Re: Attention Windsurfers; SBSA Update

From: Luigi Semenzato (luigi@Nersc.GOV-DeleteThis)
Date: Tue Apr 15 1997 - 14:43:25 PDT


Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.18/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA085581199; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:53:19 -0700
Return-Path: <luigi@nsun10.lbl.gov-DeleteThis>
Received: from nsun10.lbl.gov by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA260061199; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:53:19 -0700
Received: from nsun10.lbl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsun10.lbl.gov (8.7.3/8.7.3/NERSC-Feb96) with SMTP id OAA04089 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199704152143.OAA04089@nsun10.lbl.gov-DeleteThis>
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: Attention Windsurfers; SBSA Update 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:42:12 PDT." <547DCC27CC@eqe-1.eqe.com-DeleteThis> 
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:43:25 -0700
From: Luigi Semenzato <luigi@Nersc.GOV-DeleteThis>


> I found your info on fecal coliform counts in the bay is very
> interesting and comforting -thanks very much for the post. One point
> of clarification, though. I interpret the data to mean the coliform
> count is very low: 2-3 MPN/100ml versus an objective of 200MPN/100ml.
> Is this conclusion correct?

That's my conclusion too.

> I guess what threw me off is the
> statement
>
> "The results from the Bay remain way below the water quality
> objectives."
>
> Usually, "below" an objective means not reaching an objective.

I am also interpreting that as a poor choice of adjective.

I wonder, though, whether the coliform count is the only relevant
pollution indicator. What about heavy metals, used car oil, etc.? ---Luigi



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:31:39 PST