN General Assembly declared 2005-2015 the International Decade for Action, Water for Life (UNESCO, 2009). The primary objective of this specific project is to encourage efforts to fulfill the international commitments on water. The activities of the United Nations on the formation of a system for the global regulation of water resources are based on a variety of programs conducted through other multilateral institutions, especially UNESCO (UN, 2009).


    An exceptional contribution to the solution of problems of rational water consumption is made by a program of the U.S. Air Force, “Virtual Water.” It is about determining the volume of water that is contained in food or other products (Dang, Lin, and Konar, 2015). For example, to produce one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of wheat, about 1000 liters (250 gallons) of water is needed: i.e., the “virtual water” of this kilogram of wheat is 1000 liters, 1000 kg. For meat, approximately 5-10 times more water is needed (Dang et al, 2015). The consumption of virtual water per person in the diet is dependent on the type of diet and varies from one cubic meter per day, 1 m3 / day, typical for the ration necessary for survival, up to 2.6 m3 / day, inherent in the vegetarian diet, and more than 5 m3 / day, necessary for the American diet with consumption of a significant amount of meat (Dang et al. 2015).
    When trading food crops, or any other goods, there is a virtual flow of water from producing or exporting countries to countries that consume and import these goods. Countries with water shortages can import products that require large volumes of water in their production, instead of producing them at home. Thus, this allows importers to save water, reducing the burden on their water resources or releasing water for other purposes (Dang et al. 2015).


    Both governmental and non-governmental structures are involved in water issues. The most important is the Global Water Partnership (GWP), which was established in 1996 as an international network of organizations (public, private, regional, scientific, project) involved in water resources management (Dang et al. 2015). The main tasks of the GWP are the development and implementation of the principles of integrated water resources management, the exchange of information and experience (UNESCO, 2009). The GWP aims to promote ideas for the establishment of Integrated Water Resources Management (Gayfer, 2008). The headquarters of the GWP is in Stockholm. In its activities, this structure is guided by the Dublin principles in the field of water resources (Gayfer, 2008).
    The predominant non-governmental organization (NGO) dealing with water issues is the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, established in 1948 in France (IUCN, 2018). Forecasting situations, as well as assessing the state of natural resources, the IUCN continues to deal with the analysts of the Club of Rome. They, as well as representatives of the academic community, are actively working to replenish data banks on global water resources, in cooperation with intergovernmental bodies, and participate in the United Nations World Water Assessment Program. Several specialized research organizations, such as the International Water Management Institute and the Swedish International Water Institute, are involved in assessing the water situation, forecasting, and studying the conflict potential of water resources (Mancosu, Snyder, Kyriakakis, and Spano, 2015). The projects implemented within these centers are essential for forming objective representations and developing practical solutions for water issues (Mancosu et al. 2015).
    At the same time, it must be emphasized that, in general, the world’s water resources are still regulated primarily by the interaction of countries located in the zone of transboundary watercourses (for example, agreements on the joint use of the water resources of rivers such as the Nile, the Rhine, the Danube, Mekong, and others) (Mancosu et al. 2015). Each of these agreements is very specific – due to the specifics of the basins they regulate, and universalization is problematic.
    Along with these pacts, acts of international legal regulation of the regime of transboundary waters operate. The primary documents of this kind are the “Rules for the Use of Waters of International Rivers” (Helsinki Rules), the “UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Usage of International Watercourses,” and the “Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes” (Mancosu et al., 2015). The importance of these documents cannot be overestimated, but they are of a relatively general (recommendatory) nature, affecting mainly environmental problems. To a lesser extent, they concern the problems of river water management. They generally lack mechanisms for resolving disputes, and only the legislative and regulatory framework has been initially developed.
    The need to develop conventional approaches to the distribution of water resources of Transboundary Rivers is obvious (Mancosu et al., 2015). The most developed and comprehensive is the EU regulatory framework. In 2000, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into force (Arpon, Giakoumis, and Voulvolis, 2017). It sets out the principles, objectives, and methods for achieving an “appropriate ecological state” in the basins of national and international rivers of 27 Member States, as well as Switzerland, Norway, and neighboring countries (Arpon et al., 2017). The WFD establishes framework requirements for the protection of all types of waters, including surface water of dry land, transit and coastal waters, and groundwater (Arpon et al., 2017).
    Although some approaches can be adopted to increase the supply of potable water in the world’s rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, much of the emphasis in policy development has been with respect to managing demand.
    According to Betsy Otto, director of the World Resources Institute’s global water program, economic development and adequate clean water have often come in conflict [ agenda/2015/01/why-world-water-crises-are-a-top-global-risk/]. She maintains that water conservation is almost always less expensive than developing new sources. She makes the case for a two-tier pricing structure, with a modest quantity of water available at reduced rates, and more than that at much higher charges. The same article quotes Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior policy analyst at the Brookings Institution to the effect that one cannot expect free water any more than one can expect free food, and there are ways of reducing water theft, such as better law enforcement, careful water monitoring, and the creation of comprehensive databases.
    California has had periods of extreme water shortage, giving rise to proposals to limit the private citizens’ water use. Cape Town, South Africa, has its own “water police” to enforce rules to take the average daily water consumption to 13 gallons per day. To put this in perspective, the average American uses 80 to 100 gallons daily [http://www. drought-returns-to-huge-swaths-of-us-fueling-fears-of-a-thirsty-future]. This reference also notes that Arizona has passed a law that new housing developments must show they can expect 100 years of water supply. Arizona is using less water than 50 years ago despite having 5 million more people. The State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) empowers the granting of low-interest loans for water projects. Texas will be putting in new reservoirs and taking steps to prevent water leaks and wastage.


    One way that government influences environmental markets is through the tax policies it adopts. Recently, a bill entitled “H.R. 519 Water and Agricultural Tax Reform Act of 2018” has been introduced through the U.S. House of Representatives, with its stated purpose, “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to facilitate water leasing and water transfers to promote conservation and efficiency.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the impacts of the bill, which it described as follows (, “H.R. 519 would amend the Internal Revenue Code by modifying the tax exemption requirements for mutual ditch and irrigation companies. The bill excludes certain types of income when determining whether those companies qualify for a Federal income tax exemption in a given year, potentially qualifying more of those companies for the exemption.”
    The CBO Summary concludes, “The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that enacting H.R. 519 would reduce revenues by $39 million over the 2018-2028 period.”
    Despite the grand title of the Act, it appears to expect to have about a $4 million/year impact on the totality of these companies. This would seem rather small.


    This section of ours takes its title from the extensive and definitive work (Kenney et al., 2011) of scholars Douglas Kenney, Sara Bates, Anne Bensard, and John Berggren [
    Resources/LawOfTheRiver/ColoradoRiverInevitabilityOfInstitutional ChangeKenney2011.pdf], published in Volume 32 of the Public Land and Resources Law Review, pp.103-152.
    Noting that the Colorado River is one of the most thoroughly studied natural resources in the world, the authors comment, “By almost any standard, it is the jewel of the American Southwest–and it is in trouble.” Its many major contributions to the region are threatened by predicted increases in the demand for its waters while its flow is likely to decrease. [ ColoradoRiverInevitabilityOfInstitutionalChangeKenney2011.pdf] The fundamental problems are: a complex set of legal arrangements for its use, a projected shortfall between the allowed allocations and the expected flow in the future, and the legal ambiguities involved in settling claims to the flow.
    The authors begin with a review of the Law of the River, the web of some fifty or so laws and agreements that covers the use of waters of the Colorado River. The Law governs the sharing of the rivers water between the states of the Upper Basin (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (California, Arizona, and Nevada) and provides for future development of the region as well as for the contingencies that may arise from reduced flow of the Colorado River. The fundamental document is the Colorado River Compact of 1922, but there have been many subsequent legislative and judicial additions. Subsidiary issues include the rights of Mexico and the Navajo nation to water allocations, too.
    Unfortunately, the water allocations in the Law are largely based on an assumed total flow of 15 million acre-feet (maf), characteristic perhaps of an earlier era, but now an over-estimate, aggravating the mismatch between supply and demand that is increasing yearly.
    Five issues are highlighted:
            The Upper Basin Delivery Obligation
            The Interbasin Apportionment
            Deliveries to Mexico
            Administration of Compact Calls
            Compact Rescission or Reformation
    Most readings of the laws have concluded that the Upper Basin rights are subsidiary to those of the Lower Basin, which these interpretations give first call on the water flow in times of shortage.
    The Compact of 1922 called for “equitable” division of the waters of the Colorado between the Upper and Lower Basins, but some interpretations have read this as “equal” division.
    During non-drought periods, the Upper Basin is obligated to allow the delivery of half of the 1.5 maf of water due yearly to Mexico, per the Treaty of 1944. Whether tributary flows in the Lower Basin can be counted to reduce what the Upper Basin must supply is in question. When shortage conditions exist, however, the proper allocation becomes disputed, especially during “extraordinary drought.”
    Under the Compact and its prior-appropriation system, if there is a shortage, the administrator issues a “call,” requiring those with less senior rights to forego some or all their usage in favor of those with the most senior rights. Although this has yet to happen, it could. If it should, the authors expect “bitterness, data deficiencies, and legal challenges.”
    Rescission (voiding) or reformation (revising, altering) of the compact is possible, but fraught with legal complexities.
    Much of the latter part of the document involves describing the opinions of many of the leaders of the Colorado River Basin. In sum,
            they recognized the need for change due to increased risk of shortages;
            they preferred conflict resolution to litigation;
            they desired more diverse input into resolving the issues.
    Options favored included:
            getting more public involvement in the issues,
            obtaining more agreement on the ways to handle a variety of river-flow scenarios,
            studying the current and future use of the river water,
            harnessing the political modalities to regulate the relationships between the Upper and Lower Basins and among the states involved.

    This summary has only scratched the surface of this extensive work of 49 pages and 283 footnotes. 

    I will continue serializing here the Microsoft Word transcription of the final galley proof .pdf copy ot WATER WARS, and the book itself  is most conveniently found at

    or at DWC's author's book title list

    Coronavirus: why everyone was wrong