Green (Living) Review

The Truth About Organic Gardening - Book Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Truth About Organic Gardening: Benefits, Drawbacks, and the Bottom Line
By Jeff Gillman
208 pages, paperback, 8.8 x 5.8 x 0.6 inches
Published by Timber Press, February 1, 2008
ISBN-13: 978-0881928624
Price: $12.95

Gardeners and farmers tend to assume that any product or practice labeled as organic is automatically safe for humans and beneficial to the environment; and in many cases this is indeed true, but not always.

The problem, as Jeff Gillman points out in this fascinating, well-researched book, is that it is not universally true, and the exceptions can pose a significant threat to human health. To cite just two examples: animal manures are widely viewed as prime soil amendments. When properly treated, they are; but if they are insufficiently composted, they can be a source of harmful E. coli contamination. Even more dangerous, potentially, are organic insecticides like rotenone, which is every bit as toxic as the synthetic compounds it is meant to replace.

Gillman's contention is that all gardening products and practices — organic and synthetic — need to be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine both whether they are safe and whether they accomplish the task for which they are intended. When gardeners are well informed about the precise nature and consequences of what they use and do in the garden, they are in a much better position to make responsible, effective choices.

If you've ever wondered about the merits of a specific insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide, or debated whether practices such as planting cover crops or companion plants are worth the trouble, you'll find the answers you've sought in these pages, along with a clear, careful, and good-humored analysis of benefits and drawbacks.

Ultimately, Gillman concludes, organic methods are preferable in most situations that gardeners are likely to encounter. After reading this eye-opening book, you will understand why, and why knowledge is the gardener's most important tool.

Here is, finally, an author who is not biased at either extreme of the organic vs. chemical garden debate and weighs in with an even-handed, fact-based approach.

Few fields are more rife with half-truths and old wives' tales than gardening, especially when it comes to the so-called “organic” gardening (and farming) practices. It is, therefore, really refreshing to see someone look past the claims to what research really tells us, without standing in either this or that camp.

The Truth About Organic Gardening is a book that could be called a reference text masquerading as a beach read. It is full with hands-on knowledge that is just plain useful. The book gives the reader the facts about synthetic and organic techniques and encourages you to do further research, then make educated decisions about your own garden and how you want to use either organic or synthetic or combined.

The author's approach to the subject is calm and even and his bottom line is that we all need to be more mindful about how we garden, and he encourages us to work towards a safer, healthier, and better world, by using what is available, from either camp.

This is the first book on organic gardening (and farming) that I have read where the author is not outright ranting and raving against synthetic chemicals and fertilizers and this make a real nice change.

The author also so nicely points out that there is a common misconception about synthetic fertilizers in that most people believe them to contain and be made of and with petrochemicals. This is, however, rarely the case, but still it is something that we are so often told by the proponents of ONLY organic.

In order for us to grow our own food for our families to be a little more self-sufficient we must be able to make use of all the aids that we can get.

While organic matter is the best fertilizer, per se, and soil needs it and lots of it, slow release synthetic fertilizers too have their place, in the same way as organic and non-organic practices of pest control must go hand-in-hand to some extent in thjis food growing endeavor.

This book is a read fresh breath in the stifled discussion as to organic vs conventional and should be read by all.

Security & Secrecy

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Two of information security's best known experts, John Colley and Howard Schmidt, said during the RSA Europe Conference in London that cloud computing could provide government with the chance to make significant improvements to protecting data.

However, Colley added that it would help if the government's information security specialist, CESG - the information assurance arm of GCHQ - got involved with the work.
It is only a few years since GCHQ's offices in Cheltenham were actually added to Ordnance Survey's maps. Prior to that they acted as if they did not exist. Much in the same way as the government kept denying for so long that MI5 and especially MI6 even existed.

But government infosecurity is now a vital part of the work of the GCHQ, with CESG certifying products and services as fit for state sector use. It now even has online maps to help you find its offices.
However, CESG remains linked to the secretive world of surveillance. Among infosecurity experts, the UK government has a decent reputation for protecting its most sensitive information, its secrets.

The problem is, thought, that the British government has a terrible reputation for protecting its citizens' data, along with its surveillance state approach to harvesting it.

Having said that, however, Germany is beginning to lead the field in Europe in the data mining from its citizens and we can but hope that that is not a sign of things to come.

It would appear though as if Germany, on the other hand, seems to be better in protecting people's data and does not seem to be losing all that many CDs and USB sticks with sensitive unencrypted data on it as do British government agencies.

I mean, come on, for the lack of a £30 AES 256 hardware encrypted – and some of them are still cheaper nowadays – an entire intelligence network got compromised because some idiot left an flash drive on a railway station in Colombia.

When a secret agent and its agency are that stupid then what hope is there and while the country is over secret and also thinks it has to have all that information on its citizens those protected with safeguarding that information – not that they should data mine such information from the pubic in the first place – could not be trusted with monopoly money.
Government information security has to continue to improve if public trust in state sector data handling is ever to recover. Maybe it time for CESG to leave Cheltenham and GCHQ, and seek a higher profile for its important work.

GCHQ has never been very good in securing its secrets either and I well remember the fiasco some years back when they sold surplus PCs – we are talking before the Internet – with the hard drives – then in the region of 40MB – yes there was a time when we thought that was more than we would ever need – not wiped and very sensitive data on them. Not much has changed, eh?

PRESERVING THE FORESTS

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to a survey Over 90% of The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) members believe that developing countries should be compensated by the international community for preserving their forests.

This online survey by the Institution asked ‘Should developing countries be compensated by the international community for preserving their forests?’ 869 members responded, with 92% agreeing that countries should be.

Therefore the CIWEM stresses that the Copenhagen summit in December must include reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation scheme (REDD) in the future climate framework.

Every hour, 2,500 hectares of rainforest are lost to deforestation, causing an estimated 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. That is about the same as the total emissions from the US and more than the entire global transportation sector. Legal deforestation takes place because countries can earn money and create jobs by selling trees and clearing land for agriculture. These are legitimate objectives for governments to pursue, but forests store vast quantities of carbon dioxide which is released back into the atmosphere when they are destroyed.

The global economy does not value the services that forests provide when trees are kept alive, so under the Kyoto Protocol it is more valuable to cut forests down than to leave them standing. Correcting this market failure will require recognising that protecting rainforests is not only an environmental concern but an economic issue that cuts to the core of a nation's development. Therefore, CIWEM believes that this issue needs sustained attention from the highest levels of governments.

Justin Taberham, CIWEM’s Director of Policy, says: “Scientists have warned that without measures to keep forests intact, we stand no chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. There is a global benefit in maintaining forests so it makes sense to compensate developing countries for the economic benefits they forgo by preserving their forests. The UK Government must show strong leadership at the forthcoming climate change summit in Copenhagen and include REDD compensation in future climate change strategies.”

But we must also consider that many of the forests in the developed countries are also under constant threat such as with Canada's boreal that are being destroyed by the likes of Kimberly Clark in order to turn the pulp from those trees into toilet paper and paper towels.

Therefore, says the Romani Forestry Association, we must also make every effort to keep our forests in the developed nations healthy and productive and must ensure that they do not fall prey to scrupulous companies that all but clear fell and then leave devastation.

Every tree lost is part of the lungs of the Planet lost. Without trees we cannot live on Earth and hence we must look after our trees and plant more to boot.

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) is an independent professional body and a registered charity, advancing the science and practice of water and environmental management for a clean, green and sustainable world, www.ciwem.org.

Land use lessons of the past could help in future

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The time-honoured tradition of coppicing could give offer best of both worlds, providing biofuel to cut carbon emissions and a helpful haven for wildlife, say researchers.

Are they really trying to tell us that the ancient ones were right after all. This cannot be so, can it. <sarcasm off>

An inter-disciplinary team set out to tackle the oft-cited objections that present a hurdle to expansion of biofuel production.

While energy crops used to produce bioethanol still spark hot debate with some questioning their environmental benefits when weighed against the demands they put on land resources, perennial biomass crops have additional benefits.

This is the conclusion of research team from the universities of East Anglia and Exeter, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, in a study to identify the effects of increasing the amount of land used to grow these new crops.

Their calculations suggest that planting biomass crops to generate electricity does lead to net savings in greenhouse gases, compared with current emissions.

Concerns have previously been raised about the likely effects on farmland biodiversity, water resources and familiar landscapes, as well as the pressures on land used for growing food crops.

But the researchers say that short coppice rotation (SRC) of willow in particular actually had positive effects for butterflies, some invertebrates and most bird species.

Looking at water usage, they found that SRC willow is similar to cereal crops, while miscanthus is more comparable to woodlands.

Dr Angela Karp, who lead the research team, said: "Our results suggest that there is definite potential for growing more of them, without negative effects, although we do find that sensitive plantation design would be beneficial, both for wildlife and for aesthetic impact.

"One of the outcomes from our project is detailed mapping across England, which identifies areas which could be suitable for growing energy crops.

"This shows that we could meet government objectives of growing 350,000 hectares of these for electricity without impacting on food production. However, to meet an additional 750,000 for transport fuels would increase pressure on available land."

But when we are talking and when we from the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW and also the FORESTRY REVIEW talk about coppicing we are not – primarily – looking at coppicing as a means of creating biofuels for vehicles but instead of wood for heating homes and running (small) CHP plants.

SRC is not the answer and also, general, hardwood coppice has wood ready to burn as firewood within a couple of years and this is much better than the SRC of willow.

Willow also, and those researchers should have worked that one out already is not the greatest burning wood especially as far as BTU are concerned.

So, instead of willow we should be looking at trees that – one – coppice and – two – that grow fast enough (and most do) and create a enough heat.

Folks, let's get back to the drawing board and consider this properly and willow coppicing like growing any mono-crop on a farming basis does not benefit the environment.

Coppicing, however, is a great way of growing trees, for small woodworking and especially firewood which can be used to heat homes and to run, as said, CHP plants.

As a forester my recommendation would be to use a wood that has a better burning quality than willow and grow that in coppice. It can be done.

Councils urged to use brownfield sites for allotments

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

A think tank focusing on local government is calling on councils to turn over publicly-owned brownfield sites for allotments.

This group also argues that Government should offer tax incentives to land owners to allow allotments to be established on their unused plots.

The New Local government Network (NLGN) points to social and environmental benefits of allotments, and the fact that in many areas lengthy waiting lists are making it impossible for the public to access these benefits.

The director of the organization, Chris Leslie, told the Bradford paper the “Telegraph and Argus”: “It is well documented that allotments can help to keep people fit, encourage healthy eating, reduce carbon footprints and save money on food bills, so it's a tragedy that more than 100,000 people are waiting to be provided with a plot of land.

“Our reforms would see much more unused and unfunctional brownfield land developed into a much more picturesque landscape of working allotments.”

Allotments are indeed a great community asset and bring people together and keep them healthy and we could also take a leaf out of the book of Community Agriculture as operated in the United States, for instance, where entire local communities get involved in the effort of food growing for all involved.

Entire housing estates have been greened in the USA and also brownfield sites by community groups in the framework of the community agriculture scheme and it seems to really be working and apparently vandalism is virtually unheard off in those cases.

The young hoodlums are actually also involved in the work of those schemes and hence have an interest not to have the gardens trashed.

Now, let's go and do it.

Greenish glass is not putting consumers off

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Jars and bottles that have been made with mixed-color recycled glass do not appear to put off consumers, according to trials on supermarket shelves.

Retailers have expressed concern that consumers might find glass with a slight colored tint off-putting but this research carried out by WRAP suggests otherwise.

This would indicate that most of the British public are actually cleaver enough to realize that the color of the glass does not matter as it does not impact on the contents.

The waste-reduction organization is hoping it will break down one of the barriers currently affecting the amount of glass being recycled back into useful products.

WRAP believes the study will also benefit the recycling industry in the UK by providing confidence in the demand for more mixed color recycled glass.

Conducted in partnership with Sainsbury's, the study looked at consumer attitudes to food and drink products in glass packaging with a slightly green hue - the color produced when it contains a high percentage of mixed-color recycled glass.

By comparing participants' perceptions of a range of common products - from mayonnaise and preserves to wines and spirits - packaged in both recycled and clear glass containers, the study found that the color change did not tend to have a detrimental effect.

Mayonnaise was the only product that consumers preferred in a clear glass container, otherwise, product approval ratings were similar regardless of container colour.

Marcus Gover, director of market development at WRAP, said: "WRAP's study suggests that, in the majority of cases, consumers are just as likely to buy food and drink products in containers with over 90% mixed-colour recycled glass content as they are to purchase products in clear glass packaging.

"This study should give retailers the confidence to use more recycled glass in their products - in the knowledge that it will not adversely affect sales.

"This is good news for the recycling industry as it could help to stimulate a high value market for mixed-color recycled glass in the UK. This in turn may provide the impetus to divert more of this glass away from landfill and secondary markets and into closed loop recycling."

But why not reuse the bottles and jars after use as was done years ago instead of using energy to remake glass containers. It is absolutely silly the way we are going about.

Recycling glass by first destroying the shape into shards and then grinding it to a sand structure before melting the material down and turning it into more or less the same containers that were broken up to make the new ones. This all just is total stupidity.

Not so long ago until the 1970s we knew what to do. We then had glass bottles with a deposit on them and more or less all drinks bottles, beer, cider, lemonade and Coca Cola, all. We must bring this back. It is NOT rocket science, so why treat it as such. And we must extend such as scheme also to other glass containers, including sauce bottles, jars and wine bottles rather than to a company to first destroy the containers, remelt them into glass and make them into basically the same containers they just destroyed, all consuming energy, though, it may be true, now as much as creating glass from new entirely. Collecting and cleaning the containers, however, would be much cheaper. So why do we not do it? We really cannot be that stupid.

A Very 'Cool' Way To 'Go Green' with WindAir Green Technology by EarthSure

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

EarthSure, a renewable energy company and innovator in alternative energy sources, announces the latest patent-pending renewable energy invention. WindAir™, a system for transforming the exhausted air flow from central air conditioning units into a source of renewable, clean energy (electric) will be bursting into the HVAC scene world-wide just in time for the next heat-wave.
How it Works:

The WindAir™ system uses the warm air flow from the exhaust of a traditional air conditioning unit and drives it into a secondary fan turbine system. This secondary system has an electric-generating mechanism that transforms the wind flow into free, clean, renewable energy which is then inverted into the electric meter of the home or office building.

This renewable energy has the capability to reduce the increase in electric used by the air conditioning system by generating enough electricity to send it back to the meter, thereby turning the air conditioning unit into an actual "sub-power station". So every time you turn on the central air or cooling systems, your electric bill goes down instead of up! How’s that for a "cool" way to go green?

The unique WindAir™ converter system can be incorporated into any existing air conditioning condenser unit or manufactured as a complete new unit. This technology can be utilized within small homeowner units all the way up to the largest of commercial air conditioning applications.

Benefits:

The first and foremost benefit to the WindAir™ system is the ability to save significant amounts of money on one’s electric bill. Who doesn’t want to pay less? Secondly, the system turns an electric-guzzling machine that has been used for years and transforms it into a renewable energy source, aiding in a way to keep the environment clean, reducing our carbon footprint, and also lessening our reliance on foreign dependence on outside power sources.

The accomplishments of this novel secondary stage fan turbine will also offset the surge of electric that is straining our power plants and sub-stations during hot summer months. The unique methodology of this second stage fan turbine is actually turning an agent that normally uses a lot of electricity into a source that uses renewable energy.

The unique WindAir™ 'shroud' design will absorb the AC units’ operational sound to minimize the units’ noise pollution output, making for a much more peaceful environment. The 'shroud' design also captures more of the exhausted air conditioning unit's air and funnels it in a more concentrated fashion with less waste of air stream, which will equate to higher electrical output.

The unit is also designed to protect the inside components of outdoor AC units from being exposed to the elements of weather, making these components rust-free and longer lasting. This design is also pet-friendly and rodent resistant and in addition to eliminating the weather elements, it will keep out leaves and foreign debris.

EarthSure Renewable Energy Corp. is an American corporation innovating technologies to produce energy in a clean and affordable way. Utilizing solar and wind power as a source of renewable energy, EarthSure systems are alternatives to conventional energy producing methods that result in carbon emissions.

Ray Saluccio, an accomplished inventor and entrepreneur founded EarthSure Renewable Energy Corp. in order to market and develop the systems he designs and to bring solar energy production to the masses, easily and at an affordable rate.

EarthSure's goal is to offer a cost-effective way for all individuals and businesses to use Green Energy, regardless of size or industry. They are on the cutting edge of compliance with America's Green Initiatives as they relate to the energy and environmental provisions in the Stimulus Plan.

For more information about WindAir™ and the many other innovative developments in solar and wind power created by EarthSure, visit their website at www.Earth-Sure.com.

Government shall have no power other than that given to it by the people

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Government shall have no power other than that what has been given to it by the people and this also means that government does have no – legitimate – power, and cannot have such power, unless such power come from the people.

However, wherever we look government takes it upon itself, more often than not without proper referral back to the people, to lord it over its citizens and subjects, the latter the true title of a Brit.

Dependent on which nation in some places this is not as strong as in others but what the people must remember that, theoretically, in a democracy and especially a constitutional republic such as the United States they should be the one that decide what their representatives can and cannot legislate.

But, because people seem to like to have leaders rather than to do and think for themselves they have handed over, knowingly or out of ignorance, a lot of this to the state and therefore lost control of their countries and their governments.

People, as a whole are lazy and rather have others do things for them that they – in reality – are supposed to do themselves and this also goes as far as running their own affairs, dealing with crime in their way, and such like.

If the people had their way, I am sure, governments would have no way of waging war on other people (then again, seeing the nature of man one might wonder there too) and nations and we would not need standing armies.

It has to be said that neither the USA nor the once mother country Britain ever were meant to have a standing army and the USA certainly not as far as the Constitution is concerned, and militias should be good enough to defend if we all would play by the same rules.

In Britain, which is somewhat a rather different system to that of the United States, the latter being a constitutional republic while the former is a “constitutional” monarchy, government is all pervasive and invasive nowadays.

It was, however, the people to a great degree and extent who allowed it to become what it is today.

The majority of the people are just nor prepared, it would seem, to do things for themselves and they rely on the government for everything.

The government needs to provide more police, the government needs to make sure there are CCTV cameras around to make the streets safer, the government needs to do this and that for me; that is what we keep hearing all the time.

Much like the sort of joke about inefficiency of the social services for the elderly that goes “our dad shat himself last week and the council still hasn't come and cleaned him up”.

People have to come to rely on government and in that way abrogated their own responsibilities to local and central governments and in that way made a rod for their own backs for, as soon as governments are given such a free reign by having been given the little finger they will grab both hands and enslave the people.

While it is true that man has always worked with governments of one kind or another and many of them have been neither democratic nor benign there have been and still are tribal democracies in operation where the people really rule though also have a “leader” and the Romani People of old are one of those.

While the Romani (Gypsy) system of tribal government may have faults, and especially that one where there are so-called “kings” and “emperors”, the system of the elected headman, the Sherengro, who has no power other that that what the family elders bestow upon him may be one that could and should be looked at more closely.

However, while we are dealing with government on a nation state level we, the people, must learn to take control again of our lives and of the running of the country and not just by leaving supposedly elected officials, whether they are members of parliament or presidents, etc. “in charge”.

They are not in charge unless we allow them to have that “charge” and we must learn the we must take more control of everything, and if need be via much more direct action than now.

In fact, the truth is that we, all nation states, need a new way of doing things. We must reform our political system(s) in such a way that the people are in control, once and for all. If need be we must break down our current system(s) and set up a new one, one that will serve the people and not professional politicians.

Only if the people change the way that the system works presently into a system where they govern rather being governed will people ever be free and the world become a better place.

FUTURE FOOD SECURITY

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In a response to Natural England’s draft policy on food security and the environment, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) has expressed concerns over both the loss of biodiversity and soil productivity in food production.

The CIWEM believes that the vital tension between the need to produce food and the need to preserve biodiversity is not fully addressed by the draft policy. UK's biodiversity is currently in crisis, with the loss of set-aside expected to accelerate loss particularly with regards to farmland birds. And whilst protecting enough fertile land for food production is an important policy, CIWEM is concerned over how this might be achieved in practice.

Not only may many of our most productive soils be lost to sea level rise in the future, but the CIWEM has profound concerns over the future of the soil science discipline.

There are few professionals in the soil science sector and many are approaching retirement. With no surviving soil science degrees in UK universities, expertise in this field is decreasing rapidly. This is an issue which is not addressed by Natural England, so the CIWEM wishes to see more emphasis placed on the importance of soil scientists in delivering future food security in the UK.

Food security for the country as a nation is something that most be considered paramount and above all other aspects and just below national security. In fact food security is an aspect of national security.

The CIWEM Director of Policy, Justin Taberham says: “Soil science is an under-supported and under-funded sector, yet it is crucial for the sustainable management of soil and helps to drive all its associated benefits – fertile soil and land that can produce food and other crops, as well as a healthy bio-diverse mix of habitats.”

The CIWEM also feels that there is insufficient emphasis on reducing the UK’s food dependency on external sources within the draft policy. The suggestion of improving efficiency and reducing waste at a household level, combined with ensuring a diverse supply chain, does not go far enough to ensure UK food security.

This is, yet again, the problem that we have seen before in other statements by this government where, for instance, they came up with the notion that the country should not even attempt to be self-sufficient in food.

Nick Reeves, CIWEM’s Executive Director, says: “Future food security is an issue that the UK Government seems unable to address with the level of urgency and seriousness that is required. We need a firm approach to develop a policy which will look at all issues, such as increased efficiency and less waste.”

Do You Need It?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

What many people tend to perceive as needs are in fact nothing but wants and it is that that leads us into consumerism frenzy.

Would you buy the fancy car, house or whatever if there was no one around to look at it?

Is it something we really want or is it just another part of the image we present to the world?

I am sure that you would not and neither would anyone else. Most of the stuff that we buy thinking we need a new car, a new computer, a new this or that, is only something of one-upmanship; to have a newer this or that than our peers, our neighbors, etc. and thereby appearing superior to them.

I well understand to buy a “new” car, or computer, or what-have-you, if the old is broken and/no longer works but just because there is a new one around and even if you have the money to do so is futile.

So much that we, or at least the great majority of us, perceive as needs are, as said, not needs at all but pure wants and many of those are simply vanity as well.

Does anyone really need the latest i-Phone or general cell phone, the latest Blackberry device, simply because it is a new one that has a few more bells and whistles on that you haven't needed before and never missed? I sincerely doubt it.

But that is what marketing and advertising are trying to present to us. Namely that if you have not got the latest version then you are no in with the crowd. So what?

Does one really have to be in with the crowd as far as a cell phone is concerned or such? I don't think so. To me the cell phone is a telephonic communications devices for receiving and making voice calls (and the occasional SMS) and not more.

I do not need it to access the Web, my emails or watch the TV on it. Why should I?

I also do not need to be on the thing every minute of the day as some people seem to be – mostly for show they do. Before the cell phone we did not act about like that either so why now.

Mail waited till we got into the office (or home) and phone calls in the main too until we were in reach of a telephone, whether office, home, hotel, or booth.

Seriously, we do not need all those new devices. Make do with what you have got as long as it does the job properly and be content.