Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw (Michael Turton)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 23:36:28 GMT
In article <56d2l3$k1q@agate.berkeley.edu>,
atanu@are.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Dey) wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
>: Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
>
>: [argument with set of figures leaving out 1995 omitted]
>
>: : As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
>: : world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use
of
>: : modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
>: : double world food production. All without an additional acre being
farmed,
>: : though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the
decline
>: : for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
>
>: You are welcome to calculate the increase of the crude oil drawdown rate
>: if the rest of the world farms the way the US does.
>
Define "efficiency" please? Is using heavily subsidized oil and
water to increase yields "efficient?" As Arnold Pacey points out in _The
Culture of Technology_, from the yield/hectare standpoint capital-intensive
farming is more "efficient," but from the energy input/yield standpoint,
low-tech, labor intensive farming is more efficient, many times more, in fact.
There are no grounds for choosing either as a measure of efficiency,
efficiency is a social or ideological value, not a scientific one.
(Of course, the above does not take into account the massive subsidies the oil
industry gets. If you look in _Federal Energy Subsidies: 1992_, put out by the
EIA of the US Energy Dept., you'll find that the oil indusrty as a whole has
paid no net taxes every year since WWI, when the drilling credits were
passed, according to a CBO study cited in the aforementioned tome.)
Mike
Subject: Re: Greens harm the environment
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 23:08:28 GMT
In article <01bbd05d$74277720$89d0d6cc@masher>,
"Mike Asher" wrote:
>"WASHINGTON -- Inserting a gene into the cotton plant may
allow farmers to
>grow a fiber that is wrinkle-free and as warm as wool,
researchers report.
>"
> - AP, November 11, 1996
>
>This is interesting, as a followup to my post discussing
the environmental
>damage caused by environmentalists paranoia on genetic
engineering.
>
>This new form of cotton has the capability to wear longer
(reducing
>demand), replace wool (reduce sheep populations in favor of
less damaging
>cotton plants) and require less washing/drying/ironing
(saves water and
>energy). This technology is currently being fought by
many major
>environmental organizations.
>
>Other genetically-improved plants have the ability to
vastly increase
>foodstocks and lower our dependence on chemical fertilizers
and pesticides.
> Again, introduction of these new species are being held
up. Truly, fear
>and superstition are dangerous forces.
>
In addition to being afraid and superstitious, I have noted
that most environmentalists are pessimists. With this
combination of personality traits, is it any wonder that
they are often irrational?
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: robk@hal.COM (Robert Kleinschmidt)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 13:37:06 -0800
In article <56cli6$b34@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>I want to encourage the Chicken Little folks to recognise the dangers
>built into the "simple" technologies they advocate. Somehow they keep
>forgeting the ambulance and the emergency room built into their way of
>doing things.
Except that people are already up on their roofs for lots of other things
already, including shingling, gutter work, chimneys and TV antennas. The
extra trips required for solar would seem like a very small blip in the
statistics.
A long time ago, I did in fact take a fall from a one story roof, and
while I would not care to repeat this experience, I was uninjured.
At the time, I was installing a wood stove, so I guess this would
count as an alternative energy, but most trips to the roof involve
very mundane things that have nothing to do with my solar panels.
Most important precautions would probably be rubber soles, well secured
ladder and a method of moving materials to and from the roof without
carrying them up the ladder. Compared to really dangerous stuff such
as driving a car and occasionally riding a bicycle though, this really
seems like small potatoes, and any risk assumed is purely voluntary.
> -dlj.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 23:08:34 GMT
In article <328b127a.391191002@news.primenet.com>,
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Nov 96 05:39:16 GMT, charliew@hal-pc.org
(charliew) wrote:
>
>
>>I would have liked to see you be a bit more specific in
(1).
>>Since different people have different personal beliefs and
>>morals (as evidenced by any debate in this newsgroup), who
>>decides what moral behavior is?
>
>This is where it is useful to go into the moral and
religious
>literature of western civilization. The morality can be
considered
>either a religious mandate, or a societal evolution. I
believe it is
>both. Up until recently, there was an american identity
which included
>certain moral values, regardless of what institutions those
americans
>were involved with.
>
>With the arrogant, nihilistic and hedonistic values
"revolution" of
>the last 30 years, we have had people suddenly feeling free
to make up
>their own morals. The result is the screwed up and
degenerate society
>we have today.
>
Amen to that! I am presently trying to raise two daughters
(ages 5 and 2.5 years). Believe me, I am not too optimistic
about the kind of society and world they are growing up in.
Nevertheless, I intend to hold them responsible for their
own actions, even if the rest of the world is going totally
crazy.
By the time my kids are brainwashed about how terroristic it
is to kill plants and animals (even if it is to eat them),
and they are told how manipulative coporations and
capitalistic economic systems are, I imagine that I will
start looking to them like I am pretty much out of touch
with reality.
Have a nice day.
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: "Manus J. Cooney"
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 19:37:32 -0500
Bob Bruhns wrote:
>
> B. Alan Guthrie (zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com) wrote:
> : Please explain to me the gross negligence which occurred at
> : Three-Mile Island, Unit 2, on the morning of March 28, 1979.
> : I have asked you this question before, but you have not responded.
>
> Sorry, somehow I must have missed your question.
>
> Actually, the gross negligence occured BEFORE the disaster. My
> recollection was wrong, about the details of the TMI event, as I
> was surprised to discover recently. In fact I'm surprised nobody put
> the record straight. It was NOT bungling by the on-duty operators as
> I had believed. BUT IT WAS EVEN WORSE, it was a huge failure of
> nuclear plant safety, from the designers down to the plant managers.
>
> It seems there were some leaky valves that the TMI management
> decided not to fix, but only to work around. This caused certain
> pipe temperatures to be high, and that added to the confusion when
> trouble began. But the big problem was inadequate remote metering.
> Because one pressure guage failed, the operating engineers were
> completely deceived. And another major negligence was that the
> plant designers had not answered the question, which had been asked
> BUT NOT FOLLOWED UP, of when to add emergency coolant and when NOT to
> do so. (SOMEBODY should have followed up on THAT, with any force
> necessary, I think.) And, some unknown person or persons had shut the
> valves to certain flow pipes, which was not known, and should NEVER
> have happened without the knowledge of plant operations, and this
> contributed to the disaster too. And I have to wonder about the
> attention to maintenance, because several valves and controls did not
> work as they should have, and this contributed to the disaster as
> well.
>
> Evidently, there are circumstances in such a reactor design when a
> high pressure/high temperature condition should NOT be addressed by
> adding coolant, because of some steam blocking effect, I think. Of
> course, usually the coolant would be the common-sense choice. But the
> designers had not addressed an old question about WHEN to add, and when
> NOT to add more coolant, and plant management had not pressed the issue
> as they certainly should have.
>
> Bad directions were in place, and THIS caused the operators to fail
> to add coolant, when it might still have headed off the meltdown.
>
> When the reactor acted up, the on-duty engineers and the operation
> computer did not know about certain shut-off valves, temperature
> readings were misleading, several emergency valves did not work, one
> critical pressure guage was completely malfunctioning, etc. Because
> of the sequence of events, and their speed, it would not have been
> possible to send people to manually examine valves, etc, once the
> event was in progress, because of the extremely hazardous conditions
> that deveolped so quickly. The on-duty operators did absolutely
> everything they could, but the bad procedures and bad information
> and plain bad luck defeated their best effort, and the meltdown was
> the result.
>
> The designers and the plant managers did not consider safe operation
> to be very important. Probably they thought that there was so much
> safety and redundancy in the system that nothing could go wrong. Many
> people in this thread express similar complacency. But we know what
> happened. And it could happen again, and again, and again,
> regulations or no, if complacency is permitted past security in
> nuclear plants.
>
> So I'm sorry if my prattling on about safety is not taken well in
> certain quarters, but this is where I'm coming from. Where nuclear
> meltdowns are possible, I don't want to hear talk about how safe it
> is, period. Disaster always follows. The Titanic, TMI, etc, etc.
> In fact it looks to me as though the Chernobyl disaster happened
> because some abusive bureaucrat decided to prove how "safe" their
> reactor was, in order to preserve his job. Only, of course, he blew
> it, bigtime. Is it really surprising?
>
> Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
You should know that the oncoming shift supervisor on arriving in the
TMI control room correctly diagnosed the problem within a relatively
short time(<30 minutes). Had this been done by the operating shift at
the time of first upset the situation would have been little known. Your
posting is filled with technical words directed toward establishing
creditability. True is, and I'm sorry to say, a highly competent and
well trained shift should have correctly figured the problem out and
taken the corrective action. It is always fashionable to try to "up" the
cause - in this case to the level of the entire industry. Prosit M.J.
Cooney
PS: Do you remember the bubble? the helpfull NRC involvement/actions-the
decisiveness Of the experts from Wash and region.(here to help you)?,
The contribution to hysteria caused be press and government press
releases, the gathering of the press(dozens from the Inquirer
alone)(gotta sell papers). Hell, man, the team that came up from Duke
likely did more good than all the others combined. MJC
The Chernobyl acccident resulted from a humaan failure to stop a test
program when there wasn't sufficient time. Fear to tell the boss "I
can't do the job". In this case the job was to conduct a test that was
supposed to have been run at plant startup years before. A test to
prove ability to use stored energy of rotating machine for some initial
cooling on forced shutdown without electric power - pending start of
standby power. A thorough analysis of conditions - plant operating
many, many years in safe manner coupled with a most likely attitude that
wouldn't change anything (spend money) if the test proved anything
different than expected because of the many years of safe operation
should have cancelled the test. I recommend you take a course in risk
analysis and discussion on safety. Stop harping on Chernobyl and TMI and
start to build something. Incidently, what's you thought relating to
the terrible air crash in India-yesterday. Do you want to stop all air
flight? MJC
-
"NUCLEAR POWER is safe, clean and cost competitive and widely
misunderstood."
Subject: Re: hunting sweden
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:36:12 -0800
On 13 Nov 1996, Mike Asher wrote:
> Stephen Best wrote:
> > "Marcus Agua" wrote:
> > >I've seen wolves with my own eyes; Ted Turner is raising Buffalo, and--
> > >passengers aside-- most major cities are far from short on pigeons.
> >
> > Just because there is a remnant population of buffalo or a handful of
> > wolves doesn't mean the animal is not for all intents and purposes
> > extinct in relationship to the environment.
> >
> > .. all
> > species live in, are dependent upon, and depended on by a whole
> > community of organisms. A breeding pair in a zoo or a token
> > population of buffalo is, for all practical purposes, environmentally
> > extinct.
>
> Another redefinition of terms. Extinct becomes "environmentally extinct",
> which can be redefined to whatever number you deem appropriate. Not 50,000
> wolves in every state? Why, they're extinct! Less than 1 million Buffalo
> in the country? Extinct again.
Your ignorance is showing. Apparently, you are driven to make a fool of
yourself through ideological blindness. "Environmentally extinct" is a
perfectly good, scientific term. I guess you have never read any
scientific books or papers on ecology. Tell me, how much of an influence
on the prairie (what's left of it) would 50 buffalo have? Answer: next to
none. One could substitute "functionally extinct" for environmentally
ectinct. How much influence does the Florida panther have on deer
populations? Answer: an insignificant amount. The fact that organisms are
interdependent, and that these interdependencies are measurable does not
represent some kinda of green plot-- but instead represents the basis for
several fields of science.
>
> The claim that every species on the planet is 'depended on' by the
> environment and will cause calamity if removed is a factoid, true only in
> certain cases. Also I'd like to note that the process of dividing a
> population up into species is more an art than a science; many so-called
> distinct species are no more than local variations, perfectly capable of
> interbreeding with others.
Whew. You kinda of should get specific here. Can you name a species that
has no interaction with other species? The poster said "...depended on by
a whole community of organisms", not what you "quoted".
Although somewhat awkwardly stated, the poster was simply stating that
organisms exist in webs of interdependent species. This is a basic
ecological concept with thousands of examples; maybe you can offer an
alternative reality you have observed?
As for the removal of an organism causing "calamity", yes, significant
changes do occur--- many of which go unnoticed by the public, because it
isn't an immediate, human calamity. Not everyone is so anthropocentric,
and certainly not people in the natural sciences.
As for your critique of "dividing up a population into species" this is a
curious claim. A population, in the taxonomic meaning of the world, is
one geographic grouping of an organism; that populations interbreed makes
sense, because they are the same species. Local populations aren't species
if they interbreed--- what is your point, anyway? What taxonomist says
that local populations are species? Do you have a problem with the ESA
preserving subspecies? That is simply within the scope of the law-- which
has preserving biodiversity as its objective, populations, subspecies,
and all.
Please not that I am not debating with you, but writing for the benefit of
others. The questions are rhetorical. You have shown once again that you
are willing to mistate what people say in order to score points using
whitless propaganda. Science depends on facts, a point you apparently feel
dosen't matter.
Dave Braun
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Greens harm the environment
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 13 Nov 1996 20:09:52 GMT
Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: "WASHINGTON -- Inserting a gene into the cotton plant may allow farmers to
: grow a fiber that is wrinkle-free and as warm as wool, researchers report.
: "
: - AP, November 11, 1996
: This is interesting, as a followup to my post discussing the environmental
: damage caused by environmentalists paranoia on genetic engineering.
: This new form of cotton has the capability to wear longer (reducing
: demand), replace wool (reduce sheep populations in favor of less damaging
: cotton plants) and require less washing/drying/ironing (saves water and
: energy). This technology is currently being fought by many major
: environmental organizations.
: Other genetically-improved plants have the ability to vastly increase
: foodstocks and lower our dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
: Again, introduction of these new species are being held up. Truly, fear
: and superstition are dangerous forces.
I note that "unintended consequences" are not mentioned, let alone
discussed.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 23:59:27 GMT
In article
,
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote:
>Harold wrote:
>> USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would
like nothing
>> more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence
generator of
>> programs for them to administer. Their survey found the
average loss
>> to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural
regeneration
>> runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2 tons
per acre.
>> Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years,
the average
>> farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has
been farmed the
>> entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for this
loss.
>>
>Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional
farmers add
>anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and
pesticides to
>their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the
pressures
>conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil?
"Fallow years?"
>You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and
closing your eyes to
>reality.
>
>You make assertions, present no references, state that even
the press agrees
>> with you (like that's a good reference!), then question
the motive of
>> the character of the previous poster.
>
>You're right - other than name some publications, I
couldn't be specific
>about studies, stats, numbers - so I'll butt out and leave
you to be
>refuted by the people who've got the information at their
fingertips. Of
>which there are many, I see. My point about the mainstream
press is that
>they're generally unimaginative, unquestioning and not
interested in any
>new information unless they're cudgeled over the head with
it - like alot
>of people who prefer not to face the damage we've done to
our world.
>
>Betsy
Oooo! An assertive female! Go for it, Betsy. BTW, if you
want to lock horns with Harold, you better have your facts
straight before you begin.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 23:59:34 GMT
In article <328a0115.512954578@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote for all
to see:
>
>>Harold wrote:
>>> USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would
like nothing
>>> more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence
generator of
>>> programs for them to administer. Their survey found the
average loss
>>> to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural
regeneration
>>> runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2
tons per acre.
>>> Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years,
the average
>>> farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has
been farmed the
>>> entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for
this loss.
>>>
>>Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional
farmers add
>>anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and
pesticides to
>>their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and
the pressures
>>conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil?
"Fallow years?"
>>You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and
closing your eyes to
>>reality.
>
>I am sorry you are unaware of the use of modern
conservation tillage.
>Few farmers wish to "strip mine" the soil, though I am sure
that this
>situation does occur.
>
>Are you actually Shiela, better known as the Word Warrior?
She had a
>similar debating style; attack character and intelligence,
make
>assertions, present no references.
I don't believe it! There is a female Nudds in the world.
Heaven help us all!
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 13 Nov 1996 19:55:09 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
: >Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: >: As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
: >: world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
: >: modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
: >: double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
: >: though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
: >: for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
: >
: >You are welcome to calculate the increase of the crude oil drawdown rate
: >if the rest of the world farms the way the US does.
: There is nothing here about the rest of the world farming "the way the
: US does." Feeding chemical fed corn to cattle is a singularly stupid
: way of both using land and feeding people.
But Mike is quoting North American yields. That means North American methods.
: The major hindrances to the productivity of land are the lack of
: potassium and of nitrogen. The United States burned its eastern
: forests to export potash to Europe, then conquered the Pacific to get
: the islands it authorised itself to seize under the Guano ct of 1899.
It is good to see the truth here. No platitudes about democracy here.
: Modern agriculture -- modern, not American, being Asher's keyword --
: replaces these olde tyme moves with the simple strewing of phosphate
: rock, available in vast quantities in Saskatchewan, Idaho, California,
: Peru, and elsewhere.
:
: In American agriculture the main source of nitrogen is ammonia, which
: used to be made out of electricity, and is today made more cheaply
: from natural gas. This is not the only way of doing it. India and
: China both built large populations on small land areas by planting
: nitrogen fixing plants, lentils and soybeans, respectively.
I repeat my comment about energy stocks. I note that it went unanswered.
: It will be a quick fix, literally, in Sudan once the civil war ends,
: to alternate soybeans with millet on the Bor uplands. This will mean
: an immediate, cheap, and huge improvement of productivity; the
: necessary survey work has already been done, by satellite, and is on
: file on the Internet at University of Arizona. My partner's family,
: those who have not been murdered by the government, own some of the
: land, and bide their time in universities in Europe, Canada, Botswana.
Yes, landowners. What will be left for those who have had their land
confiscated?
: I think there is an automatic Nobel Prize in either chemistry of peace
: for the person who comes up with the nitrogen-fixing grain, tuber, or
: fruit tree. As genetic engineering -- think of it as a new kind of
: biodiversity -- proceeds, I expect these prizes to be claimed over the
: next few years.
It is nice to hope. In the meantime, I'll let you eat all that lovely
Monsanto gentech grain. If they aren't too cowardly to mark it, we can
both have the type we want.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: forests
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 13 Nov 1996 20:03:31 GMT
Will Satterthwaite (whs@uclink4.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <3287C011.2E09@livingston.net>, Don Staples
: wrote:
: >
: > You bet, thats why foresters are fighing to maintain what we have, rather
: > than having full support from the government, environmentalists,
: > eco-freaks and the like.
: And how does cutting old-growth, which you have repeatedly supported in
: regards to Headwaters Forest, maintain "what we have"?
: Rather, cutting 500-2000 year old trees and in the process destroying the
: ecosystem in which they dwell destroys "what we have" for any conceivable
: time span.
This is the kind of question the big logging advocates never face: a
real forest is quite a different thing from a tree farm or even a stand
of woods in the city. Sadly, most people have never seen a real forest
and therefore hardly even know what one looks like.
The question: If logging cannot be maintained sustainably on 90 per
cent of the forested land, why on Earth can we be expected to believe
that it can be sustainable on 100 per cent of the forested land?
Those small-time loggers are going to lose their livelihoods no matter
what. The biggest corps do it, and we get the blame.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Greens harm the environment
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 14 Nov 1996 03:15:46 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> : "WASHINGTON -- Inserting a gene into the cotton plant may allow farmers
to
> : grow a fiber that is wrinkle-free and as warm as wool, researchers
report.
> : "
> : - AP, November 11, 1996
>
> : This is interesting, as a followup to my post discussing the
environmental
> : damage caused by environmentalists paranoia on genetic engineering.
>
> : This new form of cotton has the capability to wear longer (reducing
> : demand), replace wool (reduce sheep populations in favor of less
damaging
> : cotton plants) and require less washing/drying/ironing (saves water and
> : energy). This technology is currently being fought by many major
> : environmental organizations.
>
> : Other genetically-improved plants have the ability to vastly increase
> : foodstocks and lower our dependence on chemical fertilizers and
pesticides.
> : Again, introduction of these new species are being held up. Truly,
fear
> : and superstition are dangerous forces.
>
> I note that "unintended consequences" are not mentioned, let alone
> discussed.
>
Oh yes. Is here where you discuss your theory that gene-engineered cotton
plants will come alive and take over the world?
People had the same fears about radioactivity creating thirty-foot mutant
ants. And, I might note, the same ones about electricity. In fact, The
Royal Society of London-- the most preeminent body of scientists in the
world at the time-- met in special session in an attempt to ban the
introduction of electricity. Periodicals and books were filled with evil
tidings of the "unintended consequences" of electrictity. We can even
attribute a bit of Shelley's Frankenstein to this paranioa. Somehow, we
survived.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear - - keep us in a
continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national
emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we
did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded.
Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never
to have been quite real."
-General Douglas MacArthur, 1957.
Subject: Re: forests
From: "John A. Keslick, Jr."
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:37:04 -0500
A letter written for OUR FOREST!
Dear Governor Tom Ridge: October 20, 1996
Good day! First allow me to define some terms used. A forest is a
system, where trees and their associates are so highly ordered in their
connections that they all survive at a high quality state. A system is
a highly ordered connection of parts and processes that have a
predetermined end point - product, service ( In this case the universal
biological currency-glucose. I need it. You need it. The animals need
it. We all need it). Stress is a condition where a system, or its
parts, begins to operate near the limits for which it was designed.
Strain is disorder and disruption of a system due to operation beyond
the limits of stress. Survival means that you stay alive and you stay
in a working state under conditions that have the capacity or the
ability to kill you. Vigor is the capacity to resist strain; a genetic
factor, a potential force against any threats to survive (We cannot
change this). Vitality is the ability to grow under the conditions
present; dynamic action. High quality means as it survives it survives
in a state that will continue to be usable. Low quality means if it
does survive it will be in a state that will not be usable. Health is
the ability to resist strain. Old forestry is forestry without the
understanding of tree biology, i.e., they make decisions without
understanding trees biology.
I am a hard working father in Pennsylvania. I am a tree biologist by
education. I also am very very concerned about your plans to increase
the cutting of the forest in Pa. This is in regards to the health of
our childrens forest. I speak for many concerned PA residents who do
not have my education and are concerned for the future of OUR CHILDRENS
HEALTH and OUR FOREST HEALTH.
--------------------------------------------------------
This is the key parts of your plan:
DCNR Adopts New Timber Strategy For State-Owned Forests
On World Wide Web at
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/dcnr/deputate/polycomm/pressrel/Timber1.htm
Your message;
"significant economic benefits while ensuring the long-term health of
the state-owned forests,"
Ridge Administration intends to proceed with a plan that will provide
more raw materials for the forest-products industry and that will also
increase revenues for the state. Equally important, Oliver said, the
plan includes steps to ensure forest regeneration.
"As stewards of this renewable resource, we must manage our forests
sensibly so they can continue to provide
recreation, scenic beauty, clean water, and habitat for plants and
animals, as well as high-quality timber."
"herbicides to eliminate competing vegetation."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is where the problem starts. What do you mean when you claim that
cutting more trees and building more loging roads is going to regenerate
a forest?
You may find this a little difficult. A forest is a system, where
trees
and their associates are so highly ordered in their connections that
they
all survive at a high quality state. Planting trees is not planting a
forest. Humans are breaking too many connections too fast. The sad
part is
once destroyed many of these connections cannot be brought back by just
planting trees. I see we HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO!
THE FOREST IS NOT A REGENERATING SYSTEM. This, thanks to science, is a
statement worthy to be repeated.
I suggest one who has questions read the article:
May 1991 Audubon Magazine by Ted Williams titled "Don't worry plant a
tree".
Today, even a child knows that the destruction of the rain forests
threatens the very existence of life on earth.
Sir, what we want is sustainable forestry. When you set a plan to
increase cuting and regenerate OUR FOREST you and your advisors
understanding of the forest system is very obvious.
I wonder if a thoracic surgeon would be allowed to do a heart transplant
if her or she did not know the difference between the patients hand and
foot? But yet, we allow people to make rules about our forest that do
not understand tree biology. Non- biological roads have no right in OUR
forest. However in general we have been very successful in making many
roads in our forest out of the lack of understanding of tree biology at
the disadvantage of our forest. Some countries have common sense and
are closing the roads and replanting trees. They do this in hopes that
they have not broken to many connections. My suggestion to you is find
someone who has an education in TREE BIOLOGY and let them write the rule
books for OUR trees and their ASSOCIATES. Not the forest products,
timber industry and and who ever else wrote your report for you.
Also, Keep grass OUT of YOUR FOREST.
Old, healthy mature trees make GOOD homes for wildlife!
I am very mad that this has gone this far.
Please reply with your statement on the following question pertaining to
your approved plans:
What do you mean when you claim that cutting more trees and building
more logging roads is going to regenerate our forest? And please define
SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY.
How is a forest a renewable resource?
What herbicides are being used? We do not want OUR CHILDRENS water
contaminated!
Yours Truly
John A. Keslick Jr.
Tree Biologist, Tree Anatomist & Professional Modern Arborist
Member: The Bio-Dynamic Farming & Gardening Association, Inc.
Member: S.E. PA Community Tree Association
Plus Certified Chester County Master Composter
cc:
World Wide Web News Groups:
alt.org.audubon
alt.org.earth-first
alt.org.sierra-club
pa.environment
and many other PA Representatives.
--
John A. Keslick Jr. If you are not OUTRAGED you're not
Tree Anatomist & Tree Biologist paying attention.
Phone: 610-696-5353 Support ORGANIC FARMERS.
organic tree treatment web site:
http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/ OR http://www.ccil.org/~kenm/env/
Subject: Re: forests
From: "John A. Keslick, Jr."
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:37:31 -0500
NURSE LOGS
MYTH: "Old rotten logs pose a risk to the forest because they can spread
disease and harmful pathogens. We need to remove the old wood for the
health of the trees." FALSE, FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. I KNOW OF NO
SCIENTIFIC DATA TO SUPPORT THIS MAJOR MISCONCEPTION.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Nurse logs:
What Are they?
They are logs preferably no less than 4' long and 3/4 feet in diameter.
They are either rotten or in the process of rotting.
In nature they are common in undisturbed forest.
What do they do?
They can increase the vitality of your trees in several ways. The first
and most important is that they are moisture reserves for your trees and
their associates during dry spells. Yes, the rotten log acts as a big
sponge would. Microorganisms associated with the tree extend the
connection into the nurse logs. Another way is that property owners can
plant flowers, ferns and even little trees within the logs. Thus, will
offer an alternative to planting them at the base of the tree. (See
below *)
The log will also offer a winter resource for shelter for beneficial
microorganisms.
Where do they go?
They are best placed somewhere in the root zone area of your tree or
trees. Soil contact must be made and the nurse log left in place.
How do we care for the nurse log once we have one?
Flowers, ferns or small trees may be planted in the log depending on the
amount of sun light and the requirements of the certain types of
plants. An example is if the log is shaded most of the time, ferns
might be a proper selection.
However, we do request that the planting be limited to in the log and
not around the base of the log. The reason being that we are trying to
discourage the planting of the flowers in the soil under the tree due to
proper research showing substantial amount on injury to the tree by that
method.
Due to the fact that the log will act as a sponge, the plants may or
may not need to be watered depending upon the weather. If the plants
(flowers) require water it does not always mean the tree does.
However, one thing to keep in mind is that during drought the biggest
water related problem is over watering.
If any fertilizing is done we highly suggest organic materials only.
* Many young trees, especially young birch trees, very often suffer from
what we now know, world wide, as "flowers disease." People choose a
tree as the perfect site for a spring garden. We all have seen
hundreds of bulbs and annuals planted around young trees. We then see
insect borers or twig dieback along with sun scold and frost cracks.
Most of the trees usually die. During the planting of the flowers or
bulbs they injure the roots and they usually heavily fertilize the
plants. Even more injurious each year is cultivating the soil around
the tree. The only treatment is to be on guard and keep the trees well
watered while removing dying wood properly.
Note: Choosing flowers that would do well in the shade would then be
wise. Some of the plants that have done well in S.E. Pennsylvania are
Impatiens and ferns.
Call us for other ORGANIC FACT SHEETS on pruning and other tree care
information.
KESLICK & SON MODERN ARBORICULTURE PRODUCTS, SERVICE & EDUCATION
214 N. Penn Street West Chester, Pa 19380 USA Phone # 610-696-5353
E-mail:"treeman@locke.ccil.org"
Check out our new WEB SITE at http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/
John Keslick Jr.
Tree Biologist, Tree Anatomist & Professional Modern Arborist
--
John A. Keslick Jr. If you are not OUTRAGED you're not
Tree Anatomist & Tree Biologist paying attention.
Phone: 610-696-5353 Support ORGANIC FARMERS.
organic tree treatment web site:
http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/ OR http://www.ccil.org/~kenm/env/
Subject: Re: the economist/elephant joke (was Re: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
From: Les Cargill
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:32:32 -0600
Magnus Redin wrote:
>
> Jay Hanson writes:
>
> > While the dollar price of extracting minerals may have been falling,
> > the energy cost of extracting minerals is steadily climbing -- as
> > the laws of thermodynamics predict that it will.
Huh? The laws of thermodynamics predict no such thing! "Energy" costs
are really fuel costs, which are more sensitive to politics than
scarcity.
Another contribution is probably made by the fact that mining older
mines costs more.
Yet another "Life's an endless cycle of death and decay" site.
Call Oliver Stone. Maybe he'll make a movie out of it.
See:
> > http://www.aloha.net/~jhanson/metal.gif
>
> What if that is correct? Run a power line to the nearest hydro
> powerplant, nuclar powerplant, or large windmill farm and perhaps in a
> few decaed solar powerplant. Problem solved. And if there is no power
> nearby build a powerplant. The easets to find suitable nearby
> locations for are probably nuclear powerplants.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> --
> Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
> Mail: Magnus Redin, Bj�rnk�rrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINK�PING, SWEDEN
> Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
--
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.
But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
- Shakespeare quote at end of "Runaway Train" - taken from Richard III
Les Cargill 608 Thoreau Lane Allen, Tx 75002