Amelanchier

He can always ask nicely for it to be re activated.

Yawn.

I do the same as Scott and Paul. I think most important thing to do when adjusting the shape is to justify yourself - it only takes a paragraph or an annotation. On the flip side, in the event that I use the circular model I feel obliged to justify that also. As far as weird polygons go, I have an ongoing site with a row of Pops between a river, some buildings and bridges. It took most of a day trudging around with a probe, crowbar and an auger just to work out where the viable rooting areas are and the resulting RPAs are as far from circular as you were ever likely to see. Most were vague asymmetric 'S' and 'T' shapes and one even had to be argued down in area - it just wasn't physically possible for it to follow the model given the reality of the site. Recently we had the opportunity to put a hand dug root investigation trench in across the limit of one of the more speculative sections of one of these RPAs to inform the feasibility of a trench footing. Given the distance and convoluted path to the trench from the nearest Pop, I was expecting a number of shallow small diameter (<10mm) roots just under the hard surface but instead we found a single 28mm root disappearing off outside the RPA... I couldn't justify reducing the other extents (they were too obvious) so I just increased the provision for that tree. A model is just a model.

pre-industrial wheat was better how? More nutrients? More availability? More honesty? More capacity to host parasites that could drive you insane? Natural stuff can hurt you just as bad as synthetic stuff...

I'm not sure how individuals can ever hope to shape the natural selection that may or may affect our distant descendants by avoiding particular foods. Its not something I'm going to lose sleep over. If my children find out the diet I've brought them up on is proven to be harmful they can change it right there and then. And anyway, even if we don't know the long term effects of relying on 'modern grain' on a sufficient timeframe to satisfy everyone (how long is long?) we do know the long term effects of relying on "historic" grains - endless toil, famine and ergotism.

Having read this thread I guess I must be invincible - I eat carbs every day and I'm not unhealthy, unwell, or unalive. Perhaps I have 'evolved'...? Seriously - if it works for you, great. However, just for the record it is entirely possible to eat non-paleo and be perfectly healthy.

It does. Semantics notwithstanding, the threshold is subjective...

Thanks Paul - I think we might have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes ''objective' insofar as whether one empirical test can be considered to be more objective than another. How was the 1.5 safety factor determined? In any case, I'm not sure the issue here was the availability of mitigating evidence...

How so?

There's no requirement to keep a statutory record of trees felled under exemptions...

Just a neutral observation from someone who's not getting on either bandwagon... I'm always cautious of PICUS images that are generated based on a perfectly circular cross section. The whole premise behind the ability of the system to differentiate between varying wood composition is that the software knows the exact distance between the sensors (so as to be able to accurately calculate and compare the signal velocities). As the apparent level of 'decay' of the wood is determined relative to the range of velocities recorded for that individual sample, any inaccuracy in those measurements has the potential to change the threshold that 'decay' is defined at. So even if the cross section is slightly elliptical then the measurement of the attenuation caused by a defect can be inaccurate. False positives or false negatives become more and more likely the further the shape deviates from your model. The only way to determine if the cross section is circular enough to use the circular model is to take a number of axis measurements. Of course, if you are taking axis measurements then you might as well be drawing the real shape (realer?) of the tree anyway...

What troll...?

Slow down man. Just write it all in one post. Once. The OP is going to take a look at his thread, get all excited that it has thirty new replies, open it up and see that it just has one spread over thirty posts.

I've started another thread to keep this one on track - trying to avoid diluting the message!

It is - this time it's permanent. Seems he didn't learn anything first time around...

No time for trolls here. Thanks for the heads up.

:biggrin:This may be of interest if we're going down this road... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24745784

Afternoon all. I've read a great many threads on the forum about theft over the years and clearly one alone is too many. At the risk of speaking for Steve and the other mods, we understand the frustration and anger that happens as a result and we have no problem with members sharing information and experiences in the hope that future thefts can be prevented. Unfortunately (but understandably) sometimes these discussions progress towards how to prevent thefts by setting traps capable of causing serious harm or by suggesting that people affected should take the law into their own hands. Rightly or wrongly, the law is clear on this and it is my view that we cannot be seen to be endorsing this approach by failing to moderate these comments in some way. That said, there are many ways to moderate a discussion and the way that I think is the most appropriate in this case is to provide the following information from the government and the CPS; https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders Householders and the use of force against intruders Homeowners and self defence - DPP issues further details of cases : Press Release : Crown Prosecution Service So by all means discuss what you will within the rules of the forum but be aware that what you post here could be used as evidence of premeditation in the event of an incident.

Thread un-hijacked (thanks to TGB for the heads up )

Congrats on the top Myerscough Master student award mate - didn't know you went to the UEA You came to Norfolk just as I left it!

Spoiling sports is a sport in itself.

Before we start building the gallows, handing out pitchforks and lighting the torches let's remember that the press are expert at hearing something different to that which was said. She wouldn't be the first person to be misquoted in print.

Ok, I've finally got round to making my mind up - thanks to everyone for making it quite a challenge . I have my top three... In third place - Gnome. Reminding me of the reality of many a site down on the Broads! Second - Ben Lightfoot. While I'm normally not too keen on the Instagram style (apologies if it isn't Ben!) this has just the right amount of 'dampness' to it - that kind of chilly wet air that seems to try to find its way through your layers. And finally, first place. Dan Curtis. Capturing the most important element of working in the outdoors - a stubborn refusal to compromise on life's luxuries. And although it's not an early action man mug (I'd guess 1998 Dan?), that can be forgiven. Well done all and thanks again for all those who participated. Dan, you'll need to PM me the address you want the book sent to.

Some great contenders there guys - it's going to be a tough call tomorrow when I finally have to make a decision!

Looks like a stem gall - Agrobacterium tumefaciens