"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

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote in news:3q1Ni.1796$O7.74
@bignews7.bellsouth.net:


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Weatherlawyer wrote in
ups.com:

I am not about to go back on this thread and examine what was or
wasn't said. It's all empty rhetoric anyway.

Then why did you get involved in the first place?

Brian

...because he is an expert at empty rhetoric?

George

Good point.

From the number of off topic drivel this guy is posting, I have
to wonder if he's making a run for all time top poster. Seems
to remind of a previous character we had here some time back
with a name between July and September.

He's got a lot of posting to do to catch up to number 1.

(referring to googles stats on this group)

Brian

lol. Could be.

George

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.

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.

"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

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

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.

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.

On Oct 3, 10:57 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

What acid would be involved?

That's a valid point to bear in mind on reading the following article:

" Media Alerts Stories Archive

Sept. 29, 2007

ACID RAIN RECOVERY 'SLOWER THAN EXPECTED'

Acid rain was one of the world's worst pollution problems of the 1970s
and 1980s, affecting large areas of upland Britain, as well as Europe
and North America.

In Wales, more than 12,000 km of streams and rivers have been
acidified, harming fish, stream insects and river birds such as the
dipper.

Over the last 20 years, action has been taken across Europe to clean
up acid pollutants from power generation and industry, which was
widely expected to bring recovery. However, new research led by the
School of Biosciences shows that the expected improvements in rivers
are far short of expectations.

Recent studies in Galloway, the Scottish Highlands and Wales reveal
that many streams are still highly acidified. Biological recovery has
been particularly poor.

Key findings from the projects, carried out by combined teams from the
School of Biosciences, the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and National
Museum Wales, include:

* Acidity in Welsh headwaters is declining, but only slowly
* More than two thirds of all streams sampled were acid enough
during high flow to cause biological damage, with metals at toxic
concentrations
* Sulphur pollution from man-made sources is still an important
cause of acid episodes, particularly in Wales
* Sensitive insects survive conditions in the most acid streams
for only a few days
* Headwater acidification is still a significant problem for
important salmon fisheries, and Special Areas of Conservation such as
the Welsh River Wye.

Professor Steve Ormerod of the School of Biosciences, a leading
researcher into the biological effects of acid rain for more than 20
years, said: "Pollution reductions are slowly improving in upland
waters, but there is a long way to go. The large biological effects of
acid episodes shown by this work mean that it is vital to continue
monitoring these ecosystems if we are to protect them in future."

Dr Chris Evans, an acid-rain specialist from the Centre for Ecology &
Hydrology in Bangor, added "Pollution reductions are slowly improving
upland waters, but there is a long way to go before we return to the
healthy conditions of 200 years ago. It is vital that we continue to
monitor these ecosystems if we are to protect them in future."

The research contrasts with other recent studies which showed some
encouraging early signs and will come as disappointing news to those
who thought the acid rain problem was solved."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...092925673.html

There is a forestry department at the UCNW, Bangor. Maybe I'll toddle
along there and see if I can collar someone and get a few facts. In
the meantime, here are a few mo

The countryside of Wales is mostly hill farm and forest plantation.
The soil is poor and wet. And the weather, which is wet with winds
coming in from the Atlantic that must be picking up huge amounts of
sulphur from the beer factories in Ireland, can be bracing.

There is very little industry there except on the coast near England
where there is a lot of overspill from Liverpool. In South Wales the
same is true with the main industry collected around what used to be
major shipping ports in the days when coal mining was profitable
there.

What on earth is this Acid Rain? It must be some unexplained process
in the imbalance of the environment. I find it hard to believe that
the states of New York and New Jersey are pushing out so much dirt
that it can go through Canada, move along past Greenland, harbour for
as much as a week, more sometimes, off Iceland then come here and do
such damage.

And not get washed away.

Did someone say something about ludicrous? I'll give him freaking
ludicrous. Stupid boy!

Weatherlawyer wrote:
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.


Even in cuckoo California, the prevailing winds are from the west to the
east. Anyone looked at the Mojave Desert (garden spot of the universe)
lately?

Seriously -- if you need a painless introduction to the subject, I
suggest the song "Acid Rain" by the Austin Lounge Lizards.

....Acid rain, keep on fallin
While her name I am callin
I walk the shores of Lake Champlain
in the placid acid rain.

Walked together through the forest full of dying trees
Tasted the sulfuric acid on the April breeze
Went canoeing on the lake, the fish were floating by
She read me her manifesto; I had no reply..."

Hank Card 1986, off the album, "Highway Cafe of the Damned."

http://www.amazon.com/Highway-Damned.../dp/B00001NFFO