It is no secret, but still surprising, that rock concert goers are exposed to sound levels of up to 120 decibels (City traffic inside a car is about 85 decibels; pain begins at 125). Most concerts will have sound levels of between 95 and 105 db.  The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (IDCD) estimates that approximately 15 percent (26 million) of Americans between the ages of 20 and 69 have high frequency hearing loss due to exposure to loud sounds or noise at work or in leisure activities. A recent study by another organization estimated 10 percent of the US population or 30 million people have tinnitus. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) limits per day noise exposure to 30 minutes at 97 decibels, 15 minutes at 100 decibels, and no exposures above 112 decibels.

Permanent hearing damage/tinnitus begins with sustained exposure at 90-95 decibels. If you attend concerts you’ll note the performers, sound board folks, and others working the event usually are wearing hearing protection. That’s because the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires workers to be protected against sustained loud noise. OSHA does not have the mandate or authority to prescribe protection for consumers. We’re on our own but we need more information.

I recently attended a performance of Lindsey Stirling.  Ms. Stirling is a phenomenal violinist, singer, and dancer. She made her violin sing in ways I did not know existed. Clearly, Ms. Stirling has put in her 10,000 hours on the violin. Here’s a YouTube video. If you have a chance to attend one of her performances I recommend you do but only with hearing protection, at a minimum ear plugs. The venue was a small indoor theater with a bare floor and walls, no chairs. The amplified music pounded the audience with ten thousand watts of power reverberating off the walls, floor, and ceiling to hammer your ears again and again. I believe the sound was at least 105 to 110 decibels, with my fingers plugging my ear canals the music was still uncomfortably loud at the back of the room. (Ms. Stirling wore hearing protection throughout the performance and I believe the band was wearing the in-ear type of hearing protection).

As my ears were being hammered with the music and body pounded by the sound waves  I wondered if there were any other negative effects in addition to hearing loss and tinnitus. There are but there is not a lot of literature around. The effects of loud music include “visual problems, epilepsy, stroke type neurological deficiencies and psychic disturbances, i.e. anxiety, depression.” (Billings). These sound waves also appear to injure and destroy cells in the body which partially explains the common fatigue noted the day following a loud concert as the cells repair themselves. The pounding of sound waves also causes the body to stress increasing cholesterol and contributing to high blood pressure. There is also a theory suggesting the attraction of the loud music is its infliction of pain releasing adrenalin and endorphins resulting in a “high.”

The World Health Organization has studied the long-term effects of noise on humans and concluded “those chronically exposed to high levels of environmental noise have an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infarction ” (WHO Regional Office for Europe). That report also stated there is a “reduction in cognitive ability in school-age children that occurs while the noise exposure persists and will persist for some time after the cessation of the noise exposure.”

There is likely a lot research going on in weaponizing sound and sound waves but there is not a great deal being published nor does there seem to be much interest in making rock concerts a little less injurious. It isn’t likely I’ll attend another indoor rock concert and I certainly won’t without ear protection, nor should you. And, easy to say, hard to do, keep your children home if there is any chance of the concert getting above 90 decibels.  If you’re pregnant stay home.

I wonder how hard it would be to include the sound level on tickets or in the advertising. Something like the disclaimers “Some scenes may not be suitable for . . . ” or “tonight’s performance includes the use of strobe lights.” I’m not advocating more regulation by the government only for enough information to make decisions for myself and those I care for.

November 11, 1918 marked the end of World War I and was known initially as Armistice Day. That day was memorialized in the United States, England, and France. In 1954, President Eisenhower signed into law a bill proclaiming the day as Veterans Day.

Long before there was an Armistice Day or Veterans Day however, there were the first veterans; those who fought against the British in the Revolutionary War. The war began at Lexington and Concord (Massachusetts) when the citizen-soldiers defending military supplies belonging to the Massachusetts Militia exchanged fire with the British attackers. Though Lord Charles Cornwallis surrendered his army at Yorktown, Virginia in October 1781, British soldiers remained in the United States until late the next year. Great Britain finally recognized the sovereignty of the United States on September 3, 1782.

During the war the Declaration of Independence was signed and the Articles of Confederation were agreed to. The Articles of Confederation left most of the power to the individual states, only allowing the Continental Congress to requisition supplies and money from the states for the national defense.

Daniel Shays

Daniel Shays joined the militia during the revolution and was promoted to Captain at age 30. He fought at Lexington, Bunker Hill, and in the Boston campaign. At 33 he was wounded and resigned from the militia, unpaid. (Disability pay for service related injuries did not come about until 1790. Officers could receive up to half of their pay and enlisted personnel up to $5 a month for life.)

During the war the citizen soldiers were assured they would be paid for their service and their farms that lay fallow would not be jeopardized because of unpaid taxes.

Reaching home in Brookfield, Massachusetts he was summoned to court for unpaid debts, debts he was unable to pay because he had not been paid for his militia service. It was only by the sale of an ornamental sword given to him by General Lafayette in honor of his service, that Shays was able to pay his debts.

Shays soon discovered that many of his fellow veterans were in the same circumstance with debt. Shays became one of the leaders of about two thousand farmers, many of whom were veterans, attempting to prevent county courts from convening and foreclosing on property. The group was successful; alarming the state government and merchants. Because of the weak national government it had no army or militia to put down the rebellion. Ultimately merchants donated money to fund a militia.

Shays and his farmer-followers marched on the Springfield Armory on January 26, 1787 and were met by grape-shot from cannons. This broke the force which scattered and Shays went into hiding in Vermont. Ultimately, several hundred were indicted, eighteen including Shays were convicted and sentenced to death. Two were hanged; the remainder were pardoned, had sentences commuted, or their cases were overturned on appeal. Shays was later granted a pension for his service in the Revolutionary War, he died at 78 in New York.

Shays’ Rebellion so frightened the wealthy class they demanded action. Twelve representatives from five states met in Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786. The Annapolis Convention, as it is known, called for a general convention in May 1787, in Philadelphia “to render the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”

And so they did.

Thank you Veterans for helping to create our Constitution and thank you Veterans for protecting it for the last two hundred and thirty-seven years.

The $9.95 InternetEssentials program is available to any household that has a student who is receiving a free or reduced cost lunch at school. The program includes free internet training in person, in print and online. The program includes Norton™ Security Suite, and promises no price increases, no activation fees, and no equipment rental fees. An equivalent program would cost a Comcast subscriber, in the Portland area, at least $29.95.

In addition to Internet access the program also offers a netbook computer for $149.99.

Theressa Davis, a Comcast Vice President of Communications told me in a telephone conversation that more than 2000 children have signed up allowing service to about 8,000 persons in Oregon and Southwest Washington, since the program’s inception about a year ago. Lyndsay O’Herrick a Comcast Government Affairs person in Comcast Corporate told me in a telephone conversation that as of August over a 100,000 connections have been made under the program and 11,584 netbooks distributed.

From the information provided by Julie L. K. Yee in the US Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service over half of Oregon’s elementary and secondary school children were eligible for free or reduced price lunches in the 2010-2011 school year. That represents 277,797 children in Oregon, nationally 48 percent or 23,105,409 were eligible. Because Comcast service is not available nationally they estimate the eligible population at 2.3 million families.

How did this come to be? During the negotiations with regulators regarding Comcast’s purchase of NBCUniversal, the idea of Comcast providing low-cost internet access was introduced as a way of making the purchase more palatable to regulators. The company had been working on such a program to expand broadband service in every community where they provided service. And so it was. Good on Comcast for being a force for making our communities better today and helping to prepare the leaders of tomorrow  Thanks to the government regulators who allowed Comcast to implement the program as proposed without change.

In addition to creating, providing, and publicizing the InternetEssentials program, Comcast, in April of this year, broadened the program by adding students who received reduced price lunches eligible and doubling the customer speed from 1.5 to 3Mbps. Neither action was part of the agreement with the FCC Regulators.

Looks like Comcast, you, and I have our work cut out for us in spreading the word. All our children need easy access to the Internet if they are to succeed or even compete in today’s, much less tomorrow’s, world. It’s great that our libraries and schools provide Internet access but that’s not the primary place homework is completed. If you’re in a Comcast service area, contact your school district and ensure they are publicizing the program – our future will be effected whether they are or not.

You can learn more about the InternetEssentials program here and more about the National School Lunch Program here.

Full disclosure: I am a Comcast subscriber.

One of the first problems we noticed when we moved into this house ten years ago was the inordinate amount of time the hot water took to arrive in the master bath. Our home is multi-floored, basemented, with the hot water heater located about as far away from the master bath as possible. This not only frustrates the end-user but is a terrible waste of water. One end-user mentioned this problem frequently.

Over the years my spouse and I discussed this waste of water and at one point considered catching the water in buckets and using it in the flower gardens (unfortunately, with the exception of this summer, in Oregon it’s sort of a “Coals to Newcastle” idea). I tried to figure out how to run a pipe from the master bath shower to the garden but after a review of previous project successes (few) I gave up.

We then engaged a professional plumber to resolve the problem. Bad choice, the person seemed only interested in pointing out to my spouse the impossibility of a resolution while insinuating a certain whimpiness on my part. The plumber said a return line was required to circulate the hot water back to the hot water heater – technically feasible but practically impossible in terms of money and work.

The “mentioning” continued as I happened on an advertisement for in line water heaters. Reading the specifications it suggested to me these devices might be able to solve our problem. Getting hot water out the tap from the in line heater until the heated water from the main hot water heater arrived.

I finally picked the right set of numbers and connected with MP Plumbing (mpplumbing.com). Mike listened to my problem and suggested fix and told me to forget it! He had something that could be installed without any rewiring or construction and could be accomplished in about an hour.

It actually took about an hour and fifteen minutes to install. Today, when the end-user turns the “H” handle in the master bath, steamy hot water instantly flows! What is this magic? It is the Grundfos Comfort System, Hot Water Recirculation System. It consists of a small pump and timer affixed to the out hot water line on the water heater and a crossover valve installed in the master bath connecting the hot and cold water lines.

You set the timer for the times you’ll normally want hot water, though you can set it to run all the time. Here’s the magic, the cross over piece allows the pump to send hot water to the master bath, pushing the tepid water back into the cold water feed line when appropriate but not the other way. No wasted water.

Downside: it is spendy but in my case well worth it. Every morning for the last few days I’m greeted with a report of the joy of instant hot water in the sink and shower with the implication of genius on my part. Nice way to start the day. The system was about $400 and the cost of a plumber installing it. Complete systems are available at The Home Depot or Amazon.com. People who are handy should be able to complete installation themselves. After installation you just set the timer and plug it in.

Installation on the hot water heater.

Just when I thought I was finished writing about the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) along comes a new piece of news. In my last two posts I gave my opinion on BPA’s funding the update of a laser light show at Grand Coulee Dam. The free show runs during the summer tourist season; the costs of the show are borne by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation. It was and is my opinion those 1.6 million dollars would have been better used to fund the Food Stamps (the SNAP program) that is facing extreme cuts even as the need increases. My rough calculations suggest the 1.6 million dollars would keep about a thousand people (996) on the SNAP program for a year help feed about a thousand people for a year. In my conversations with BPA I was assured taxpayer money was not used, it was “Northwest rate payer funds” but that was just obfuscation – every sentient being would agree those funds are taxpayer monies. I thought that was the end of writing about the Bonneville Power Administration.

Bonneville Power Administration decided to upgrade the laser light show at Grand Coulee Dam in July 2012,             just weeks after receiving a memorandum from Daniel B. Poneman, The Deputy Secretary of Energy (BPA is part of the Department of Energy). It read in part “As the President noted in his Executive Order, we are to perform our work ‘in the most efficient, cost-effective way … to ensure the Government is a good steward of taxpayer money.’ Complying with these policies requires all of us, in our daily actions and decisions, to make sure that we are doing our work in a cost-effective and efficient manner. It is necessary but not sufficient to comply with the ‘letter of the law.’ It is also essential to comply with the spirit of the law. We must remain vigilant; there is no room for complacency.”

Bonneville Power Administration is a huge organization employing over three thousand employees directly, delivering power over 300,000 square miles of the Northwest, with an annual operating cost of nearly three billion US dollars.

Why am I still writing about BPA? The Oregonian reported recently BPA is reducing funding for mandatory programs. Mandatory programs set forth by its charter, court orders, and treaties with Native Americans for protection of fish and wildlife. BPA has asked its largest contractors to reduce expenditures by 10 to 15 percent for 2012 and 2013. Being masters of obfuscation BPA states it is actually adding US $13 million to the 2012-2013 budget; critics believe it is actually a reduction of US $17 million.

So the citizens of the United States own an organization that spends a discretionary and inappropriate US $1.6 million updating a laser light show but reduces required, treaty-agreed, and court ordered spending on fish and wildlife protection. The problem with this reduction is not just a one year dip in funding. Some of the programs are long-term, one year building on the last, programs – the effect of these reductions may be permanent.

I wish BPA well – it has a big job with big problems not the least of which is electric providers switching to natural gas rather than BPA hydropower, pushing rates down. Like the man said: “It is necessary but not sufficient to comply with the ‘letter of the law.’ It is also essential to comply with the spirit of the law. We must remain vigilant; there is no room for complacency.”

In my last post I offered my opinion that spending US $1.6 million to upgrade a free laser light show at Grand Coulee Dam was inappropriate. (Frugality, a Laser Light Show, and Food Stamps). In addition I opined that responsible parties at the Bonneville Power Administration and Bureau of Reclamation just don’t get it. This post continues along that line as a result of my attempts to find out where the funding came from and why a laser light show upgrade.

The contract for the upgrade was awarded to LumaLaser, a company in Eugene, Oregon. The Bureau of Reclamation awarded the contract using funds provided by the Bonneville Power Administration. In simple terms the Bureau of Reclamation runs the Grand Coulee Dam and Bonneville Power Administration sells the power and funds maintenance of the power system. Created in 1937, Bonneville Power Administration is nonprofit agency of the US Department of Energy. It markets wholesale electrical power from 31 federal hydro generation projects in the Columbia River Basin, one nonfederal nuclear plant, and several other nonfederal power plants. About one-third of the electric power used in the Northwest comes from BPA.

In fiscal year 2011 (1 October 2010 – 30 September 2011) Bonneville Power Administration had revenues of US $3,284,774,000, operating expenses of US $ 2,930,733,000, and interest expenses to the US Treasury of $272,359,000. Although BPA proclaims it is self-funding it is not that simple. When funds are required by BPA for operating expenses or capital projects it comes from the US Treasury in the form of loans that are repaid with interest. A ceiling on BPA’s borrowing authority is set by Congress.

When I questioned the propriety of spending money on the laser light show, Doug Johnson of BPA’s media office responded by email:

The Bureau of Reclamation did ask if we would fund the light show upgrade because the current system had outlasted its intended use and maintenance needs and costs have risen significantly. BPA is funding the upgrade because we pay for about 90 percent of the operations and maintenance at Grand Coulee. The light show is a great way to let the public know that (t)he U.S. is a leader in water resources development. This includes the power generation element of the dam.  Grand Coulee accounts for about 30 percent of the total electricity generation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, which includes 31 dams (including Grand Coulee) and one nuclear plant.  The light show is a great educational tool that helps draw attention to this great source of irrigation and carbon free electricity generation.

In this same exchange I asked Mr. Johnson “does the money received by BPA from receipts and borrowing considered government funds?” He responded that “The funds being used would be considered Northwest rate payer funds–not federal funds.” This characterization of the funds struck me as obfuscation. At no time are BPA’s receipts anything other than government funds – taxpayer money that should have been returned to the Treasury if not needed.

I called the media office for the Office of Management and Budget and asked if BPA’s “Northwest rate payer funds” was an appropriate characterization for these funds. I was told to send my question by email which I did, asking for a response by August 28. Obviously, I’m not going to get an answer.

Researching the 16 U. S. Code, the Title of federal law that governs the Bonneville Power Administration, I was unable to find any reference to “Northwest rate payer funds.” I did find two interesting Sections relating to BPA funds, the first, in Section 832j reads in part:

All receipts from transmission and sale of electric energy generated at the Bonneville project shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, save and except that the Treasury shall set up and maintain from such receipts a continuing fund of $500,000, to the credit of the administrator and subject to check by him, to defray emergency expenses and to insure continuous operation.

Section 838i reads in part:

There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States a Bonneville Power Administration fund (hereinafter referred to as the “fund”). The fund shall consist of (1) all receipts, collections, and recoveries of the Administrator in cash from all sources, including trust funds . . . .

This section goes on to list other sources of monies for the fund and to specify what the money can be used for. Although the language is fairly broad I did not find any authority for BPA to provide public entertainment.

The only point I make with all this is the days of US $1.6 million not being much of a deal are over. Our federal management and leadership must question every expenditure – and we have to make every dollar count. I’ll take feeding an additional 996 people over an updated laser light show every time. How about you?

What are my credentials to question a US $1.6 million upgrade to a free laser light show? In my travels around the world I’ve seen hungry people. In working at a food pantry I’ve seen hungry people. When I deliver Meals on Wheels I see hungry people. But no, I haven’t watched the Grand Coulee Dam Laser Light Show.

Grand Coulee Dam courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation

As soon as I begin to believe I’ve seen or heard just about everything I’m proven wrong again. A recent Oregonian carried the announcement that the Grand Coulee Dam was updating its laser light show for a US $1.6 million dollars. The 36 minute show is projected against the water as it rushes across the face of the dam. An estimated 75,000 people enjoy the free show which runs from Memorial Day to late September. A million-six is not much in the arena of debt, deficit, taxes, and spending, but is this a frugal use of money?

Begun in 1989, the show has run every summer since. According to Lynn Brougher, a public affairs person at the dam, one government technician spends about a quarter of their time working on the laser show and a contractor runs the show for US $12 thousand a summer. Ms. Brougher estimates about a quarter of the 300,000 visitors to the visitor center each year watch the show. She notes the funding for the update was provided by Bonneville Power Administration, part of the US Department of Energy. Grand Coulee Dam is run by the Bureau of Reclamation, part of the US Department of Interior.

From the Bureau of Reclamation press release of July 26, 2012:

“The laser light show is a popular way to tell the story of Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin Project,” Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Conner said. “We want to continue to share the rich culture and history of the area with the thousands of people who visit Grand Coulee Dam each year. The new laser light show will be a dynamic and energy efficient way to engage visitors and infuse tourism dollars into the local community.”

When the show began in 1989 the US was in the seventh consecutive year of economic expansion and except for the failing of the Savings and Loans, the economy was doing pretty well. The President’s budget for fiscal year 1989 had a deficit of a mere US $130 billion dollars! The US was at peace. There were about 19 million people receiving food stamps at an average of US $51.71 a month. Funding a laser light show in 1989 likely did not raise any eyebrows.

However, time passes and priorities and economies change. This update is an inappropriate expense especially at a time when our congressional leadership is falling over each other to cut SNAP funding (Food Stamps). Spending money on a laser light show is on par with the US $147 million we send to Brazil annually to keep Brazilian cotton farmers from complaining to the World Trade Organization about the subsidies we pay to US cotton farmers. (See Food Stamps, Cotton, and Brazil).

Last year, the rolls of SNAP (Food Stamps) reached a record – over 44 million people were eligible for assistance. Both the US Senate and House of Representatives are proposing a reduction in SNAP funding of between 28 and 35 billion US dollars in their iterations of the pending farm bill. Somewhere between 17 and 21 million people will lose eligibility for SNAP because of those reductions.

One million six hundred thousand dollars would provide SNAP eligibility for 996 people. Spending any amount to upgrade a free laser light show is inappropriate and wasteful. Someone just doesn’t get it – the US is broke and her poor are hungry. Charge admission, have the surrounding cities (Coulee Dam, Mason City, Grand Coulee, and Electric City) pay for upgrading the laser light show – they certainly reap the benefit of all the visitors. Or just end the show. The estimated 300,000 visitors to the dam each will endure their disappointment much easier than the 996 people who could have received food stamps.

You can watch a YouTube presentation of the current laser show at Grand Coulee here.

Next: Bonneville Power Administration

The US House of Representatives’ Agriculture Committee has approved the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012 (HR 6083) and sent it to the full House for approval. This is the much awaited farm bill that will guide spending on crop insurance and subsidies, SNAP (food stamps), forests, and the US Department of Agriculture for the next five years. The current farm bill expires on September 30, 2012.

The US Senate has passed its own version of the farm bill, The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 (S. 3240), on June 21. The Senate’s bill claims a reduction in spending of about 28 billion dollars over the five years and the current House proposal claims a reduction of about 35 billion dollars over the same period. The catch, both proposals have a price tag of about 500 billion dollars or about 100 billion dollars a year.

SNAP is the acronym for food stamps: Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. The current House bill proposes a reduction in SNAP of 16 billion dollars by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. The Senate proposes a reduction of 4.5 billion dollars, both over five years. In fiscal year 2011 (ending September 30, 2011) SNAP provided assistance totaling, US $71,813,400,000.00 to 44,709,000 participants (a record). The program is targeted at low-income Americans. Seventy-five percent of the households participating in SNAP have children in them.

I’m confident there is waste, fraud, and abuse in SNAP but I’m also confident there are many people having a meal they would not otherwise have had.

At the same time our leadership is rushing to reduce food aid to low-income families the US continues to pay Brazil $12,275,000.00 every month. This payment is made to the Brazilian Cotton Institute created under the terms of a US/Brazil Memorandum of Understanding. The payments are in return for Brazil not pressing its case against the US at the World Trade Organization. The US government pays US cotton farmers to keep prices down (US $639,000,000.00 in 2011) and that is a violation of free-trade agreements. So in addition to subsidizing cotton farmers we insure Brazil’s acquiesce through the monthly payment.

Only a few voices are heard questioning the payments to Brazil.

In April Representative Ron Kind (R-WI) introduced a bill (HR 5143) “To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from making payments to the Brazilian Cotton Institute,” the bill remains in the Agriculture Committee. Co-sponsors are Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Barney Frank (D-MA).

National Public Radio’s Planet Money reported on the cotton agreement, read or listen here.

“I can tell you the US is current,” noted Mark Rowse, the Director, Credit Programs Division in the US Department of Agriculture when I spoke to him this week. The payments are actually made monthly by wire transfer on the last day of the month that the sending and receiving banks are open for business. Currently those payments are US$147,300,000.00 annually. The payments were agreed to by a Memorandum of Agreement between the US and Brazil on April 20, 2010. (At the time of signing the US provided US $30,000,000.00 and US $4,300,000.00 in June 2010; the monthly payments began in July 2010).

Fortunately, both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill halt direct payments to US cotton producers instead creating a crop insurance program especially for cotton that will reimburse producers when losses exceed a certain threshold. This insurance (STAX) was reportedly pushed for by the National Cotton Council, cotton’s lobby.

It is too early to tell how the STAX program will work or if the direct subsidy of cotton will stay omitted from the final farm bill. The fate of the 2012 farm bill is not predictable, it still must be voted on in the House of Representatives and the Senate/House differences resolved in conference committee. With only 23 legislative days scheduled in the House between now and the general election it is unlikely passage will occur. Simply extending the current (2008) farm bill (with the current cotton subsidies) for a period of time is not out of the question.

The Memorandum of Understanding does have provisions for cancellation but nothing that links it to the expiration of the farm bill on September 30, 2012. Presumably the payments to Brazil will continue even though the subsidies will have expired on 30 September 2012.

How can our leadership reduce the program that feeds low-income families while paying off Brazil so the government can subsidize US cotton farmers? Huh?

You can find your Representative or Senator here.

My spouse and I own a small business selling her oil on canvas fine art. In addition to area galleries her work is sold through our website and Yessy. That is preface to a our being a target of a new, to us, scam. If you market and sell on the web please be advised. I did not make any corrections to the email text we received. Here’s the story:

The first email is from Doris Howard inquiring about the creative works she saw on the web. “i will like you to get back with more details if they are still available for purchase.”

Bright Art response. Yes they are available and the prices are 750 and 425 for a total of US $1175. Suggest you use Yessy unless you are near Portland. Please call if you have any questions.

Doris Howard by email: “I will like to proceed with the purchase of both pieces. Can you pls confirm the actual size of the two pieces so i can know how best to proceed.

Bright Art response. Provides sizes and background on the two paintings.

Doris Howard by email: “Yes, i will like to proceed with the purchase of both works.” “I am presently away in Cancun for my twin sister’s wedding even though it comes at a time when i was preparing for a big move and also expecting a baby . . . I should be back in a few days.” “Meanwhile, i will like you to forward your mailing address and phone number so i can inform my husband still shutling between our home in New Jersey and London on where to forward the payment. He has just been transfer to head the IT section of their head Office in London.” “I can also forward your contact info to the local cartage company that will be moving all our house decors so they can get in touch with you to arrange shipping details. They can arrange FedEx pick up of the artworks from your studio.”

Bright Art response. Congratulations on the new baby. Provides address and telephone number. “Please send the check for $1175 made out to Bright Art. Once it clears, you can have FedEx pick up the paintings.

Doris Howard by email: “I am very sorry that i couldn’t get in touch immediately. I was hospitalized in Cancun immediately after my twin sister’s wedding. I almost had miscarriage but thank God, i am now feeling better and can’t wait to have my baby and settle down.” “I am not sure if my husband has been able to forward the payment to your address. I will check with him and get back to you tomorrow morning.” “i have forwarded you contact info to the Moving agency that will be handling the shipment of all our house decors.”

Bright Art response. “I am so sorry that you were in the hospital! I am very glad that you and the baby are going to be fine. I will be looking for your husband’s letter . . . .”

Doris Howard by email: “. . . Thanks so much for your patient regarding the transaction. . . . Anyway, i will like to inform you that the payment was sent by my husband’s assistant on Friday via Royalmail and he was advise that you will receive it early this week . . . .” “I will also like you to have our address, you can add it to your mailing list. I will like to hear about your future works and art shows. Our address in Newark is 215 Walnut Street, Newark NJ 07105. “While our new address in UK is 68b, Bryantwood Road Holloway, London, N7 7BE UK.” “Meanwhile, i sent your contact info to the Moving agency . . . .”

Bright Art response. “That is great! I will inform you of my receipt as soon as it arrives.”

Doris Howard by email: “Sounds good. I will look forward to hearing from you soon.”

David Jones by email: “I have received communication from Mrs.Doris Howard that we should work with you to ship some artworks with her other house decors to her new house in London, UK  when you two are through with the transaction,as she advise. I will like you to get back with the kind and nature of the things she want to ship.I will like to have your studio address ,so i can make arrangement  with any nearby Agent  that will be coming for the pick up  once you and Mrs.Howard are through with the transactions. Thanks. I will appreciate your earlier reply. Regards, David Jones. Dav Movers and Logistics  INC. B12, THE BUSINESS CENTRE davmoverslogistics@yahoo.com T:0870 863 9866 F:0870 863 9867″

This is the tipping point where even I became suspicious, not because of the atrocious language, but I noticed the strange country code in the telephone number. Google revealed the phone numbers to be in South Africa. That lead to an expanded search which revealed Doris Howard had pulled this scam on others down to the use of the same language, typos, and stories. It gets better.

A few days after we ceased communication with Doris Howard we received a Priority Mail document envelope. Inside, with no other paperwork, a check from East Coast Graphics Inc., drawn on Chase Bank, 90 Hackensack Street, East Rutherford, NJ 07073 for $3,700.00. Remember the deal was for $1175. The scam is for us to deposit the check (which is phony) and Doris Howard will soon be in touch apologizing for the error in the amount and will we please send her the difference (using a Bright Art non-phony check or bank wire transfer). Soon after that our financial institution would let us know the East Coast Graphics check will not clear.

Remember the Priority Mail envelope? The label was printed from a US Postal Service account and the return address was University of Central Florida College of Medicine in Orlando, Florida. Doris gets around.

We report the scam to local law enforcement. The police did not take a report but genuinely tried to appear interested. The police officer did note the quality of the East Coast Graphics check was pretty good. We made a report to the Postal Inspection Service at the online site. Finally, I called the campus police at the University of Central Florida and let them know someone was using their account. Yes they were aware, it had happened before but they know it was not an employee of UCF. They were not interested in taking a report or looking at the label. None of my business but if someone was hacking my Postal Service account I’d close the account and open another.

That’s the story. I hope Doris doesn’t contact you but if she does . . . .

The Fourth of July in the US brought a few media reports of injury due to falling bullets; bullets fired into the air in celebration. I cringe when I see the television reports of fighters blasting away at the sky in celebration – it is a waste of resources and shows a disregard for the safety of others. These bullets do return to earth, sometimes miles away, but they do return. For example, at the end of the Gulf War 20 persons in Kuwait were killed by falling bullets.

As I researched this post I was surprised to find there is a group of people who do not believe bullets fired vertically into the sky are lethal when they strike someone in the fall back to earth. The position is once the bullet has reached the highest point or apogee it has expended all its energy. It starts its fall back to earth with zero energy and does not reach a lethal velocity in its fall. Science belies this. Case studies report that a velocity of between 148 and 197 feet per second will penetrate the skin; falling bullets reach a velocity of about 600 feet per second. The actual speed of a falling bullet is influenced by weight, mass, and wind resistance. Depending on wind at altitude a falling bullet may travel some distance laterally before returning to earth. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, on this one mine is I’ll not be volunteering to test the non-lethal theory.

Falling bullets have become such a public health problem the World Health Organization has a classification for it called celebratory gunshot injuries. One study of the issue (and as far as I can tell the only one) is from the New Year celebration period 2003-2004 in Puerto Rico. The report identified 18 instances of celebratory gunfire injuries and one death from a head injury. Most injuries were to the head followed by the foot then the shoulder. Eighteen of the 19 injuries occurred in San Juan and most, 12, were male. The report recommended stronger law enforcement, a public information/education initiative, and that residents remain indoors from 6  p.m. on New Year’s Eve to 2 a.m. on New Year’s Day. There are no published follow on reports.

In Jordan, 2 people were killed and 13 injured by falling bullets at the announcement of the 2010 high school final test results. It does not take much research to find anecdotal and individual reports of people being injured or killed by falling bullets but more general information such as regional or national statistics are generally not available. I contacted the US National Center for Health Statistics and although their statistics are extensive on deaths and injuries the staff was unable to provide any information on injuries or fatalities from falling bullets.

This topic is a bit baffling. Every injury or fatality is totally preventable unlike an accidental shooting while hunting or a faulty weapon. All the shooter has to do to prevent the death or injury of a likely complete stranger is to not shoot into the air. We all need to work with law enforcement to prevent these senseless injuries and deaths. Also, the parents of a 12-year-old Florida boy who was struck and severely injured by a falling bullet have begun a campaign to stop this gunfire. Their web site is bulletfreesky.com.