You Grow Girl™

Posted: 31-12-06 15:24

Apparently the hardiness zones have been changed to reflect warming. I used to be 7a/b but now I'm definitely 8. Check it out.

http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm Surprised

Posted: 02-01-07 8:24

well, I'm still an 8...and in a weird/frustrating gardening location.

Posted: 02-01-07 16:07

Wow. I did a bunch of googling about this last night and can't believe how little info there is out there on this topic. I would have thought it would be huge news. . .

Old Growth Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 250

No climate crisis here, nope. No sir...
Just keep walking...Huh, what global warming?
No, no, nothing to look at...just move along now
everything's fine! Confused

I had heard that this was going to happen a while back, but I forgot to
make note of my source. I think the Farmer's Almanac is also suppose
to publish their new books with the new zones.

Hopefully it will get local press in the cities that are effected by the
new zones on the map.
~D

Ancient Joined: 30 Jul 2004 Posts: 1023 Location: Illinois

I'm a 6 now...and I thought I was a 6 before...but I was really a 5...so uh nothings changed for me..except my plants outside might live, lol Wink

Posted: 04-01-07 2:29

i would've expected this to have been big news, too. anyone know how often this has happened in the past?

Posted: 04-01-07 16:57

Okay, this is a quick summary what I was able to dig up (lol)-
The first charts were made in the 60's.
The charts that everyone knows about were released in 1990 based on weather data from the previous 13 years.
The USDA contracted the AHS to make new and more detailed charts, they did and based their charts on the weather data from the 16 years previous to the release. They turned the charts over to the UDSA in 2004 and the USDA rejected them as not accurate enough - they showed many of the same changes that the Arbor Day charts do - and the USDA said that the data need to be based on about 30 years of info.
The Arbor Day Foundation made and released their own charts - not sure how many years they based their charts on, but they did collect the info with the same critera that the USDA/AHS used.

There was also mention that nursery owners didn't like the AHS charts because it would confuse people and encourage them to plant zone-risky plants. And one line that the Bush administration didn't want such obvious proof of global warming.

The only news articles I saw were Washington DC articles that said that trees like Crape Myrtles do really well there now, and the Extension Service never used to recommend them but does now.

Posted: 04-01-07 18:05

Deirdre wrote:

[color=indigo]No climate crisis here, nope. No sir...
Just keep walking...Huh, what global warming?
No, no, nothing to look at...just move along now
everything's fine! Confused

Who say's it's a crisis? Some one just got a longer growing season. Twisted Evil

Old Growth Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 250

Hmmm...Common sense says it's a crisis? oh wait , the dictionary also
says it is a crisis by definition of what a crisis means ... and those pesky
intellectual scientists who have devoted their lives to studying and
documenting the earth are also saying it's a crisis. (silly rabbits, don't they
know tricks are for kids?!)

Quote:

Crisis - "A turning point or decisive moment in events...a crisis
can be loosely defined as a situation where there is a perception of threat,
heightened anxiety, expectation of possible violence and the belief that
any actions will have far-reaching consequences."

So, maybe someone did get a longer growing season for planting tomatoes
but is it worth the overall price to the health of the planet?

* We are talking the reduction and extinction of native plants in what are
otherwise their natural temperate zone and the rise of invasive plants into
those zones having a profound effect on global ecology, farming and
sustainability of food production, and ultimately your own gardening -
farming successes or failures.

* We are talking about an increase in more sustainable environments for disease
carrying vectors, such as mosquitoes, fleas, lice that can effect human and animal
health. (west nile virus, bird flu). Also the rise in plant viruses carried by
insects among plants.

* We are talking about the increase in atmospheric and ozone changes that
effect the health of millions of people�asthma, allergies, and general respiratory illnesses
due to breathing polluted air under adverse environmental conditions�
thus effecting health care costs, policies and prescription availability.

* We are talking the ability of the environment to naturally "repair" and heal
itself after massive removal of forests and minerals�and major changes in oceanic life
effecting the ecosystems of thousands of marine organism and fish etc., also effecting
global food supply....how much do you pay for shrimp, salmon or tuna fish. Mercury anyone?

* We are talking about migratory habits of animals changing and thus
effecting the extinction of animal and plant species.

* We are talking about significant losses in the polar ice caps which will raise oceanic water
levels further changing weather patterns adversely effecting human and animal life.
Polar bears going extinct and massive flooding around the world�and here is an island
that has now completely disappeared due to rising water.

~D

Posted: 05-01-07 13:01

Deirdre wrote:

[color=indigo]Hmmm...Common sense says it's a crisis? oh wait , the dictionary also says it is a crisis by definition of what a crisis means ... and those pesky intellectual scientists who have devoted their lives to studying and documenting the earth are also saying it's a crisis.

I'm pretty sure that was a joke, Deirdre. I realize this isn't a joking matter to you, but humor is how a lot of people deal with bad news.

Old Growth Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 250

Oh! thanks for letting me know that was a �joke�!!! Laughing

HAHAHA!

My cognitive skills just aren�t on the same level as that of the
officious administrator or the duplicitous bard. Embarassed

In the future I'll try not to offend your blissful demeanor with the
veracity of my conversant retorts. I would just hate for you to
have to take time away from your busy proprietary duties to have
to admonish me further.

Have a wonderful, happy, great day!!!!!

Very Happy

~D

Posted: 08-01-07 1:44

well, fwiw i also took it as a joke. but if it was just a glib comment intended to bait someone into a reaction i'm afraid you're putty in his hands, Deirdre...

Posted: 08-01-07 5:05

But really, I wasn't trolling you, honest, just sounding off from the sidelines. So I think I'm off hte hook for luring you like that ,because it was unintentional. There was really nothing fishy about that comment either. It wasn't bait. I swear.

Don't mistake carbon emissions with air pollution. It's two different things. Our atmosphere is naturally made up of a miniscule amount of cabon gases. Air pollution is what you get from the crap that comes outta your smoke stacks with the emissions. I could blast you in face all day with Carbon gases and you'd not get asthma. You might die though, you'd have to get oxygen.

AND, the invasion of one species on the other *is* nature. The law of the wild and all that. I concede that humans enable this sort of thing, with our massive transport networks. But then without those, all those niceties that civilization has come to love and adore wouldn't come. Things like vaccines, food, and shoes.

Anyway the invasion of one species on another is inevitable. I don't see anyone crying about the all the plains grasses and scrub brush that is missing from old growth forests. Those big ole pretty trees invaded what was grasslands, grew until they blotted out the sky and snuffed out the plants beneath them. Or the huge influx of bunnies since the wolves have all be killed off, or children for that matter...

And the problems with pests and "disease carrying vectors" such as mosquitoes and fleas and lice that ARE effecting people especially lately could easily be blamed on a lowered use of insecticides. Environmentally outlawed insecticides.

Look at how many people die from Malaria every year now vs before 1970 (When DDT was banned in the US, it's use in other nations means no foreign aid from the US, in africa it means die of malaria or starvation...anyhoo), you'll see mosquitoes weren't as big a problem then, and I would go further to guess that before DDT was in use Malaria Was just as big a problem as it is now. My guess would that this problem with disease that we are having now has less to do with "new" diseases as much as it has to do with proximity and transportation than anything else. A missionary gets on a plane in hoobooway with a fever and lands in Detroit with some weirding virus.

Anyway, I don't need a longer growing season for my tomatoes, they only take 60 days to put out fruit (if that) and summer is about 90s days without frost, probably more.

I'm sorry I'm not as eloquent, (I didnt' get a thesaurus for Christmas Twisted Evil

), but I think those are some good points, I don't know what's "Gooder" for the planet, no one does really, or there wouldn't be an argument, just facts and actions. I have a problem with science and studies, because so much sciences is up for sale to the highest bidder. Scientists gotta eat too, it's only natural to lick the hands that feed you.

And the biggest problem with the whole global warming argument isn't what we know, it's how much we don't know. We've only been keeping records of things like rain fall and temperatures for what Maybe 500 years? And the atmosphere's been doing goofy things for much longer than that. I recall and ice age, and then a thawing, and then the whole world being more tropical. Sure that was billions of years ago but it's gotta coun because you can't dscern an entire photo from three pixels.

I'm sorry my smart ass comment sent you off, it was unintentional.

Posted: 08-01-07 14:22

O.K, help me here, so I did get a look at the 1990-2006 map change, but have the zone changes officially been announced? I'm not trying to be a smart*ss, I really just want to know. I've been changed from a 5 to a 6.

Old Growth Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 250

I will always correct misinformation when it is worth defending. When grossly
inaccurate or misleading statements have been made based on nothing
but speculation then it becomes negligent. I think it is the responsibility
of those that know better to correct such misinformed ideologies...

Quote:

�I could blast you in face all day with Carbon gases and you'd not get asthma�

�No I would probably die. Carbon Gas = Carbon Dioxide,
while safe in many forms, can kill you if you breath too much:

"Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies and is between 0.03% (300 ppm)
to 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on location and in exhaled air approximately
4.5%. When inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume),
it is immediately dangerous to the life and health of plants, humans and
other animals. The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is
considered safe for healthy adults for an 8-hour work day is 0.5% (5000 ppm).
The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals
with cardio-pulmonary health issues would be significantly less. These figures
are valid for carbon dioxide supplied in "pure" form.�

Quote:

...the problems with pests and "disease carrying vectors" such as mosquitoes and fleas and lice that ARE effecting people especially lately could easily be blamed on a lowered use of insecticides.

I have a problem with science and studies, because so much sciences is up for sale to the highest bidder.

It could...but this is pure assumption. There is ample evidence to prove otherwise
and the benefits of using alternatives to insecticides far outweigh the positives
of using one in most cases. There is no scientific fact to support this kind of
speculation...but even if there were...I doubt you would trust it because a
"scientist� was probably paid to tell you that right? I'm sure ARK won't take
any offense to that. Evil or Very Mad

I would also point out that a lot of this data is
coming from individuals working on their PHDs as part of their college
studies. I find it hard to believe that they are being "bought-out" to post
inaccurate information in their dissertations. I also find it strange that some
people in the US boast so much about the importance of sending their kids
to college, but then turn around and sneer at the idea of a scientist using
their formal education to inform the general public and offer solutions to
monumental problems. What's up with that hypocrisy? Science gave you
DDT and science can take it away!

Quote:

Look at how many people die from Malaria every year now vs before 1970 (When DDT was banned in the US, it's use in other nations means no foreign aid from the US, in africa it means die of malaria or starvation...mosquitoes weren't as big a problem then, and I would go further to guess that before DDT was in use Malaria Was just as big a problem as it is now.

Oooh...that guess is completely, totally, false, and inaccurate.
You don't get the free yearly supply of bugz-b-gone
but thanks for playing! (obligatory humor for Shay)

By 1951, malaria was considered eradicated from the United States.
That�s 10 years before the ban on DDT in 1972. Read that history HERE
and HERE.
DDT is still used to fight large outbreaks of Malaria in 3rd world countries,
and many mosquitoes are now RESISTANT. The United States, the Environmental
Union, and the World Bank do NOT ban foreign aid to any country fighting
malaria outbreaks with DDT or any other pesticide.
Smile

More Happy Fun Facts and Links:

�USAID has provided critically needed technical support to implement the use of
DDT, including training, logistic and planning support in countries where
DDT has proved to be the best insecticide for spraying and when its use is
permitted in that country�

"�the U.S. Agency for International Development�s support for indoor residual
spraying to control malaria, as well as the United States government�s
position on the use of DDT internationally. USAID strongly supports
spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use
of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted.�

Some people should think about spending time with their
head in a book or periodical instead of...uhm other places.

~D

Posted: 09-01-07 19:55

Quote:

�No I would probably die. Carbon Gas = Carbon Dioxide,
while safe in many forms, can kill you if you breath too much:

Let's put this to the test, I can get a tank of CO no problem, I know a guy who knows a guy. Co2 would be more fun though, I got a couple of tanks of that already. I'll mail them to you, you video the results, we'll put it on youtube.com

Quote:

By 1951, malaria was considered eradicated from the United States.
That�s 10 years before the ban on DDT in 1972. Read that history HERE
and HERE.
DDT is still used to fight large outbreaks of Malaria in 3rd world countries,
and many mosquitoes are now RESISTANT. The United States, the Environmental
Union, and the World Bank do NOT ban foreign aid to any country fighting
malaria outbreaks with DDT or any other pesticide.

Our malaria problem in the states was solved due to DDT. What I was supposing was that before the advent of DDT, Malaria was as big a problem as it is now, after the ban. ONly before DDT it wasn't blamed on Global warming. It just was.

Whole the ban on ddt in the states did not effect rest of the world, you're right there was no policy on denying foreign aid to countries that use DDT. We just cut them off from agriculture exports to the US, thus the evidence that "pressure" has been used to stop countries from using DDT. http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/nr_051401.html 11th paragraph down.
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/faq.php Section 12.

Quote:

Although IRS (indoors residual spraying) is highly effective, donor agencies (such as USAID, DFID, NORAD, SIDA and others) are very reluctant to sanction its use. Perhaps pressure from environmentalist groups has influenced the donor agencies' actions, convincing them that IRS is not consistent with sustainable development and good environmental practices. If so, donor agencies have embraced a position that does not reflect reality.

That's from Africa Fighting Malaria. I like that jab about political considerations preceding over sound science.

http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/367/RBMInfosheet_6.htm

Quote:

Over 40% of the world's children live in malaria-endemic countries. Each year, approximately 300 to 500 million malaria infections lead to over one million deaths, of which over 75% occur in African children < 5 years infected with Plasmodium falciparum1. The rapid spread of resistance to antimalarial drugs, coupled with widespread poverty, weak health infrastructure, and, in some countries, civil unrest, means that mortality from malaria in Africa continues to rise. The tragedy is that the vast majority of these deaths are preventable.

The resistance they are talking about is to treatement drugs, not preventative spraying of DDT. Althought I did find some evidence of that, but even that was questionable, as most everything is.

Anyway, while Malaria has been eliminated in the US, that says nothing for africa.

Here's an editorial from 21st Century Science

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/15599/
This is after announcing the reintroduction of DDT in the fight against Malaria in Uganda...

Quote:

But Muhwezi (Uganda's Minister of Health) encountered opposition almost immediately. After his announcement, Andrew Sisson, a USAID official attending the Kampala convention, told one session that in the United States DDT had been found to "cause environmental problems," according to Muhwezi. A member of Uganda's parliament warned Muhwezi that Europe and the United States might ban imports of Uganda's fish and agricultural exports, a fear shared by local environmentalists, according to the Nairobi East African, Kenya's leading daily. Since USAID prefers to fund bednets as a solution to Uganda's mosquito problem, Muhwezi is unsure if he'll be able to obtain international assistance to fund a DDT-based malarial eradication project. "We hope they'll come along. But if they don't, we'll do it alone."

Until recently, one might have considered Uganda's to be a tragic but unavoidable tradeoff -- deprive many of an uncontaminated natural environment, or save few from malaria. In much of the world, after all, the popular conception of DDT is of a dangerous. and toxic chemical that pollutes water and poisons the food chain; in the United States, DDT is remembered as the pesticide that helped put bald eagles on the endangered species list. But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the popular conception is wrong. Older studies on the effects of DDT have been called into question, and newer ones militate against the notion that DDT is inherently dangerous. For the kind of use Muhwezi has in mind, in fact, DDT may not be dangerous at all.

I don't know, but I think USAID's words and their actions might be two different things. Way to quote a letter to the editor, but I did find the same statement on USAid's website. (straight from the horses mouth n all)

Quote:

USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted.

when it is scientifically sound and warranted.
Sorry about the Malaria, DTT isn't sound or warranted, have a bed net.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501032.html

Indoor spraying is all the EU will support, they will not buy crops treated with DDT, which comes down to the Malaria or Poverty (not as dramatic as Malaria or Starvation, but still it's a choice that sucks)

Quote:

Malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Only Ecuador, which has continued to use DDT, has seen a reduction in the number of malaria cases in recent years.[7] Other mosquito-borne diseases are also on the rise. Until the 1970s, DDT was used to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito from most tropical regions of the Americas. The reinvasion of Aedes aegypti since has brought devastating outbreaks of dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and a renewed threat of urban yellow fever.[56]

That's from wiki pedia, with sources given.

So, while the EU, US AID promotes IRS spraying, which obviously isn't too effective, they do not promote the wide spread use of DDT which, obviously is.

Here's pretty much the same statement about South African from wiki (with sources given)

Quote:

After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50 per year. South Africa could afford and did try newer alternatives to DDT, but they proved less effective.[11]

So anyway, while the offical stance is DDT is okay sometimes, the idea isnt' that no aid will go in (I WAS wrong) it's that no goods will be imported to the US or EU from countries that use DDT in any unapproved method, like spraying in a method that might put crops at risk, such as out side, where all the mosquitos are....

Quote:

Some people should think about spending time with their
head in a book or periodical instead of...uhm other places.

I average five to six books a month. Granted most of my reading is for entertainment I do read, frequently and feverently. The only reading I've ever regretted is usually in purple writing.

We could trade snide comments all day (I'm really good at it,) and throw around facts and links and all that all day too, but the truth is, my heart's not really in this. I pretty firmly believe that the ban and junk science surrounding DDT is killing more people than' it's protecting.

I do think science is for sale, suppression and exploitation. I'm sure you'll agree, since the Bush administration has been floating around accusations of supressing and manipulating science for a while now. That's my distrust of "scientists."

Posted: 09-01-07 22:02

Poet_with_a_Gun wrote:

r
We could trade snide comments all day (I'm really good at it,) and throw around facts and links and all that all day too

PWAG is right on the mark with this.
I think this topic has been explored in depth and to death. I invite anyone with the need to further the discussion or approach differences discretely and with respect through the PM option or email for lengthier debates.
In the meantime, I'm gonna lock this thread! Wink