Searching \ for '[OT] Risk vs. Danger and Rewards' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=risk+danger+rewards
Search entire site for: 'Risk vs. Danger and Rewards'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Risk vs. Danger and Rewards'
2007\09\09@104644 by peter green

flavicon
face

>
> BTW, the Instrument rating is the best Life Insurance you can get...
>  
Out of interest what is a pilot who is not instrument rated supposed to
do if weather conditions change in a way that makes visual flying
impossible?

2007\09\09@112843 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 15:46 +0100, peter green wrote:
> >
> > BTW, the Instrument rating is the best Life Insurance you can get...
> >  
> Out of interest what is a pilot who is not instrument rated supposed to
> do if weather conditions change in a way that makes visual flying
> impossible?

Land at the earliest place possible? TTYL

2007\09\09@123741 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Sep 9, 2007, at 8:46 AM, peter green wrote:

> Out of interest what is a pilot who is not instrument rated  
> supposed to
> do if weather conditions change in a way that makes visual flying
> impossible?

Even non-Instrument rated pilots are trained (and tested) for very  
basic Instrument flying skills.

The FAA Private Pilot Practical Test Standards require an instructor  
teach, and that the Designated Examiner or FAA Check Airman test  
Airplane Single-Engine Land and Airplane Multi-Engine Land applicants  
(Glider/Sailplane ONLY pilots are not required to be tested on  
Instrument tasks) on the following:

Basic Instrument Maneuvers:
A. Task: Straight and Level Flight
B. Task: Constant Airspeed Climbs
C. Task: Constant Airspeed Descents
D. Task: Turns to Headings
E. Task: Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes
F. Task: Radio Communications, Navigation Systems/Facilities, and  
Radar Services

Basically the most common "escape" maneuver if someone were to  
accidentally find themselves in low overcast (lower than forecast and  
dropping faster than you realized), clouds, or other weather  
phenomena -- is to execute a 180 degree turn, fly back in the  
direction from which you came, assuming that you flew into it from  
good VFR (Visual Flight Rules) weather.  If you still find yourself  
in a pickle (a pilot forgetting about San Francisco's fog, or not  
from that area might be a -- well, bad -- example, but you get the  
idea... someone who genuinely made a mistake), other common tactics  
are to climb out of the cloud layer to get "on-top" and then declare  
an emergency.  Depending on fuel on-board, you might just have a long  
flight to the "edge" of the weather and back down safely to an airport.

Scud-running (where the weather is cruddy everywhere along your  
proposed route of flight) is downright deadly for non-Instrument  
rated pilots and must be avoided, if you feel like living to a ripe  
old age.

There are also the "hero" reports of military and other commercial  
pilots having a non-Instrument pilot (usually in a non-Instrument  
rated aircraft, without the proper equipment to shoot an approach in  
weather), "leading" the other aircraft down by flying in formation --  
but this is rare, and pretty damn risky in that formation flying  
inside clouds is generally a great way to lower your lifespan unless  
you have been trained in it.  Desperate measures for desperate days,  
I imagine -- is the reason this has been done before, but almost no  
pilot you would talk to would ever recommend such a maneuver.

I have experienced the "180 degree turn" once.  Flying in northern  
Texas, the flat stratus layer above me suddenly became a wall just  
south of College Station, TX.  It was a non-event, but my wife was  
with me and she joked that I got real quiet for the 1 minute turn  
(turns in IMC are typically done at 3 degrees per second) and the  
minute or so to fly back out of it.   I decided the prudent course  
(having flight planned the flight from Houston to Denver carefully)  
was that since the stratus layer was forecast to "burn off" later in  
the morning, we'd land at the closest airport, close the flight plan  
we were currently on, re-file for 2 hours later, and grab a drink of  
water, read a book, see the sights... (heh)... at the closest public  
airport.  Picked one off the chart, headed over, and landed... waited  
a couple of hours, and away we went...

--
Nate Duehr
spam_OUTnateTakeThisOuTspamnatetech.com



2007\09\09@173429 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> > BTW, the Instrument rating is the best Life Insurance you can
>> > get...

>> Out of interest what is a pilot who is not instrument rated
>> supposed to
>> do if weather conditions change in a way that makes visual flying
>> impossible?

> Land at the earliest place possible? TTYL

WWIK?, but I think it's actually, "Have already landed at the earliest
place possible".
This avoids the "subsequently landing at a later place impossible".


       Russell


2007\09\09@175413 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Basically the most common "escape" maneuver if someone were to
> accidentally find themselves in low overcast (lower than forecast
> and
> dropping faster than you realized), clouds, or other weather
> phenomena -- is to execute a 180 degree turn, fly back in the
> direction from which you came,

Our country's geography  seems to be less forgiving than some. Not
very wide from sea to shining sea (20 to 100 miles), hilly in most
places, weather can change rapidly. We lose a small trickle of
aircraft that try to fly through when the experts say retrospectively
that they should have turned back. We lose a smaller trickle of small
commercial light aircraft into our remote wilderness hillsides where
the experts often say that better options were available.

Which just reminded me about Steve Fossett. I see he's now been
missing for a week and had failed to file a flight plan :-( for the
"routine 3 hour flight".  Steve comes down here most years of late
trying for a world duration glider record which so far has evaded him
AFAIR. Hopefully he''ll be back here trying again next year, but it
doesn't sound hopeful.

       http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5grqV2chemSs6DwbnqO5QIaHTKoBg


           Russell.


2007\09\09@180638 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Which just reminded me about Steve Fossett. I see he's now been
> missing for a week and had failed to file a flight plan :-( for the
> "routine 3 hour flight".

Anyone who watched Gilligan's Island would know the dangers of a three
hour tour!  :)

>  Steve comes down here most years of late
> trying for a world duration glider record which so far has evaded him
> AFAIR. Hopefully he''ll be back here trying again next year, but it
> doesn't sound hopeful.

Yeah, it's looking pretty unlikely that he'll be found alive at this point.
Even if he had an intact plane, and was uninjured, just hanging out
for a week in nevada in the summer is a bit of a problem.

2007\09\09@185552 by Jinx

face picon face
> Anyone who watched Gilligan's Island would know the dangers
> of a three hour tour!  :)

You'd wonder why the locator beacon wasn't activated, either by
the landing or Fossett

Maybe it broke and he can't find a coconut to make another one

2007\09\12@080728 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Peter,

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:46:35 +0100, peter green wrote:

> Out of interest what is a pilot who is not instrument rated supposed to
> do if weather conditions change in a way that makes visual flying
> impossible?

A "one-eighty" - one of the things they teach you when learning to fly is that "pressing on" is one of the biggest killers of non intrument-rated pilots, and that the
life-expectancy of a VFR pilot finding themselves in zero visibility is a very small number of minutes.

In the UK it's said that the Instrument Rating is much harder to get and keep than other contries', and only really justifiable for commercial pilots, but we have a
watered-down thing called the "IMC rating", but for practical purposes it's only to teach you to get out of trouble (you can fly above cloud for example, which a
VFR pilot can't) - you wouldn't fly into cloud deliberately, and it doesn't allow you to fly in IR-only airspace.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\09\12@083834 by SM Ling

picon face
>
> > Out of interest what is a pilot who is not instrument rated supposed to
> > do if weather conditions change in a way that makes visual flying
> > impossible?
>
>
Slight OT on this OT.

Something I observe that really make the West excel in technology is "play"
and "fun" is a serious pass time, and occupies a position that serious time
are invested and life is risk to play.  In the process, many tools and
technology are created.

Where, in the East Asia, the emphasis seems to be on food.  Yes, life is too
risk to try and to taste all kinds of food.  Certain time of the year, and
year after year, some will be choked to death by rice-cake, and others
poisoned by ill-prepared poisonous fishes, etc etc

Is it true that many people from the West cannot tell the difference between
Coke and Pepsi ?  (Observation made by Panasonic founder)

Cheers,
Ling SM

2007\09\12@084142 by SM Ling

picon face
>
> > Out of interest what is a pilot who is not instrument rated supposed to
> > do if weather conditions change in a way that makes visual flying
> > impossible?




Slight OT on this OT.

Something I observe that really make the West excel in technology is "play"
and "fun" is a serious pass time, and occupies a position that serious time
are invested and life is risk to play.  In the process, many tools and
technology are created.

Where, in the East Asia, life revolves around food.  Yes, life is too risk
to try and to taste all kinds of food.  Certain time of the year, and year
after year, some will be choked to death by rice-cake, and others poisoned
by ill-prepared poisonous fishes, etc etc

Is it true that many people from the West cannot tell the difference between
Coke and Pepsi ?  (Observation made by Panasonic founder)

Cheers,
Ling SM

2007\09\12@092235 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Is it true that many people from the West cannot tell the difference
> between
> Coke and Pepsi ?  (Observation made by Panasonic founder)

It may be a matter of "can't be bothered distinguishing" rather than
"can't". I'd imagine that most people could if put severely enough to
the test. But many are undiscerning in such matters.

Many people think that you can drink beverages sweetened with
aspartame and still be drinking Coca Cola or Pepsi. Even the brand
owners think that you should think so. They can like it or prefer it
if they wish, but it ain't Coke!!!

Interestingly, real Coke and real Pepsi have about the same amount of
caffeine per volume, but Coke is *effectively* more highly caffeinated
according to my blood brain barrier. I suspect that this indicates
that there is some other substance in one or the other which affects
caffeine effect in some manner.



       Russell

.

2007\09\12@110855 by SM Ling

picon face
> > Is it true that many people from the West cannot tell the difference
> > between
> > Coke and Pepsi ?  (Observation made by Panasonic founder)
>
> It may be a matter of "can't be bothered distinguishing" rather than
> "can't". I'd imagine that most people could if put severely enough to
> the test. But many are undiscerning in such matters.


Glad you catch it, I should have said "taste" than "tell".

>From what you describe, they are quite hard to differentiate, maybe to you
about point 8? (say point 1 is very easy to differentiate, 10 very hard).
For my tongue, I think the difference is about point 5.5.  My wife's,
probably at point 4.

Many people think that you can drink beverages sweetened with
> aspartame and still be drinking Coca Cola or Pepsi. Even the brand
> owners think that you should think so. They can like it or prefer it
> if they wish, but it ain't Coke!!!


In fact most of the other brands Cola taste totally horrible to me.

Interestingly, real Coke and real Pepsi have about the same amount of
> caffeine per volume, but Coke is *effectively* more highly caffeinated
> according to my blood brain barrier. I suspect that this indicates
> that there is some other substance in one or the other which affects
> caffeine effect in some manner.


Now you mention, I think both of them do affect my heartbeat and my
concentration quite a bit.

Ling SM

2007\09\12@122654 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Now you mention, I think both of them do affect my heartbeat
>and my concentration quite a bit.

Oh don't try Jolt Cola then .... ;))))

2007\09\12@123507 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Sep 12, 2007, at 5:38 AM, SM Ling wrote:

> Is it true that many people from the West cannot tell the difference
> between Coke and Pepsi ?  (Observation made by Panasonic founder)

Many people in the west do not find the difference between coke and
pepsi SIGNIFICANT and will consume either interchangeably.  That's not
quite the same as not being able to tell the difference; I suspect
most people could pick the "odd one out" from three glasses of cola.

Some of the lack of pickiness is that there are also differences
between fountain and canned and bottled sodas, and of course there
are another dozen or so varieties of "cola" that you might be
consuming so someone can save money.  So the score of possible colas
all fade into "tastes like cola", when compared to something like
(shudder) "big red."

BillW

2007\09\12@124520 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 5:38 AM, SM Ling wrote:
>
>>Is it true that many people from the West cannot tell the difference
>>between Coke and Pepsi ?  (Observation made by Panasonic founder)
>
> Many people in the west do not find the difference between coke and
> pepsi SIGNIFICANT and will consume either interchangeably.  That's not
> quite the same as not being able to tell the difference; I suspect
> most people could pick the "odd one out" from three glasses of cola.

in fact
IMO they're *quite* different!

(but we italians may have a special taste :)

--
Ciao, Dario
--
ADPM Synthesis sas - Torino
--
http://www.adpm.tk

2007\09\12@124551 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>
> Oh don't try Jolt Cola then .... ;))))


and what about Mecca Cola ??? :)

2007\09\12@130947 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Dario Greggio wrote:

> IMO they're *quite* different!
>
> (but we italians may have a special taste :)

It's also possible that they're more different in Europe than
they are in the US.  I recall on international airline flights
that I've occasionally had a soda marked in a foreign language
that tasted "weird."

For instance, one of the supposed parts of the "new coke"
fiasco was that High Fructose Corn Syrup replaced Sucrose
in (all varieties of) Coke.  My understanding is that different
countries have different policies WRT sugar imports that
may mean that they're still using sucrose...

(and... I find the difference between diet coke and diet pepsi
more significant than between the non-diet versions.)

BillW

2007\09\12@131723 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:45 +0200, Dario Greggio wrote:
> William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 2007, at 5:38 AM, SM Ling wrote:
> >
> >>Is it true that many people from the West cannot tell the difference
> >>between Coke and Pepsi ?  (Observation made by Panasonic founder)
> >
> > Many people in the west do not find the difference between coke and
> > pepsi SIGNIFICANT and will consume either interchangeably.  That's not
> > quite the same as not being able to tell the difference; I suspect
> > most people could pick the "odd one out" from three glasses of cola.
>
> in fact
> IMO they're *quite* different!
>
> (but we italians may have a special taste :)

Careful here: Coke doesn't taste the same everywhere in the world. I
know for a fact that European Coke tastes FAR different from Coke you
find in Canada (on a COMPLETELY unrelated note, I also find Petrol
smells much different in Europe then it does in North America...).

I'm not as certain with Pepsi, since it was really hard to find Pepsi in
the country I last visited (Austria), but my recollection was Pepsi also
tasted different. Also, HOW you get the coke changes the taste, Coke
from a can vs. Coke from a glass bottle vs. Coke from a plastic bottle
vs. Coke from a fountain all taste different. The fountain has the
biggest variation depending on how much they water it down.

As a side note: Back in my high school days Pepsi was running a
campaign: The Pepsi Taste Test. Basically they gave you two samples, and
you were supposed to state which one tasted better. One was always Coca
Cola, the other Pepsi. They were trying to prove Pepsi tasted better. It
wasn't scientifically done or anything, but you did get something for
taking the test.

To my taste buds Pepsi and Coke taste WAY different, so for fun I took
the test a few times and always purposely choose Coke! :) I guess I
skewed their numbers a little. Personally, I don't really prefer one
over the other all the time, sometimes I prefer the taste of one,
sometimes the other. For me though it's more about getting the caffeine,
I'm not a coffee or tea drinker so when I need a "boost" coke is where I
go.

TTYL

2007\09\12@151705 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
I think most bottlers (who are the people to decide whether to use
sugar or HFCS) had already gone to corn syrup before the "new coke"
thing, it's just that when Coke reverted to Classic, all of them
finally did.
Here in the US you can get "Mexican" coke with sugar instead of cane
syrup. It is sweeter. Also, I believe that pepsi uses both sugar AND
HFCS, which leads to it tasting sweeter than coke, also.
This, to me, is the main difference between the two.
- Marcel

On 9/12/07, William Chops Westfield <.....westfwKILLspamspam@spam@mac.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\09\12@182714 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>
> Oh don't try Jolt Cola then .... ;))))


and what about Mecca Cola ??? :)

2007\09\13@041724 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Oh don't try Jolt Cola then .... ;))))
>
>and what about Mecca Cola ??? :)

Oh, haven't heard about that one. Just know that Jolt is supposed to have
very high levels of caffeine ...

2007\09\13@085800 by Jeff Findley

flavicon
face

"Alan B. Pearce" <A.B.PearcespamKILLspamrl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:0f6001c7f5de$7c2f2dc0$.....1979f682KILLspamspam.....space.rl.ac.uk...
>>> Oh don't try Jolt Cola then .... ;))))
>>
>>and what about Mecca Cola ??? :)
>
> Oh, haven't heard about that one. Just know that Jolt is supposed to have
> very high levels of caffeine ...

Jolt is "old school".  It was around long before "energy drinks" became
extremely popular.  Today there are literally dozens of "energy drinks" out
there that have high levels of caffeine and other things in them.  Let's see
what Google finds...  Here we go:

http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/

Jolt Cola has 200 mg of caffeine, which is pretty high, but there are
several others in the above list that greatly exceed 200 mg.  Fixx has 500
mg of caffeine!

Jeff
--
   "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
    little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
    safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)



2007\09\13@094812 by Rolf

face picon face
Jeff Findley wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Hmmm... lies, lies, and statistics.....

While Fixx appears impressive in that database, it seems that coffee
(espresso) has a greater concentration.... (twice the concentration),
even though the average serving of espresso is about 1 tenth the average
serving of Fixx, it has 1 sixth of the caffeine.

Based on concentrations, the most 'powerful' caffeine jolts come from
either PowerShot (100mg in 30ml) or "Sky Rocket Caffeinated Syrup" also
with 100mg in 30ml.

Drinking a "Fixx" sized volume of either of the more concentrated
concoctions would give you just short of 2000mg!

I guess that makes 'Fixx' "Old School".... ;-)

As for me, I quit drinking Coffee a few years ago, I now drink tea
(brewed, imported)   ;-)

Rolf

2007\09\15@060050 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:09:44 -0700, William \"Chops\" Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Yes, there are certainly differences between colas around the world labelled the same, but there are also differences in product ranges.  We never had the "New
Coke".  We have Pepsi Max, which I don't believe exists over there -  it's somewhat like Coke Zero, but also comes with added flavours such as citrus and vanilla.  
The did have one called "Cino" which had a coffee flavour, and which was my favourite, so of course they discontinuied it!

> For instance, one of the supposed parts of the "new coke"
> fiasco was that High Fructose Corn Syrup replaced Sucrose
> in (all varieties of) Coke.  My understanding is that different
> countries have different policies WRT sugar imports that
> may mean that they're still using sucrose...

Are you saying that the US has restrictions on sugar imports?  I always thought the prevalence of Corn Syrup was due to lobbying by the maize farmers - you never
see it in anything over here.  I only drink the diet colas as I'm diabetic, but every other tin and bottle I've checked in my larder has sugar rather than anything else.

> (and... I find the difference between diet coke and diet pepsi
> more significant than between the non-diet versions.)

I drink mainly Diet Coke and Coke Zero, with the occasional Pepsi Max - I don't like Diet Pepsi.  For some reason in Costco Pepsi is significantly cheaper than Coke -
in retail outlets they're generally the same price.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\09\15@065051 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
Here are some articles/essays about american sugar tariffs.

www.americansugarbeet.org/secndTier.asp?bid=125
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127ta_talk_surowiecki

At least according to the new yorker article (which may by some be
considered to be ridiculously liberal), the impact of the sugar
tariffs is signficant.

I've also heard of this in the context of High Fructose Corn Syrup
being a "bad" sugar compared to cane sugar, and that the sugar tariffs
are indirectly contributing to the obesity issue. Here's a transcript
of a radio interview at ABC (Australia) that doesn't actually mention
sugar tariffs, but does point out that the timing of the obesity
epidemic (overstated or not) coincided with the introduction of HFCS
as a sweetener.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

Regards,
- Marcel

On 9/15/07, Howard Winter <@spam@HDRWKILLspamspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Are you saying that the US has restrictions on sugar imports?  I always thought the prevalence of Corn Syrup was due to lobbying by the maize farmers - you never
> see it in anything over here.  I only drink the diet colas as I'm diabetic, but every other tin and bottle I've checked in my larder has sugar rather than anything else.
>  [...snip...]
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
>

2007\09\15@073313 by Tony Smith

picon face
> I've also heard of this in the context of High Fructose Corn
> Syrup being a "bad" sugar compared to cane sugar, and that
> the sugar tariffs are indirectly contributing to the obesity
> issue. Here's a transcript of a radio interview at ABC
> (Australia) that doesn't actually mention sugar tariffs, but
> does point out that the timing of the obesity epidemic
> (overstated or not) coincided with the introduction of HFCS
> as a sweetener.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm


The problem with blaming (even partially) HFCS is that the rest of the
Western world (UK, Oz) has its fair share of lard-arses too, but here (Oz)
we don't use HFCS that much.  Sugar is the usual sweetner, although corn
syrup is used in some chocolates.

There was an article a while back (BBC?) that showed kids these days simply
don't travel as much as they did in the olden days.  So while it's common
for Dad to drive Junior to football practice these days, before he'd ride
his bike there.  The reasons for this change vary (suburban sprawl, pedo
dangers, etc), but it's only one of many possible 'causes'.

Let's blame society, works for everything else.

Tony

2007\09\15@092811 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
If one were tempted to even consider taking such articles with more
than a grain of, er, sugar, then looking at the funding sources of any
studies would possibly serve as a guide to the quality of the results.
While these may be expected to be independent variables there seems,
in the real world, to very often be a fascinating degree of no doubt
totally coincidental correlation between the $ interests of the funder
and the conclusions drawn.

> Here are some articles/essays about american sugar tariffs.
>
> www.americansugarbeet.org/secndTier.asp?bid=125
> http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127ta_talk_surowiecki

> I've also heard of this in the context of High Fructose Corn Syrup
> being a "bad" sugar compared to cane sugar,

It's conceivable that HFCS is bad wrt cane sugar but, if so, this
would be similar to saying, if comparing people murdered,  that Mao
was bad compared to Stalin.
In the case of the sugars, both are a source of highly concentrated
highly water soluble simple carbohydrates. Such things are great if
used appropriately but both liable to cause all the things you see
them cause if used the way you see them used.

> ... but does point out that the timing of the obesity
> epidemic (overstated or not) coincided with the introduction of HFCS
> as a sweetener.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

Yeah. Right.
I would be quietly amazed (but not at all surprised) if people who had
a look at the general trends in lifestyles (eating, exercise, ...)
from say about WW2 on needed experts of any sort at all to be sure of
what's causing the "epidemic".

An interesting correlation is the timing between the introduction of
"western" diets to indigenous largely local produce communities and
the notable ramping up of diabetes in their communities. About 30
years. Obviously varies with circumstance. No refs given - left as an
exercise for the student. (That http://www.goog....)

Another interesting "curve" is the availability of sugar in any form
to the general populace. Much prior to 1900 the main sources would
have been honey with some geographically limited botanical sweeteners
(eg Stevia in areas of South America, nectars generally). Availability
per capita in any population was generally minimal. Somewhere around
1900ish the curve climbs out of the noise and leaps exponentially to
many many many times the prior levels.

The novel "Robinson Crusoe" consists of AFAIR 2 stories (perhaps 3) of
which the first is generally widely known. The (an) other has him on a
ship which meets another which has suffered a disaster. Most aboard
are dead not AFAIR of lack of water but of starvation. The passengers
are a rich lady and her ?niece?. I think the woman dies soon after
rescue and the niece survives. Not the point - The lady owns a
substantial amount of cargo and this is taken from the ship along with
the lady by Crusoe while the remnant of the murderous crew are left to
their fate. All penny dreadful stuff. But what's the relevance here?
Her cargo was barrels of sugar! All aboard were dying of hunger while
many barrels of major fattener #1 lay in their hold. Defoe seems to
have missed this subtle point OR it was not generally realised that
the sweetener-treasure of the day was also a major food on its own
right.

Just gargoyled for the second part of the story. The above "sugar"
episode is not detailed here but it's probably in the "burning ship"
section mentioned in line 2, paragraph 2. A VERY wide ranging and
venturesome venture overall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Further_Adventures_of_Robinson_Crusoe

While I'm gaggling - some good stuff here

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar





       Russell


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...