systems in Britain (Ceefax and Oracle). The new services, variously called “videotex," "teletext,'^ and “viewdata" have been a major topic of interest in the informahon and communication industries. Major corporations, including IBM and AT&T, are jumping into the ballgame, particularly since the recent settlement with the Department of Justice which has freed AT&T to compete in the growing information delivery service field. Analysts have predicted a $15 billion market for videotex services alone by 1985; they have also predicted a $1 billion videotex industry in agriculture itself by the same year. A surprising number of agriculture computer projects are already up and running. The American Farm Bureau has pilot projects at the University of Kentucky and the University of Maryland which are in part supported by USDA. The Professional Farmers of America have a service called Instant Update. They also provide a data base called Agvision to Elanco Corporation customers who receive a videotex terminal when they buy 250 gallons of Treglan, a weed killer that Elanco markets. Firsthand is offered by the First Bank System of Minneapolis and is being tested with two hundred farm sites in North Dakota. Agnet provides information and electronic messaging to extension agents and other interested participants. Doan-Westem, which publishes Agricultural Computers, a periodical, is making it available on-line. One of the most ambitious projects is Grassroots, which uses the Telidon videotex system. The information service is presently being offered in Manitoba and to some farm sites in the San Joaquin Valley in California. Information is powerful, and the challenge of the new technology is to keep it flowing. If information and communications networks are open and accessible to all, we may eventually witness a durable and sensitive rural revival. □□ June 1982 RAIN Page 19 I've Looked At Codes From Both Sides Now by Tom Bender Building codes have glibly been made the scapegoat for housing problems by developers and owner-builders alike. A different story has emerged, however, as I have explored the energetics and economics of housing over the last ten years, and worked with codes and construction as an owner-builder and as an architect. To learn more, last year I took a job as a part-time building inspector. It has given me a chance to look more thoroughly at housing construction and codes in operation. I've had to deal with builder's and homeowner's constant code questions as well as my own. I've gotten an inside view of the people responsible for code wrihng and enforcement, and the good and bad of developers, contractors and owner-builders. I've probably asked them more queshons than they have asked me. I've also seen the side of building that many people don't — the effects of inadequate foundations, roofs ripped off by high winds, houses ripped apart for expensive repair of rot and termite damage, and houses pushed into the ocean by landslides. My present feeling — still open to challenge — is that most codes and code requirements are pretty reasonable, and worth the hassle in 99% of the cases. Here's why. The reasons for many code requirements are not obvious in everyday living. Houses have to be designed for extreme as well as everyday condiHons. Clearance requirements for woodstove installahons, for example, may seem excessive. You might feel differently, however, if you've ever had a chimney fire, or have ever gone into your kitchen for a couple of minutes and returned to find a visitor has unwittingly filled your woodstove with pitch logs. Having to sit up until three in the morning with all doors and windows wide open and a stove so hot you can't get within six feet of it makes you think differently about adequate clearance to combustibles. Similarly, code-built houses are unquestionably overbuilt. They're not designed for the one 95 lb. macrobiotic Zen student living there this week, but for the oddball (there's a lot of us) with several tons of friends, books, antique cannons or waterbeds who may be the next occupant. They're also designed for the considerable abuse that most houses have to take over their lifetimes — accidental or purposeful construction errors, hacking up by plumbers, weekend remodelers or termites, and nudging by bad drivers. Real-life strength requirements are very different from laboratory theories. Codes have major benefits to a community. Many code requirements, such as for foundahons, have improved housing durability significantly and reduced the far more expensive periodic repair and replacement necessitated by less farsighted construction. Flousing durability is by far the most important element in the economic costs of housing. A house lasting 400 years (not unreasonable), rather than 80 years, reduces the economic cost per year by 80%. Fire and life safety requirements also help prevent the premature loss of buildings as well as reducing emotional and economic losses resulhng from fires. Codes protect owners against unscrupulous or incompetent builders. They give builders equal performance specifications to bid against, and are a good source for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz