Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk) (alt.talk.weather) A general forum for discussion of the weather. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George"
wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message ups.com... On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed wrong. I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange. I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were not dosed or not given enough/too much. Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well documented environmental disaster? George I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 12:45 am, Charles wrote:
I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to kill the broad leaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun. I doubt in the itinerant and seasonal nature of the industry, there will be medical records in the British Isles that can be linked to the use of this stuff and of course in the USA no-one in that line of work could afford medical attention. Maybe Canadian records could reveal the extent of herbicide poisoning among forest workers? |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Charles" wrote in message ... On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed wrong. I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange. I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were not dosed or not given enough/too much. Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well documented environmental disaster? George I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun. Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous, don't you think? No one in the Appalachians, for instance, is trying to get rid of broadleaf plants in order to replaces them with conifers as far as I know. The forests in much of the Appalachians is a mixed deciduous forest (except at high altitudes, where the conifer forests do dominate), one of the most diverse forests on the planet. Using herbicides there would make no sense at all, especially since growth of the mixed deciduous forests is limited by temperature zonation at the higher altitudes. George |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:10:02 -0400, "George"
wrote: "Charles" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message roups.com... On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed wrong. I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange. I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were not dosed or not given enough/too much. Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well documented environmental disaster? George I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun. Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous, don't you think? No one in the Appalachians, for instance, is trying to get rid of broadleaf plants in order to replaces them with conifers as far as I know. The forests in much of the Appalachians is a mixed deciduous forest (except at high altitudes, where the conifer forests do dominate), one of the most diverse forests on the planet. Using herbicides there would make no sense at all, especially since growth of the mixed deciduous forests is limited by temperature zonation at the higher altitudes. George Yes, it would be completely inappropriate in that kind of forest. I don't know if they still do it in the PNW or not, it'd been some time since I've read about it. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 3:49 pm, Charles wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:10:02 -0400, "George" wrote: "Charles" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message roups.com... On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed wrong. I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange. I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were not dosed or not given enough/too much. Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well documented environmental disaster? George I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun. Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous, don't you think? I certainly don't. Yes, it would be completely inappropriate in that kind of forest. I don't know if they still do it in the PNW or not, it'd been some time since I've read about it. Lindane and such are banned in the European Community. I think that most selective weed killers are too. The whole aspect of forest management is changing over here. But in the broad leaf forest poor husbandry has decimated the species bank since before Mark Twain was writing about iit. It appears to be the eradication of eagles, hawks, bears, coyotes and wolves that is the cause of the damage to them. But as for the raw prawn's definition of ludicrous, did you notice if he managed to explain how sensible his concept of acid rain damaging the same forests is in consideration of the state of city parks almost everywhere else? Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are perfectly healthy. Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message ps.com... On Oct 5, 3:49 pm, Charles wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:10:02 -0400, "George" wrote: "Charles" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:47:15 -0400, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message roups.com... On Oct 4, 9:25 am, "George" wrote: "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message Umm, we don't use weed killers on mountain top forests. You guessed wrong. I wasn't speaking for what goes on in your neck of the woods but I can assure you that over here, for the first 4 or 5 years spruce were and for all I know, still are sprayed with a relative of agent orange. I was suggesting that some regions were overdosed whilst others were not dosed or not given enough/too much. Why would anyone spray herbicides on trees if their intention was not to kill the trees? And what does this have to do with acid rain, a well documented environmental disaster? George I've read of it being done in the Pacific Northwest. The idea is to kill the broadleaf plants to let the conifers get started. I guess it works if done at the proper dosage. The main tree crop there is, or was back when I knew anything about it, Douglas fir. It is a fire species, normally grows after a fire and needs full sun. Fine. That is a specific case. But to suggest that anywhere there is damage to trees that that means that herbicides was used is ludicrous, don't you think? I certainly don't. Yes, it would be completely inappropriate in that kind of forest. I don't know if they still do it in the PNW or not, it'd been some time since I've read about it. Lindane and such are banned in the European Community. I think that most selective weed killers are too. The whole aspect of forest management is changing over here. But in the broad leaf forest poor husbandry has decimated the species bank since before Mark Twain was writing about iit. It appears to be the eradication of eagles, hawks, bears, coyotes and wolves that is the cause of the damage to them. But as for the raw prawn's definition of ludicrous, did you notice if he managed to explain how sensible his concept of acid rain damaging the same forests is in consideration of the state of city parks almost everywhere else? Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are perfectly healthy. Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico. I can't speak for parks and forests elswhere, but they are not damaged from acid rain where I live. However, the pollution generated from the coal-fired power plants in my city stay aloft for hundreds of miles and then settles into the forests and streams in the Appalachians east of here, and do most of its damage there. That is well documented, as I've pointed out already. George |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are perfectly healthy. Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico. There is great variety of trees here, and despite the smog, mornings are a good time to see some of Mexico's bird life. The most spectacular of the trees are the jacarandas which bloom with lavender flowers in February and March. http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/df/alameda.html Looks pretty healthy to me: http://z.about.com/d/gomexico/1/0/U/3/-/-/IMG_9131.JPG The Chapultepec Forest is a park of Mexico City, whose name means in nahuatl (the language of the Aztecs) "locust hill" and it is the main cultural and recreation centre of the city and it´s one of the biggest, most beautiful and most visited parks of world. The Chapultepec Park that is know by the habitants of the city as Chapultepec Forest, takes its name from the hill were it's located, in whose top is the famous Chapultepec Castle, that has been been witness of the Mexican history since pre-Hispanic times and that is surrounded by beautiful gardens and centennial ahuehuetes (beech trees) that are some of the most ancient trees of the world. http://mx.geocities.com/mexicocityin...apultepec.html Hardly derelict: http://static.flickr.com/100/293791426_438be04d1e.jpg |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:52:15 -0700, Weatherlawyer
wrote: On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are perfectly healthy. Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico. There is great variety of trees here, and despite the smog, mornings are a good time to see some of Mexico's bird life. The most spectacular of the trees are the jacarandas which bloom with lavender flowers in February and March. http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/df/alameda.html Looks pretty healthy to me: http://z.about.com/d/gomexico/1/0/U/3/-/-/IMG_9131.JPG The Chapultepec Forest is a park of Mexico City, whose name means in nahuatl (the language of the Aztecs) "locust hill" and it is the main cultural and recreation centre of the city and it´s one of the biggest, most beautiful and most visited parks of world. The Chapultepec Park that is know by the habitants of the city as Chapultepec Forest, takes its name from the hill were it's located, in whose top is the famous Chapultepec Castle, that has been been witness of the Mexican history since pre-Hispanic times and that is surrounded by beautiful gardens and centennial ahuehuetes (beech trees) that are some of the most ancient trees of the world. http://mx.geocities.com/mexicocityin...apultepec.html Hardly derelict: http://static.flickr.com/100/293791426_438be04d1e.jpg Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what would. Orange trees and Grapes in Los Angeles? Not likely, they've all been paved over, or houses built on them. Up the coast a bit there's lots of avocados, citrus is mostly being pushed out. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 10:30 pm, Charles wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:52:15 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: Any idea if the grape vines and orange groves in Los Angeles are in a bad way? Not that that would persuade some people, even if they are perfectly healthy. Ho-hum... off to inspect the fields of Mexico. There is great variety of trees here, and despite the smog, mornings are a good time to see some of Mexico's bird life. The most spectacular of the trees are the jacarandas which bloom with lavender flowers in February and March. http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/df/alameda.html Looks pretty healthy to me: http://z.about.com/d/gomexico/1/0/U/3/-/-/IMG_9131.JPG The Chapultepec Forest is a park of Mexico City, whose name means in nahuatl (the language of the Aztecs) "locust hill" and it is the main cultural and recreation centre of the city and it´s one of the biggest, most beautiful and most visited parks of world. The Chapultepec Park that is know by the habitants of the city as Chapultepec Forest, takes its name from the hill were it's located, in whose top is the famous Chapultepec Castle, that has been been witness of the Mexican history since pre-Hispanic times and that is surrounded by beautiful gardens and centennial ahuehuetes (beech trees) that are some of the most ancient trees of the world. http://mx.geocities.com/mexicocityin...apultepec.html Hardly derelict: http://static.flickr.com/100/293791426_438be04d1e.jpg Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what would. Orange trees and Grapes in Los Angeles? Not likely, they've all been paved over, or houses built on them. Up the coast a bit there's lots of avocados, citrus is mostly being pushed out. There is a difference between grubbing up trees and poisoning them with bad management. But trying to reason with some people is a pointless job that is next to impossible to do and mostly unrewarding when it isn't dangerously counterproductive. And the ones you'd expect to catch on quickest turn out to be the most dull. It's best to just walk away from them. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
GFS confusion reigns. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Whatever happened to acid rain? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Nitric acid clouds are the biggest problem in the UK !!!! | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Many clouds are now 90% sulphuric acid !!! | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Acid Rain? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |