Amelanchier

Tony, you are falling at the seemingly unsurmountable human hurdle - short term thinking.

You may be fine and outliving your forefathers, but nature works on a much longer time scale and we dont really know the long term effects we are passing on to our children who in turn pass it on to theirs etc etc.

 

For the record, while I like the general approach of the paleo, I dont jump into these things boots and all, but take an approach of gradual change to anything I do - nature has shown that sudden changes often come a cropper after an initial period of improvement - fad diets being a good example.

In this regard, our change to a grain based diet over the last 10 000 years has been IMO a relatively gradual change in natures terms, but significantly more dramatic has been the very recent change to highly processed grains that are milled and then stabilised chemically to preserve them till we get round to using them. This has all happened in the last 100 years or so - a flash in the pan on natures time scale, and to my mind far more damaging than the previous 9900 years of grain consumption where grains were generally stored whole after harvest and then ground as and when required.

A further recent and very damaging effect of modern food practice is the lack of seasonality. We tend to eat stuff all year round whereas in the past seasons dictated what we ate - ie stuff that was growing in the same conditions we were living in and therefore having appropriate nutrients for those conditions.

 

Personally, I think the human body can cope with all sorts of variations in the short term, but thinking long term, we need to be a bit more circumspect.

Unfortunately, we will not be around to see the results of our choices.

Yes,humans live longer now than ever before, but at what long term cost??

 

I suspect that our short term thinking is probably natures way of ensuring our own downfall as we get increasingly arrogant and play god without understanding the bigger, fuller picture, thereby ensuring the earth goes on long after we humans have shuffled off this mortal coil.

 

So, dont think that answers many questions, just my two pence worth

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.

You ask 'how was the 1.5 safety factor determined?'. I assume you mean why is it 1.5 rather than 1 or 2? Below is a quote from Andreas Detter's paper 'Static load tests in arboriculture'. He explains it perfectly:

 

'If the resistance against failure matches exactly the expected wind load, the factor of safety of the tree would be 1. But according to engineering standards any structure must have sufficient strength reserves beyond the expected loads. Due to the level of uncertainty involved in any numeric approach, a factor of safety of 1.5 is required in the static load test'.

 

I hope this answers your question?

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...

It is circumstances such as this where a 'static load test' aka 'tree pulling test' is likely to have enabled a more objective management decision to be made.

How so?

Either way, I can't find an app or notification on East Dorset's website.

I couldn't find it either... If anyone happens to find a direct link to the relevant page on the Dorset website, please post it here

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

A tomograph reputedly from a 3rd December BBC Dorset report on the Cedar

 

Doesn't mention the height of the test or type/extent of decay.

 

BBC News - Duke of Wellington's Kingston Lacy tree to be felled

 

.

The tree had been tested by myself last year with the Picus tomograph and was shown to have significant decay present due to colonisation by Phaeolus.

This year both Mick Boddy and myself spent most of a day testing with the Tomograph and two resistographs just to be sure of the accuracy of our results.

We tested at several heights and found extensive levels of advanced tissue degradation.

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...

Don't feed the troll.

What troll...?

Sorry, should have said...

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!

Isn't this the second time he's been banned?

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.

Best to start your own thread rather than hijack someone else's but here goes.

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!

Spoilsport.

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

When we gonna hear results? Or at least who's in the running?

 

trees, waves and cakes!!:-)

Results at the end of the month and there's too many in the running to list! Still wide open guys and gals...

I don't disagree with you Andy. It does give you a paper trail and it's certainly useful to critique an existing Order but I think it provides an easy way out for the lazy in serving. I think a TPO should be justified by a description of its merits much like a building listing rather than a score that must be untangled but then perhaps that's another thread entirely!

If you're looking in, Tony, can you please explain (briefly) what you meant by 'pat on the back'? It could help me conclude my perspective on TEMPO.

Putting aside the obvious banality of retrospective assessment which IME is the norm; the TEMPO "TPO defensible" threshold is too easily achieved by all but the poorest trees - those that fail are so blatently undeserving that it's hard to imagine anyone even contemplating assessing them in the first place. The end result is that in the rare event that a TEMPO is undertaken in advance of serving an Order it is a fait accompli. If you know anything about trees (and the process assumes you do) and can imagine assessing it, then it's TPOable under TEMPO.

Sorry guys. I think we're done here.