Virtual Tour - US 1: Key Largo

Key Largo -- The Large Key -- is the largest of the many islands extending from the "mainland" of Florida.  In an attempt to avoid any law suits for invasion of privacy, I borrowed this shot from Google Earth.  It may include some private land, but I don't think it is identifiable.  I call it a "sneak peek" of the Gulf.  It is a peek over a fence at the end of a cul de sac.  This view of houses, docks and boats is typical on Key Largo. The photo is a composite, copyrighted by Google and the US Department of State.

This is a "far cry" from my one visit to the keys many years ago!  Our visit was in a station wagon pulling a borrowed (or rented) popup camper.  We stayed in a campground on a smaller key along US 1 where the ground water tasted strongly of sulfur.  It may have looked something like this, Calusa Campground in Key Largo.  Again, over the fence, courtesy of Google Earth.

Between Key Largo and the mainland are scores, if not hundreds, of be tiny islands, most of which are uninhabited. Each island is a "key" contributing to probably over half of the more famous string that are connected by US 1.  Other islands along the west coast of Florida are also designated as "keys."  According to Meriam Webster Dictionary this homograph is derived from the a native language spoken by the Taino, a Caribbean people.  They Spanish spelled in "cayo," which the English co-opted.  It may have once been pronounced as if rhyming with "they" or "grey."  In fact, the alternate spelling of "cay" is also pronounced "kee"!  The English language cannot be "trusted."

Since 1947 all the Keys of Florida south of the Everglades (the vast majority of the islands called "keys") have been part of the Everglades National Park.  As such, only the largest of the islands are populated.  Some of the islands are "privately owned," but I strongly suspect that they are also quite regulated.  It's a shame that, for the sake of a subspecies here or there the "last frontier" of South Florida is practically 'off limits.'

Is Progress Worth the Effort?

The more we know, the further behind we become.  Perhaps we should just go with what we know works.

From the NY Times:

Experimental Efforts to Harvest the Ocean's Power Face Cost Setbacks.

"a 260-ton buoy filled with technology that can turn the movement of the ocean into electricity to power 100 homes. . . .
Despite receiving at least $8.7 million in federal and state grants, Ocean Power told regulators that it could not raise enough money to cover higher-than-expected costs and would instead pursue a similar project in Australia, backed by a $62 million commitment from that country’s government.
 . . .
The Oregon Wave Energy Trust, a nonprofit, state-financed group, spent $430,000 in state lottery money helping Ocean Power navigate the process of seeking a permit.
. . .
Tidal power, which captures energy from currents moving in one direction at a time, as opposed to the wave-based technology of the Ocean Power buoys, is farther along, said Paul Jacobson, ocean energy leader at the Electric Power Research Institute. One reason, he said, is that tidal power is easier to engineer and has been able to adapt expertise from the conventional hydroelectric industry."

Even when a workable ocean-powered generator is made, it cannot be used due to cost restraints.  It's a real shame.  I'm not sure if the 520 pounds of machinery and electronics per house is worth it, but given that it cost almost a half-million dollars to "help" its developers through the process of getting a permit is telling.  This single prototype cost at least $87,000 dollars per prospective customer and did not get a chance to be deployed into service.  Now the Austailians, with abundance of water on all sides, are going to take the project.

Apparently the complicated approach of mining the movement of waves turned out to be more expensive than the more obvious mining of the regular tides, for which there is already old technology in place.  Perhaps this is a case in which computers and micro-management of resources is not the way to go.

I suspect, though, that a conventional turbine in the ocean would threaten far more of the wildlife than would an essentially closed system of sensors on a huge bouy.  That alone will probably doom the projects, though wind turbines (wind "mills") seem to be immune from such concerns when it comes to the danger to airborne wildlife.

Meanwhile, proven technology for cheap nuclear energy is on hold due to dangers far less deadly on the short term.  Even very "clean" energy from conventional hydro-electric turbines might meet opposition due to the threat to habitat of so-called "endangered" species.  Meanwhile, with carbon dioxide being redefined as a pollutant, even massive improvements in cleaning up the cheapest energy producing plants -- that is, the coal-fired plants -- come to naught.  It seems that the whole twentieth century has been lost on activists seeking to protect the earth from mankind.

I'm all for protecting the environment from destruction.  I am not adverse to new technology either.  But when advancement is persued for advancement's sake, trouble looms around every corner.  Unintended consequences can derail the best of intentions.

Perhaps we should just slow down a bit and enjoy what we already have.

The best defense

In sports and in warfare, one can expect to win if they have a superior first strike advantage. The same thing can be said for public health! The best defense against killer diseases is to eliminate them at the source. The United States did that in the fifties with DDT. Then one of our own dear liberal souls saw what she saw as a threat to eagles and other birds of prey. And so, worldwide disdain for a Nobel Prize winning discovery began!

Last year, I seem to remember reading about the debunking of the environmentalists' arguments for banning DDT - the most effective insecticide ever developed. Especially against mosquitoes. Now the NY Times has an article lauding the efforts of diverse groups heroically raising money for nets to ward off the mosquitoes that the environmentalists saved from oblivion. The nets contain insecticide, but mostly they just keep the little beasts away from sleeping children.

Two children a minute, on the average are dying from malaria and related diseases, and we want to send $10 nets to save them. How much DDT will $10 buy? I would venture to say that would be enough to eradicate the mosquitoes in a small village with hundreds of children! Even an environmentalist group with a personal stake in Africa - The African American Environmentalist Association - demands the use of DDT to save the population of Africa from extinction! They have a web page dedicated to this. There they give lip service to the woman who lead the fight against DDT in the sixties, but they insist that the poison is safe around children when used properly.

I am a conservative, but I believe in responsible management of resources. Buy nets, but don't forget the bug spray!

Is the polar bear "endangered"?

Sara Palin lives there, so she should know. But environmentalist groups are lobbying to put the big whites on the "Endangered Species" list based on the flimsy excuse that their "habitat" is disappearing. Not so fast, the Alaskan governor declares.

It seems that there are more polar bears now than there were forty years ago. The laws meant to protect them are working. By using "global warming" arguments, which project short term trends to a logical conclusion, environmentalists claim that as goes the ice, so goes the bear. That is discounting the vast plain of permafrost which supports much more life than do icebergs! The bears may even have a BETTER time at finding land-based prey.

Besides, how biologically diverse is a polar bear from its cousins? Perhaps it would just adapt to changing conditions. Do you think a study has been done from THAT angle? Probably not, given the present evolutionary bias in the sciences. As a matter of fact, studies are not needed. History and science are replete with examples of "hybrids" among bears. Both the grizzly and the brown bear have been known to interbreed with the polar bear -- with fertile offspring! Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the "species" is not in danger at all! As you get away from the frozen north, bears of other varieties are numerous. It would be sad, I suppose, if a particular "breed" of bear were to disappear. But "endangered" is not a term that need be used.