Halcyon Daze

China's going the same way now. Seems the medical bills far outweigh the revenue that was already spent on something else.

Lol. American's are deeply patriotic people, what's the bet they find a new unity as a nation and really start moving forward again.

There's a lot of damning proof that GM foods are dangerous. The CSIRO had to scramble to scrap their own super-pea project after it was found to be causing cancer in rats. http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/pivotal_papers/suspicions.htm New Suspicions about GMO "By Hervé Kempf Le Monde Thursday 09 February 2006 Do transgenic plants have a negative effect on health? Ever since their commercialization in 1996, the question has agitated circles of experts and ecologists, without any indisputable proof allowing an affirmative response. Now, several recent studies effected by credible researchers and published in scientific reviews tally with one another to throw doubt on GMOs' complete harmlessness. They don't assert that GMOs generate health problems. But at the very least they suggest that GMOs provoke biological impacts that must be more widely studied. This new questioning arises just as the Council of Ministers adopted a proposed law on GMO Wednesday, February 8, and as the World Trade Organization (WTO) handed over an interim report February 7 to the parties in a conflict that opposes the United States, Canada, and Argentina to the European Union on the issue of transgenic plants. In November 2005, Australian researchers published an article in a scientific review (Vanessa Prescott et al., Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 2005, p. 9023) explaining that the transfer of a gene that expresses an insecticide protein from a bean to a pea had provoked unexpected problems: among the mice fed the transgenic peas, Csiro (the Australian equivalent of the French National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS) researchers observed antibody production, markers of an allergic reaction. The affair, which made headlines in the Australian and English press, led Csiro to stop development of that transgenic pea, while West Australia Minister of Agriculture Kim Chance announced that his government would finance an independent study on feeding animals with GMO: "The state government is aware of the anxiety concerning GMO safety, while most of the research in this domain is conducted or financed by the very companies promoting GMO," Mr. Chance explained in a November 2005 communiqué. During the summer of 2005, it was an Italian team led by Manuela Malatesta, cellular biologist at the Histological Institute of the University of Urbino, that published intriguing results (European Journal of Histochemistry, 2005, p. 237). In prior studies, that team had already demonstrated that absorption of transgenic soy by mice induces modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. This summer's publication proved that a return to non-transgenic food made the observed differences disappear. It also showed that several of these changes could be "induced in adult organisms in a very short time." In Norway, Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromsö's Institute of Genetic Ecology, just published a study in European Food Research and Technology (January 2006, p. 185): he demonstrates that an element of the genetic structures used to modify a plant, the catalyst 35S CaMV, can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Now, according to GMO promoters, that catalyst normally only operates that way in plants. ... etc" Here it is in New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347 Probably the most worrying thing is that it was big news at the time and now you can't even find it on Google news. These big companies pay to have these things concealed. We don't even know that much of what we eat is already GM, they have to hide it from us. There's your conspiracy right there!

As mentioned, a lot has to do with the position of the cacti. I planted these 2 psycho0s in a semi-shaded position to make them grow as blue as possible and it worked. These get 3 -4 hours morning sun followed by bright-lit shade for the rest of the day. Psycho0s really get that electric blue look to them but I assume some other varieties would go even bluer if planted with a similar aspect. Planting in these conditions was a bit of an experiment in blueness, there are probably some cons like less flowers etc, but that's the trade off you have to consider. Mine seem happy enough in these conditions and I think they are built to handle some shade if necessary. The taller one is seven foot high and they are both growing quite fast.

Check out Plectranthus barbatus, aka 'Kikuyu toilet paper' in Kenya. There are heaps of native Plectranthus species in Australia and a little bear told me that P. graveolens does a really good job and has a nice minty freshness about it. also Brachyglottis repanda from NZ, aka Bushman's friend. There are a few species of Brachyglottis getting around Aussie gardens, but none are native as far as I know

It also happened to my GF when she was on antibiotics post surgery. The doctor said it was common with anitbiotics. try eating yoghurt or something from the chemist like Canesten etc

Don't believe the hype people! http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation "How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima. Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process. To wit: 1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation Let me educate him. The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1] Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time. The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards. 2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer. 3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000. Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful. Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl." 4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case. In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring." After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world." Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health.""

It takes a lot of oil to grow and ship the food we eat. As the price of oil rises so does the cost of food. Always good to shop at the local markets, save yourself money and help the environment.

Good point. I wonder how the law works with hybrids anyway. And I wonder if they'd eventually just tweak the law to stamp it out. Divinorum is a damn nice garden plant, it's a shame one cannot freely grow it anymore. A garden full of lush hybrid sally would be pretty flippin sweet. :D

Ok I found the source and was able to download the full text through my Uni database, SWEEEEET! Very nice paper and nice bibli too. From the paper it is clear that Salvia divinorum is definitely a species not a hybrid and yes it's definitely closely related to S. venulosa (very close) with significant morhpological similarites, "There are a number of morphological similarities between Salvia divinorum and S. venulosa, strikingly resembling each other morphologically, and most significantly in floral reproductive structures." But... "Salvia venulosa is a very local endemic, known from only three locations found in deeply shaded, moist ravines in the westernmost cordillera of the Colombian Andes in the district of Risaralda from 1,500 to 2,000 m elevation. It is of interest that no other Colombian natives are reported to grow in this north-westernmost extension of the Colombian Andes (Wood and Harley 1988)." You may have to go on an expedition (or contact the authors). Ecologically, man-made hybrids are not wise, and by the sounds of it a hybrid would probably not result in much of an obvious difference, (other than a red or reddish flowered 'Sally' which would be better off back-crossed anyway). I like the idea of a hybrid as a curiosity but I'd say the future lies in line-breeding with the wild gened that still exist.

Cool. Got a source for this info, I'd like to know more.

Worldwide, carbon taxes are seen as the gold standard at reducing CO2 emissions. They are very simple compared with the more complicated emission trading schemes which are more of a 'free pass' for polluters to keep polluting. The 'Polluter Pays' schemes (such as the carbon tax) are preferred by scientists and environmentalists alike as the only way to set a level playing field and allow our all-conquering market forces to overcome the hurdles. There will be a direct incentive for electricity companies to buy/ generate their power from cleaner sources, and a direct incentive for technology to advance sooner, i.e., the people who make the break-through innovations will really be able to cash-in with their new technologies. Somewhere in the middle the two will meet and we will be actually begin reducing our CO2 emissions, GO SCIENCE! Personally I support pulling our finger out and DOING something. If the scientists like it then so do I. We can't dump oil into the sea etc so why should anyone be allowed to dump CO2 into the air? Obviously we can't change this practice over night but a carbon tax allows for a smoooooth transition. I can't believe how long the deniers, sceptics and 'head in the sand-ers' have prevented progress on fighting climate change, it's rapidly changing though. There's really no point trying to convince the average denier these days because even when 95 % of the science is 95% sure of something, these deniers still choose to ignore it because they simply don't want to face facts. The average denier these days falls into the "Lost Cause" category, they are just a waste of time. Anyway, merely putting in the framework won't completely guarantee a reduction of CO2, there will still be politics at play, and the blame game, etc etc. What I'd really like to see is more people taking action in their own personal lives and more public funds invested in developing renewable technologies, neither of which seem very likely prospects. I guess the carbon tax makes it easy for us to do something about climate change without having to actually DO anything at all. That's the Aussie spirit right there baby.

Asimina triloba is in the Annonacae family which is what we usually call the custard apples. Asimina triloba is from Nth America and tolerates cool climates. I'm hoping I can grow them here in Tassie. If you have some spares seeds let me know Thanks in advance, HD

If you want a plant to look good then focus on growing it healthily. Plant it in the ground and look after its basic needs and within a year it will look pretty damn good. I'd be careful with the bonsai wire, you may stunt it's growth and end up with a stunted looking plant. Either way, any failures are what helps us learn. Good luck.

Hi this is my first proper post, and has little to do with ethnobotanicals other than being a plant. I think it's probably a weed and I think it's an Ajuga species of some kind but definitely not A. australis. It was growing on a roadside here in Tasmania. Thanks in advance.

People, we have a winner! Now free seeds for all. PM me if you're interested but it may take a couple more weeks before the seeds are ripe.

Ok well I figured it out and I was definitely wrong about it being an Ajuga although it is obviously in the Lamiaceae family. Turns out it's a pretty interesting medicinal plant after all, and probably well known. But before I name it I'll give everyone a chance to win free seeds, there's tons of it around here. Oh and thanks for the welcome Alice