Episode-2020- Expert Council Q&A for 6-9-17 — 13 Comments

  1. Thanks Nick for the great response! My peach and plum trees are doing fantastic, more than 2 feet of growth this year alone. I’d hate for my goats to murder them!

  2. Regarding the Ledger Nano S that Todd mentioned in the Crypto-currency portion of the podcast. I have been shopping for the Ledger Nano S hard wallet but cannot find it in the $58-68 price range. On Amazon, the Nano S is going for almost $250. I found a European site that sells it but indicates it’s on backorder. Do you know of other sources I can try to get the Nano S?

    • NM – Did a more extensive search and found some in the range Todd mentioned, though it looks like I’ll have to wait ’til around Sept to get it.

  3. Steven: Thank you for your answer to my question. I had already assumed my question did not make muster, but I’m happy to hear you answer it in the middle of summer. Next winter is coming for sure. I’ll take your advice and be ready for it.
    BTW, the reason I specified a solution independent of the car’s own battery is that I have had to deal with frozen up car batteries in the past, in which case they are useless. Sometimes a problem might face you when you return to your vehicle after a longer period in the cold, say after a winter hike, not just while driving.
    Thanks for your answer!

    • We’ve used rechargeable lithium ion 18650 batteries in headlamps and flashlights with amazing success in extreme temps. My husband and son like to do “cold weather camping” with scouts, and one year, it got down to 8 with a pretty significant wind chill. When everyone else’s lights were looking dim and sad, ours were running perfectly with the sort of brightness that you’d never get out of 3 AAAs in one of those “tactical” flashlights.

      While I’m sure the batteries that Steven recommended are awesome, if you’ve happened to start making the switch to the 18650s, rest assured that they’ll work better than the other battery chemistries in the cold.

      This also means that lithium ion charge packs for phones and the like work great if you charge them and leave them in a cold car. Your mileage may vary, of course. This is just our experience.

      • Agreed Sarah, when I go for my long snowshoe walks, 18650’s rule. We can get to -25c here. I managed to score some Orbtronic 3600 mah and they are great. I stay away from anything that ends in *fire. They are garbage. I’ve good luck with Panasonic’s and Tenergy. I have the Fenix headlamp that has a separate pack that doubles as a USB charger. as well as the Fenix E50 and PD30, and my best the awesome TK75

      • Sarah,

        Thank you for taking the time to post on the page with your personal experiences with the 18650’s and 14500 type batteries. Yes. 100%. The lithium-ion batteries are “GOOD” in cold weather. I have been all over the charts of the batteries for a long time and understand how they do not like the cold weather, or I should say, what happens to them when its cold. The straight lithium energizer battery has an actual sheet of lithium in it, that you can take out of the battery and un-roll into a long strip, and it will actually turn black and oxidize in front of your eyes. This makes the battery very very reactive and thus “INCREDIBLE” when it comes to cold weather performance.
        Here is a 1 minute video to show you the insides of an Energizer Lithium battery. Its interesting.

        If I was giving you advice, I’d tell you to do exactly what you are doing now. Use the lithium-ion batteries as much as you can, fully charged before you go and that if they started failing due to temperature then to switch over to a different headlamp / flashlight with the Energizer Lithium AA’s.

        I LOVE the 18650’s, and know they are the future of the battery market. What might become the standard is the 21700’s that the Tesla Gigafactory is going to produce.

        If you have any other questions or follow ups, please email me back. I’m here for you.


    • Claude. Thanks for commenting. I was happy to do your question. Sometimes I just really want a simple question to answer and last week was it. I have an entire PILE of questions to answer and I pick ones that I think will be the most relevant. Its not uncommon for me to put anywhere from 10 minutes to 4 hours of research to answer a question, because if I tell you something, and something that works, I want to be able to tell you where to get it. Sometimes I just have to verify my facts before going on, and there are a few times where I don’t know the answer and I need to research the science behind the question and come up with an answer that will WORK.

      Email me back with any questions any time Claude. I’m here for you always.

  4. Jack: about the organic vs. conventional. The background of the whole argument was revealed at minute 5:32 of the video: “I’m Björn Lomborg…”. Google him, and all of this will make sense. It’s his entire MO to be contrarian on environmental issues. He gained fame and notoriety in environmental circles as the author of “The sceptical environmentalist”. He does make some valid points. Check out his TED talk on the topic, it’s quicker than reading the book, and you get the gist of his views. You may even agree with some of them.

    What troubles me about him, is that he is an economist, with (apparently) relatively little understanding of natural sciences, yet he goes on pontificating about them. Unfortunately being contrarian out of principle only sometimes puts you on the better side of an argument, but not always. Contrarianism as a principle is also not scientific. I am an environmental scientist myself, with a bit of an idea about these issues and a PhD to my name, so I claim to know what I am talking about 😉

    Björn Lomborg IMHO looks at things from a lay-person’s perspective as far as natural science goes, and adds his expert perspective as an economist. That sometimes works out, like when he advocates in the Sceptical Environmentalist focusing less on CO2 emissions and more on what other problems we could solve with those resources. I personally agree with that, but I happen to disagree with where he would re-direct the resources.
    The noteworthy point, though, is that he reaches the right conclusion for the wrong reason, because he does not seem to grasp the actual science that would lead him to the right reason.

    As far as the organic debate goes, his argument is almost entirely BS and FUD. The rebuttal you read out is dead on, in my opinion. The problem comes from interpreting specific findings of scientific papers out of their usually very narrowly defined context and making generalizations based on that. I also know from some of my former colleagues who do research into food and agricultural issues, that are legitimate experts on some specific aspect of science, but lack the holistic perspective on the environment or agriculture for instance. They can come to conclusions that are totally scientifically sound, but when put into a larger perspective, make little sense. Or they may just take the conventional status quo as given and make arguments for instance about meat production taking vast amounts of water per kg of meat produced, without realizing that CAFOs are not the only way of producing meat. I could go on, but I already went long here.

    Anyway, I think this is mostly a publicity piece for Björn Lomborg. I didn’t google it, but it wouldn’t surprise me much to find out that he’s got a book out on the subject that needs selling.

  5. Good grief, Jack, that was one heck of an ending. Had me rollin’ 😀
    Now I want to make a margarita.

  6. all I can say is you owned me with that show and I will leave it at that! Thanks a ton for the rita instructions, I have been disappointed for years. I remember the cashasa from Rio, awesome (crushed lime and sugar cane alcohol)

  7. Just now catching up on shows…
    Regarding that org vs. non-org video, I had to stop everything I was doing to get on here and mash out how utterly ludicrous it was. Pure mental gymnastics BS. Argh!