HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Arguments
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:09:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.133243.25280@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <1466300085@igc.apc.org> Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>
>>What I like, Howard, is how the technofixers are positive that
>>nukes can be made perfectly safe, CO2 can be stored at the
>>bottom of the ocean, nature can be remade through biotech, etc.,
>>etc. ad nauseam....yet have 101 reasons why solar, wind and
>>biomass energy are implausible.
>>
>>Funny how their limitless faith in human technological ingenuity
>>suddenly evaporates.
>>
>>Tom
>
>With all respect, Tom seems to be caught on the cusp of hyperbole and
>herrings of crimson hue.  Few, even on Usenet, have claimed that nuclear
>reactors can be "perfectly safe", etc.

While it may not be common, it has been claimed.  Misrepresentation
can come from any ideology.
>
>Vis a vis solar, wind, and biomass, the words of Jerry Miller (posted 25
>Sept 92) describe the situation as well as any,
>
>  "That's because it's an argument over practical alternatives as
>   opposed to _questionable_ ones (just kidding....big smiley :)"
>
>When that check that still seems to be in the mail finally arrives,
>appropriate risk and economic comparisons can and should be made.  Until
>then, we have to face the fact that hopes and dreams are hard to measure.
>
Dreams may be hard to measure but the progress of renewables isn't.  We
may not get quads of energy from them in the next few years, but the
economic comparisons are improving considerably and some forms are
competitive now in certain areas.  The rate of progress is faster than
predictions just a few years ago.  When this is combined with the
high potential for efficiency retrofits (which negate the need for
most new capacity in the short run), it is not a dream to believe that
most new capacity built could be renewables.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: borowski@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Don T. Borowski)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: --Early Turbine Still Ope
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:14:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpspkla.1910027
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.

In sci.energy, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

         [stuff deleted]

>    generation in the northwest to be on line by July 1995. The forecast is
>    for number of windfarms to be installed in the Columbia River Valley on
>    up into Montana. They are running out of new hydro power.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oops.  The Columbia turns north and goes though mid Washington state, and
then up into Canada (going up river).


Donald Borowski    WA6OMI    Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
                                       -G.K. Chesterton
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:38:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.225742.19382@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <rhoward.718317620@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>
>>>The automatic activation of the emergency cooling system prevented
>>>radiation from being released by the plant in the Fukushima district,
>>>70 miles northeast of Tokyo.
>>
>>I don't know that this follows logically.  It's sort of like saying
>>"Plant operates normally.  No radiation released today.  Film at 11"
>
>...
>
>In contrast, the following story was also on the news wires...
>
>   "Three missing, presumed dead in Indiana power plant fire"
>
>	SULLIVAN, Ind. (UPI) -- Three people were missing and presumed
>   dead Monday afternoon after fire raced through a power generating
>   station at Merom along the Wabash River in western Indiana. ...
>
They are dead.
I also heard on the Radio this morn that 34 were injured.  Meanwhile,
I have yet to fall off my roof, or get hit by a falling solar panel.
I do stand a risk of developing skin cancer if I expose myself to my
power source for too long, but it gives me such a nice tan :-)

Go fusion!
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:04:20 GMT

In <BvpI3p.5C3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>I also heard on the Radio this morn that 34 were injured.  Meanwhile,
>I have yet to fall off my roof, or get hit by a falling solar panel.

Isn't falling off ladders a major cause of accidental death?
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 27 Sep 1992 03:10:27 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <54008@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>It seems obvious to me that the risks posed by coal are of a different
>kind than the risks posed by nuclear fission. Coal has many obvious
>problems, but given current technology, no coal plant can cause the
>same level of devastation that we see at Chernobyl (unless we want to
>take the improbabilities of statistical mechanics into account and
>thus render the whole discussion futile). So the question
>with nuclear (one question anyway) is whether US PWR/BWR plants can fail
>on a similar scale.

No, one question is whether they likelihood of US PWR/BWR plants failing on a
similar scale is comparable to the likelihood of US coal plants failing on a
similar scale.  You can't argue that something's too improbable for
consideration with regard to coal plants, then use worst-case scenarios on
nuclear plants.  Come on Victor, try to show at least a modicum of integrity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:15:46 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <19vfieINNahj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.104529.9909@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>=To reinforce this point, the Southern Building Code requires roofs
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>=to be designed to sustain 20 lb/sqft static load. In the North the
>=Code requires 40 lb/sqft. Both are adequate to any reasonable solar
>=panel installation.
>
>Plus the snow in the north?
                      ^^^^^

I've declined to respond to several off-the-mark snipes by Carl, but
I just could not let this one slide by.  

No, not 'plus the snow in the north'.  The SOUTHERN building code
applies in the SOUTH.  The NORTH has northern codes that rate
things higher for the higher snow loads...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:04:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.062440.3437@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes...
>From the Oct 1 San Jose Murkey News, page 14A, dateline TOKYO (AP)
> 
>Quoted without permission:
> 
>*** BEGIN EXCERPTED QUOTE ***  (elipsis ... denote deletions)
> 
>JAPANESE PLANT BARELY AVERTS CORE MELTDOWN

[ridiculous sensationalist story deleted]

Another recent example of how the media goes loony when anything 'nuclear'
goes wrong:

I heard this from someone who is on the emergency response team of a major
corporation, which runs a nuclear research center.  At another location,
MegaCorporation has a laboratory building, which due to the history of
the building the employees still call the building "Nuclear", because it
either was used for nuclear procedures in the past or had a NMR (MRI)
machine in it (I didn't quite catch this).  It has nothing nuclear now.

Anyway, they have a smallish fire in "Nuclear" Building.  The Emergency
Response team was using 2 way radios for their normal communication, referring
to the building as "Nuclear", and occasionally using a choice phrase such as
"Shut down cooling water to Nuclear" (meaning the air conditioning water).  A
local TV station apparently was monitoring all this, called the nuclear
research center and DEMANDED to know the status of the meltdown there, and
practically chewed out the poor person who answered the phone when they told
them they knew nothing of any meltdown there.  They apparently called around
trying to get information, upsetting many people who knew nothing about any
problem and getting chewed out for "covering up".

(even if there was a problem at the nuclear research center, all the chatter
would be on another frequency)

-Mike
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4757 talk.environment:4015
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: . . . "Minus-Emission Cars" Tap Hydrogen
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:48:45
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<BvEFrF.Ks@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tgl@slee01.srl.ford.com's message of Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:13:58 GMT

>> ...but a hydrogen-burning car can be called "minus emission"
>> because it turns a pollutant into a clean fuel.
> This is a misleading statement, because any internal
> combustion engine will produce oxides of nitrogen (from
> heating up air, which contains nitrogen).

=o= Yeah, I was pretty turned off by the nomenclature.  It
reminded me of the biomass folks who say it's okay to burn
alcohol because the carbon will go back into the plants, in
a closed loop.  (That's true enough, but the real issue is
whether the carbon travels that closed loop at a sustainable
rate.)
    <_Jym_>
__
For somebody to suggest, as our two opponents have, that [the
Marines killed in Beirut] died in shame...
                -- Vice President George Bush, at the 1984 debate.
                   When newspapers disproved this charge, his
                   strategist responded: ``So what?  Maybe 200
                   people read it, or 2,000 or 20,000.''
From: egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:03:43 GMT
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH

In article rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>
>There is the further problem of large amounts of relatively low temperature
>heat storage (in the ground, or in tanks).  Ever hear of thermal pollution?
>

Ever heard of thermal pollution caused by bad heat isolated houses?

>-- 
>Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
>Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
>Naval Postgraduate School              |              
>Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Naepflein                   _--_|\       Phone: +49 8452 70099
Sedelbreite 15        A fan of  /      \      Mail:  egn%philos.uucp@unido
W-8069 Geisenfeld               \_.--._/
Germany                               v
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:10:58 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1a2nqqINNfto@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <53965@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>   Unfortunately, we do not have an infinite amount of time on this planet,
>>>   and condensation of facts and opinions is required.  It is exactly this
>>>   forcing of a "readily-digestable" answer that got the nuclear industry
>>>   into the bind it is fighting its way out of.  It also forces people to
>>>   overstate their claims in order to prove their points quickly (if 
>>>   watching this newsgroup makes this believable).
>>
>>I don't think that there is a good excuse for overstating claims.
>
>Yackadam, the eternal bleater of "let's base our analysis on worst-case
>scenarios" doesn't think there's a good excuse for overstating claims.  Well,
>at least he seems to have a sense of humor.

Your content free, sophmoric postings are really out of place in a sci
newsgroup. If you wish to base your arguments on witty transformations
of my name, you would be better off in one of the alt groups.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Snide Pucker)
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:15:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.070724.15965@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
#>>
#>>Did you learn to drive in Boston? 
#>
#>No.  I learned to drive in Houston.  Is there a significant difference?

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA---*knowing wink*

   Actually, there isn't that much difference with having a car in
   Boston as it is in Houston as long as you 

     --don't live near Boston (insurance)
     --don't drive there
     --don't park there

   Other than that, they're pretty much the same  =)
-- 
---
   Jerry W. Miller                   #   "Opinions?  Of course they
   millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu         #    are mine, do YOU want them?"
   Purdue Univ. School of Nuclear Engg//Argonne Nat'l Lab--Reactor Engg
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 10:50:26 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep24.014406.12933@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.035724.18432@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

>>My God, 'heavily biased away from the sunbelt' indeed!  I wish my
>>A/C bill was less than 1/10th my heating bill!
>>
>>I can almost go without heating for most of the winter as it is.
>>When I lived in the Central Valley of California, summer cooling
>>was far more costly than winter heat ...
>>
>>>I'd expect that in the sunbelt the percentages for heating and air 
>>>conditioning would be about 30% and 30% today, or even more heavily
>>>biased toward AC.
>>
>>More A/C than 30/30 ... at least in the hot parts of the SUNBelt.
>
>The Sunbelt is more than the Central Valley of California. It gets
>damn cold here in Georgia in winter. 5 degree days are not uncommon.
>You can freeze your butt in West Texas in winter as the cold wind
>blows down from the North. In summer, temperatures in Georgia hover
>in the low 90s, as does the *humidity*. During the tropical storm
>season, and through much of January and February, you can go a week
>without seeing the sun. Your extreme southwestern bias distorts
>your picture of the Sunbelt.

I'm from NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (and don't you forget it!) not SOUTHERN CA.!

If you're gonna accuse me of bias, at least get the direction right ;-)

Southwestern bias, indeed ... I don't live anywhere remotely 
hear Hollywood ... or Santa Monica ... or Venice beach ;-)
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: DSM for Ontario Hydro (was Re: Radioactivity and Superstition...)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:35:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.172753.9007@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.151658.10571@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.160518.11287@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Oct5.152144.24524@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>Not true, according to Ontario Hydro's experience.  Conservation and 
>>>>efficiency were given top priority (ie. greater than supply) in its 
>>>>recent 25-year Demand/Supply Plan (currently under government review),
>>>>resulting in it being one of -- if not *the* -- most ambitious demand
>>>>management plans in North America.  According to their cost estimates, 
>>>>the demand management components are the most expensive, per MW, in the
>>>>whole plan.  (Cost, obviously, was not given top priority either).
>>>
>>>Do you have any information or figures for this?  Do you know what
>>>their DSM strategies were or what the expected cost per MW was?
>>>The studies I have seen (by EPRI) have shown different results,
>>>and have been verified by some experience in the US.  
>>
>>Using the estimates for the median growth case, the costs in 1989 million
>>Cdn. dollars, taken from Ontario Hydro's original 25-year Demand/Supply 
>>plan (its since been revised) are:
>>
>>Nuclear and Fossil (6.1 GW), incl. capital, OM&A, and fuel: 432/GW  
                                              ^^^^      ^^^^
>>
>>Demand Management (5.6 GW), incl. load reduction and load shifting: 644/GW
>
Whoops!  I missed the OM&A, and fuel listed above.  Sorry about that.
The price of $432 million/GW is way below the experience of others.  I
have heard that the succesful programs in France come in at about a
dollar a watt.  And Ontario Hydro is less than half of that?  What
are their rates per kwh?  I have also neglected to convert Cdn. dollars
to US dollars.  I thought the conversion factor was smaller than that.
>>
>>-- 
>>Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>>Dept. Engineering Physics
>>McMaster University
>>Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
>
>
>-- 
>
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:41:26 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep26.070724.15965@nuchat.sccsi.com>, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <53930@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Right, but we can easily tag on other numbers which expose the difference.
>>Suppose that there are 100 people living in my village and that we
>>chose between the risk of losing 20 people in one disaster and losing
>>20 people over 10 years. Clearly, the village itself may not be able to
>>survive a sudden loss of 1/5 of the population, but it may be able to
>>cope with a longer term loss. 
>
>Change the data the model has to work with, and you change the model.  What
>you've done above is provide additional information to work with.  So, with
>the additional information, I agree that the two cases (losing 20 people in
>one disaster, with no deaths during  the remaiing time and losing 20 people
>over a period of 10 years) are not equivalent.

>But this is only because you've provided a more detailed context.

No, it's because he lied to us in the original statement of the problem. 
Since, by his own definition, "the village itself may not be able to survive
a sudden loss of 1/5 of the population," we're *NOT*, as Yackadam claims in the
original premise, talking about 20 people over 10 years vs. 20 people in one
disaster.  We're talking about losing 20 people over 10 years vs. losing 20
people in one disaster and the remaining 80 over the next 10 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:18:52 GMT
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH, Unterschleissheim, Germany

In article <1992Sep20.131506.27154@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <gay.716846400@sfu.ca> gay@selkirk.sfu.ca (Ian D. Gay) writes:
>>Why not make ice while the sun shines?
>
>Using ammonia absorption cycle equipment run directly off solar heat, 
>this is possible at the community, or large building, level. But I don't 
>think it's practical or cost effective at the level of a single residence. 
>Using mechanical CFC based chilling running off solar electricity is 
>certainly not practical on a residential scale.
>
It's not necessary to use solar electricity. Using the thermal energy of
the sun is much more efficient. Sometimes ago, I read an article about
air conditioning using this technique.

>Gary

Emil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Naepflein                   _--_|\       Phone: +49 8452 70099
Sedelbreite 15        A fan of  /      \      Mail:  egn%philos.uucp@unido
W-8069 Geisenfeld               \_.--._/
Germany                               v
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Water useage(was Re: IN-LINE WATER HEATERS)
Date: 26 Sep 92 08:18:49 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

Ouch.
10K gal/month is a HELL of a lot of water.

.3 acre-foot is a decent amount of water.
If you have an acre of land, and subject it to that much water in rainfall,
that is equal to 43 or so inches a year.(3.6 feet)

Hm...  That much is enough to qualify as a lush, or if poor drainage is
present, a wetland.

Shoot, *I* don't get that much rain per year, and I live near the coast, in
Northern Ca.

They almost can grow rice in that amount :)
Well, almost...
:)

Seriously, though, consider this:
1 gallon per hour, for a month =
(quick, get a calculator...)
720 gallons.  problem: Leaks.
consider if you are loosing 5-8 gallons per hour.(3600-5760 a month)
But..you say,"I couldn't possibly be loosing that much."

Wrong.  a couple small leaks, dripping faucets, etc. all add up FAST.
Even a dripping faucet can easily put more than a gallon down the drain per
hour.(assuming a very small leak)

What I would do: Look for leaks.  Especially outside.  Turn off everything, and
see if the meter moves after about 15 minutes.
A leak or two in your sprinkler system can loose that much per hour or more,
at 30 or so PSI.

My Parents, who conserve only a bit(low flush toilets, and that's IT), use 3000
or so a month, which is high, but not unrealistic. The highest EVER was when
they went away for a month and a friend overwatered a LOT.
6500 gallons. You should have seen them. They almost had a heart attack.
And the bill was nothing to laugh at, either...
(they have 2/3 acre, and 20 or so fruit trees and a 1/8 acre garden.)
They also live in Southern Ca., so rainfall hardly even makes a dent.-ie: if
you want it to grow AT ALL, you have to water it regularly, and when the rain
does come, it comes all at once.

I am almost positive that either there are serious leaks that need to be
attended to, or you are just being unrealistic in your definition of normal
useage.  I am fairly sure that the former is true.

Joe