Since so much of what we do in standards setting is built upon a foundation of a shared understanding and agreement of the meaning of words (no less so than in technical standard setting) that time is well spent reflecting upon the origin of the nouns and verbs of that we use every day. Best practice cannot be discovered, much less promulgated, without its understanding secured with common language.
Introduction. [Abstract]. The rapid growth of data centers, with their enormous energy and water demands, necessitates targeted policy interventions to mitigate environmental impacts and protect local communities. To address these issues, states with existing data center tax breaks should adopt sustainable growth policies for data centers, mandating energy audits, strict performance standards, and renewable energy integration, while also requiring transparency in energy usage reporting. “Renewable energy additionality” clauses should ensure data centers contribute to new renewable capacity rather than relying on existing resources. If these measures prove insufficient, states should consider repealing tax breaks to slow unsustainable data center growth. States without tax breaks should avoid such incentives altogether while simultaneously implementing mandatory reporting requirements to hold data centers accountable for their environmental impact. Broader measures should include protecting local tax revenues for schools, regulating utility rate hikes to prevent cost-shifting to consumers, and aligning data center energy demands with state climate goals to avoid prolonging reliance on fossil fuels.
Overdoor, France, ca. 1825; | Smithsonian Design Museum
Education communities have significant food safety responsibilities. Risk gets pushed around global food service counterparties; a drama in itself and one that requires coverage in a separate blog post.*
Since 2013 we have been following the development of food safety standards; among them ANSI/NSF 2: Food Equipment one of a constellation of NSF food safety titles whose provisions cover bakery, cafeteria, kitchen, and pantry units and other food handling and processing equipment such as tables and components, counters, hoods, shelves, and sinks. The purpose of this Standard is to establish minimum food protection and sanitation requirements for the materials, design, fabrication, construction, and performance of food handling and processing equipment.
It is a relatively stable standard; developed to support conformance revenue for products. A new landing page seems to have emerged in recent months:
Not trivial agendas with concepts that cut across several disciplines involving product manufacture, installation, operation and maintenance. We find a very strong influence of organizations such as Aramark and Sodexo. More on that in a separate post.
This committee – along with several other joint committees –meets frequently online. If you wish to participate, and receive access to documents that explain the scope and scale of NSF food safety standards, please contact Allan Rose, (734) 827-3817, arose@nsf.org. NSF International welcomes guests/observers to nearly all of its standards-setting technical committees. We expect another online meeting hosted by this committee any day now.
Keep in mind that all NSF International titles are on the standing agenda of our Nourriture (Food) colloquia; open to everyone. See our CALENDAR for the next meeting.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
💉✨ Choose your pathway to nursing success! Davenport’s BSN program offers flexible admission options, no waitlists, and three years of hands-on learning. Apply now! https://t.co/nJB6eNMhBs
The Finnish presence in Northern Michigan stems from mass immigration during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Between 1870 and 1929, over 350,000 Finns arrived in the U.S., with Michigan drawing about 40% due to its copper and iron mines, lumber mills, and farms.
Recruited from Norway’s mines starting in 1864, they settled in towns like Hancock, Calumet, Ishpeming, and Ironwood, drawn by the region’s harsh winters, long summer days, and forested terrain mirroring Finland’s.
By 1930, nearly 75,000 Finnish descendants lived there, forming the largest ethnic group in five northwestern UP counties (35% Finnish heritage per recent census). They built saunas, cooperatives, and Lutheran churches, including the Suomi Synod (1890) and Finlandia University (1896, since closed).
Cultural festivals like Heikinpäivä and pasties (adapted from Cornish miners) endure, sustaining a “Sauna Belt” legacy amid mining booms that rivaled California’s Gold Rush.
Abstract: One of the most common questions in the early stages of designing a new facility is whether the normal utility supply to a fire pump is reliable enough to “tap ahead of the main” or whether the fire pump supply is so unreliable that it must have an emergency power source, typically an on-site generator. Apart from the obligation to meet life safety objectives, it is not uncommon that capital on the order of 100000to1 million is at stake for a fire pump backup source. Until now, that decision has only been answered with intuition – using a combination of utility outage history and anecdotes about what has worked before. There are processes for making the decision about whether a facility needs a second source of power using quantitative analysis. Fault tree analysis and reliability block diagram are two quantitative methods used in reliability engineering for assessing risk. This paper will use a simple one line for the power to a fire pump to show how each of these techniques can be used to calculate the reliability of electric power to a fire pump. This paper will also discuss the strengths and weakness of the two methods. The hope is that these methods will begin tracking in the National Fire Protection Association documents that deal with fire pump power sources and can be used as another tool to inform design engineers and authorities having jurisdiction about public safety and property protection. These methods will enlighten decisions about the relative cost of risk control with quantitative information about the incremental cost of additional 9’s of operational availability.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
