Print Page | Close Window

The Challenge

Printed From: Sensi Seeds Shop
Category: Hempflax
Forum Name: A €100,000 Reward to Prove Us Wrong!!
Forum Discription: Start thinking about our planet and its future!
URL: http://forum.sensiseeds.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=55
Printed Date: 21 September 2018 at 12:14


Topic: The Challenge
Posted By: administrator
Subject: The Challenge
Date Posted: 13 July 2004 at 14:31
HempFlax’ Challenge


HempFlax will wager 100.000 euros to anyone who can provide proof to the contrary of the following proposition.

‘If the greenhouse effect were to be reversed by a ban on all fossil fuels and their derivatives, or if their use were to come to an end, and no more trees were allowed to be felled in order to prevent further deforestation, then there would be one natural resource able to supply the greater part of the world’s demand for products such as paper, food, textiles and construction material. This annually renewable resource can also provide energy to the industry, transport and the home. Meanwhile, the soil and the atmosphere on Earth can be restored and pollution reduced. This sustainable resource does it all at one time and is an old acquaintance: cannabis – hemp.’

You are a consumer, retailer, manufacturer, banker, politician, journalist, human being. If you do not refute the above proposition, taking responsibility for the environment will be your duty too. By effectively supporting hemp as you go. Help HempFlax.




Replies:
Posted By: bc_brother
Date Posted: 14 July 2004 at 17:44

Sounds like a good deal.

You won't see my spending my time to get this 100.000 though. I think I'm better off working for it.

There are more people doing this no? I heard Jack Herer is in it and the Hanf Haus.

You go guys!



Posted By: milehigh
Date Posted: 22 September 2004 at 15:23
I thought you were talking about ocean kelp, right until you said hemp. I don't think you can smoke kelp though.

milehigh

-------------


Posted By: seeroseero
Date Posted: 22 September 2004 at 15:30

Hahaha....

Welcome MileHigh

I think you can.  but uhm... You'll have to cure it properly

Wanna start this little experiment??

Ciao, SeeroSeero



Posted By: growyme
Date Posted: 28 September 2004 at 15:47

THAT IS CRAZY!

I never heard of any challenge like this in my life. I was looking around on the internet and this is actuallay happening. Do you guys get any serious response on this. You challenging the government more that anything no?

PEACE, Me



Posted By: BobDonner
Date Posted: 29 September 2004 at 13:46

I heard some weird news about the Hemp business in the Netherlands. That it's going to be stopped. Or what not... Can anyone tell me more about this?

drama, drama people...

What is the problem with this plant, or whats the problem with us??



Posted By: seeroseero
Date Posted: 26 October 2004 at 20:58

Just for the hell of it...

We have a discussion on the following string...

http://forum.sensiseeds.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=112&PN=1 - http://forum.sensiseeds.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=112&PN=1

This is for the other forum members, cos you started it

See you there. Seero



Posted By: averagestoner
Date Posted: 01 December 2004 at 01:18

Wouldn't water be another renewable source of energy.  We've all heard of hydro electricity and I believe that vehicle companies are looking into alternative sources of energy and hydrogen powered cars are one of them.  Also, solar powere is renewable. 

As for construction material and paper and such...I don't believe of any other plant matter that can serve these purposes.  The governments around the world would probably rather make us build our houses out of mud & clay and have us hunt for food.

I also think that if this scenerio WERE to happen that all hell would break loose and government and law enforcement as we know it would come to almost a halt and we could get away with a lot more things.



-------------
GROW WEED EVERYDAY!!!


Posted By: Mazaar
Date Posted: 12 December 2004 at 20:05

Hemp.. The perfect survivor, adaptor and conqueror.. And I can not claim you guys to be wrong. but.. (excuse my technical-english)..  If broken dow in pieces, a manifest has to be true in all aspect.. And I believe your only right in most, not all of the described.. Its very true that hemp as an annual plant could be the primarily energysource for most purposes. Its using the energy from the sunlight to bind and create its cells whoms "building-bricks" its get from the soil. These cells are very consistent of power, obtainin a inner cell-preasure reaching 3t, why plant somewhat easily penetrate asfalt, concrete etc.. The plant is pure life, strong, and full off energy. When dead, the plant still contain this energy.

There is no way nobody can claim an actual use of any source of any kind of energy.. Seen by physicslaw, one can only talk about a transferring from one place, or item, to another. Or one form to another..

This energy is realeased again when burned..So much is true.. But its also a perfect accumulator-plant, why many beleive its good for cleanup of soil.. These people (u guys)forget about one detail, and thats why your wrong.. 

Since the plant accumulate pollution as well as energy, this pollution is released whith the energy when burned(or "decomposed" in any other matter)and we therfor havent solved the problem, only pushed it away.. and in that case its no different from fossil-fuel.. (if the case is a junk-yard you now wheres located, maybe even worse since you spread the problem, I dont believe in dilution)The main advantage is therfor ONLY the fact that no further fossil pollution is provided to Gaia. If burned without filters, smoke particels will still be realesed into the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouseeffect further,- same as with fossils.. So guys.. You where wrong about the athmosphere..

 

                                   USE A VAPORIZER  !  !  !

 



-------------
Best strain for cashcropping?


Posted By: EE-BANN
Date Posted: 11 January 2005 at 01:45
The cannabis plant has been used for extracting pollutants from the soil in a few cases thet I have heard of. Cannabis also produces more oxygen than any other plant of its size. And has provided more warm fuzzy feelings than any other plant that I have ever -uhh- worked with...

-------------
When you lose something, there are almost infinite places where it is not, and only one place where it is. The odds of finding it are not good


Posted By: seeroseero
Date Posted: 12 January 2005 at 14:51
Originally posted by averagestoner

I also think that if this scenerio WERE to happen that all hell would break loose and government and law enforcement as we know it would come to almost a halt and we could get away with a lot more things.

That's what were all waiting for no? A complete turn around?

It's obvious we have a lot of changes coming. This Tsunami was not just that! Did you hear that in wells in Virginia water levels went up and down about 3 feet at time of the quake... for about 5 hours...

Lets see what the years 2005 brings us

I think Hemp will absolutely breakthrough again and most likely become a regularly used resource again by many governments. Simple reason being that they can not keep denying it's versatile use NOR it's benificial uses for our daily products like paper (US dollar bill), clothing, fertilizer, medicine, construction materials, oil, etc, etc...

Use Hemp & Spread the Word!

Seero 



Posted By: dr-ben
Date Posted: 23 February 2005 at 21:09
I totaly agree.... hemp is the futur for human people. but for exemple, in France our government cannot tell the population that it's true, they fight against hemp and cannabis.....

-------------
don't drink and drive, smoke and fly!


Posted By: anyhandle
Date Posted: 16 March 2005 at 04:52

Can any of you book worms answer this for me and its a serious question,

When a volcano erupts doesnt it release a collasal amount more pollution then the burning of fossil fuels ever has (cfc excluded which are a serious problem)?

Excuse my ignorance but its just a thought.



-------------
Always have one foot dancing


Posted By: 20'Thai
Date Posted: 18 March 2005 at 15:10

Jeff,

 

As with all things that are natural and contaminate the Earth, a volcanoes spew is also self filtered/brokendown by the Earth's own imune system as such.  Also, the amount of pollutants given of given off by the burning of fossil fuels is thousands of times more contaminating to our atmosphere than what's given off by a massive Volcanic eruption.  For the majority of contaminent given off by erruptions that spreads the globe over or afar, is mere ash.  Lava just takes the path of least resistance to the peripherii of the base of the volcano.  Suphur, Monoxides and DiOxides given off by even the most massive of Erruptions is but a shadow that is given off worldwide win one month of fossil fuel combustion. 

 

Where many are tricked into thinking it is the other way around, is that ash and sulphur is visible, wheras Monoxides and all other gases given off by fossil fuel combustion are mainly invisible.

 

Notwithstanding the enormous damage which is created by emptying out massive underground deposits of crude oil.  For they are there for a purpose, and it is not for us to burn.  For as with all contained inside the earth, are there for the purpose of 'physical and chemical Equilibium' for the earths well being, and have taken millions and millions of years to reach their sufficient natural stability/equal,  with respect to itself and ALL surrounding heavenly bodies.  As all heavenly bodies are 'relative and interconnected' - the closer they are with respect to one and other, the more delicate this relativity and the easier it is to upset it.  But you will not have any 'petroleum Magnate controlled media'(which is all media), admit this openly and regularly to the masses for it's against their vested intrests.  As is the forced banning of all Cannabis products by them at the turn of the last century in an effort to force the world into using all petroluem byproducts such as Nylon, instead of hempFibres. 

 

It is these same entities that have brought up the entire world into believing that such things as indescriminant overly consumption of anything on earth is a good thing, as there are other things that are just as bad or worse - which in reality aren't.  It is no wonder that we are now beginning to see the effects of such actions onto the Earth.  Global warming is now a scientifically proven fact. The frequency of natural calamities and disasters is at an all time high and increasing all the time.  What we have experianced so far is but a warning from mother nature, and not the last of them.  They will get worse before they get better - as independant authorites on this subject will tell you.

 

So it not only bad enough to be contaminating the earth's atmosphere with fossil fuel derived vapours and smoke, but the cavities alone which we leave in the earth after extracting the crude oil means that tectonic plates spanning oceans and continents, as well as the other surrounding grounds, are made unstable - and hence the more occuring slippages/re-settle'ings resulting in the initiation of tsunamis, earthquakes and tremors.

 

So it is bad to burn fossil fuels for more than just one reason - let us not forget that Global warming also is a rsult of the same issue.

 

All in all Jeff, I wonder what else the world holds in stall for use for using the crude oils?

 

 

 



-------------
I look at the world as all do, but I see something different

Always do RIGHT; this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.


Posted By: anyhandle
Date Posted: 18 March 2005 at 16:13

just curious 20 " thai but what is your profession?



-------------
Always have one foot dancing


Posted By: 20'Thai
Date Posted: 19 March 2005 at 06:54

Gynaecologist.  For good looking women under 35yo only...It's a tough job, but someone has to do it Jeff.



-------------
I look at the world as all do, but I see something different

Always do RIGHT; this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.


Posted By: 420timer
Date Posted: 08 April 2005 at 00:22

waaahahahaha!!!

Man... Some people just have to toughest job! Need any trainees 20??
I'm good with my hands, I got eagle eyes and cats love me!

You know. the story though is quite interesting. Only recent I learned the reason why in Holland we don't/ can't drive on lineseed oil.

The government had long time ago decided that ANYTHING that 'moves' and engine should be taxed. So... you technically can just go to the store and buy a couple of liters sunflower oil (for instance) and use it. It works fine, for older diesel engines. It's just not allowed. (tax evasion). and they get you hard for that one....

What a sad sad situation



Posted By: seeroseero
Date Posted: 11 April 2005 at 20:36

20'Thai,

Do you also know anything about the difference of the exhaust/ pollotion produced by linseed oils and fossil fuels??

Ciao, SeeroSeero



Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 12 April 2005 at 13:22
Originally posted by Mazaar

..So much is true.. But its also a perfect accumulator-plant, why many beleive its good for cleanup of soil.. These people (u guys)forget about one detail, and thats why your wrong.. 

Since the plant accumulate pollution as well as energy, this pollution is released whith the energy when burned(or "decomposed" in any other matter)and we therfor havent solved the problem, only pushed it away.. 

You're a little off the mark, I think.

Hemp can be used to rid soil of excessive, harmful build-ups of fertilisers and related chemicals. For instance, hemp is an excellent choice for ridding soil of excessive Nitrogen. This N is used in the plant's metabolic processes.

The N is not destroyed - energy IS indestructable, as you point out - but it's converted into other forms.The N is certainly removed from the soil by the plant.

A large proportion of the chemicals extracted from the soil may be found in the foliage of the plant.

If that foliage is allowed to fall to the ground and decompose back into the soil, the chemicals can return to the soil.

If not, the foliage can be made into compost and the extracted chemicals may be released into an area which might benefit from them.

As far as I know (and I accept I could be uninformed), cannabis is not used to rid the soil/environment of dangerous chemicals, but to control those substances which the plant is known to use in great quantities.

As for CO2, you're vaguely correct in saying that it's not REMOVED from the biosphere... nothing is removed from the biosphere, unless it's shot out of earth's orbit (even orbiting stuff will return to earth one day).

The only way CO2 can be broken down into carbon and oxygen (the two prequisites of carbon-based life) is by photosynthesising organisms.

During photosynthesis, most of the oxygen in CO2 is released, allowing non-green life to breathe.

The carbon part of CO2 is taken by the plant to form glucose, which the plant uses as food.

Since a plant is a carbon-based lifeform, like the rest of us, it's kind of true to say that the carbon is locked inside the plant, just waiting for a chance to turn into CO2 when the plant decomposes or burns. But this is how the planet works. The only way that CO2 is locked away for any length of time is when it's claimed by the deep oceans. And it still returns to the atmosphere eventually.

The Greenhouse Effect is a result of several centuries of producing CO2 in amounts that are enormously greater than the natural cycle of the earth.

So there's no new CO2 in the atmosphere - there is and always will be a set amount on the planet - but we have a few centuries/millenia worth in the atmosphere right now, which is more than the existing photosynthesising organisms can process.

That's why the only possible solution to the climate change caused by greenhouse gases is to reduce the amount being released. If we as a planet ever get this under control (which seems to be the premise of the 100K challenge), THEN green life may be able to help reduce dangerous levels of CO2 by 'locking it away'. But we can only reduce the amount in the air, not the amount on the planet.

But it's pointless at the moment, because we increase emissions year by year.



-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: dmdm
Date Posted: 13 May 2005 at 10:12
yeah my mate is going on about the amazon rainforest is gonna turn into a gigantic co2 plant, scary thought.

i think lots more could be done to help tho maybe need to geneticly mutate giant redwood trees into super duper sized trees which can lets say use 10 times more co2 then place them in cities ,industrial areas then plant vast areas of hemp for its uses 1 being feeding super trees.

ah thought if co2 rises will trees adapt to this ie if the smallest plants grow a little more then the ones whos place is taken then they will also have to grow more to compete.



Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 13 May 2005 at 13:54

The only way the Amazon rainforest could become a giant CO2 plant is if it was all cut down and burned. The living rainforest is one of the regulators of the CO2 balance.

Green plants can't INCREASE the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

They breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen during light hours. The process is reversed, with them taking in oxygen and emitting CO2 in the dark hours.

The shifting balance between long and short days (in the hemispheres) evens out over the summer/winter cycle, and at the equator the days are always the same length.

It's a really well-designed, superbly balanced system. At least, it was before the addition of the youngest species (us), which is busy trying to f**k up that balance.

Interestingly, the majority of photosynthesis on earth is performed by the smallest of green plants - algae. They're the planet's biggest contributor to the breaking down of CO2, since there are uncountable trillions of them in the sea and on land. They accomplish more photosynthesis than all the other green plants on earth.

And they may be in almost as much danger as the rainforests, at the rate we're warming and polluting the ocean.



-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: dmdm
Date Posted: 16 May 2005 at 12:26
but i think there could be a few tweaks to try and savepower/create more.

as a stoner sometimes my mind starts having mad ideas.
ie, i think that the cog could be designed so that that exercise bikes could be used to power certain items around the house(the super cog).

i think that there must be someway in the future of gathering power from space.

maybe a giant ring that surroundsds the earth that uses gravity to power something(stoned thoughts).

i hear you too about the algea in the sea being the best we had,now does overfishing also affect this ie breaking some cycles and removing fish that would decay naturlly and feed the ecosystem?.

so if you could sayfind out fishes migrating paths and setup giant feeding stations on route and feed with vast quantities of hemp seed.(read somewhere that there used to be fishing competition and hemp was made legal so that the british could use hemp to lure the fish and win competition)


Posted By: hashmonster
Date Posted: 11 July 2005 at 18:07

now theres a interesting idea .... a sea of green in practically every treeless field and hillside.

im all for that personally but do you really think the us government will accept such truths, it is mostly thanks to the us' unrealistic drug policies that there is a huge "bad man" stigma attached to people who want to commercially farm hemp for its many uses that would in no doubt help save our planet from dying in choking smog clouds.

i wish for a day that mankind returns to common sense issues regarding the enviroment but regarding hemp being a totally eco friendly substitute for most man made products u have to look at the process of manufacturing to get the hemp made into items we can use which up to this point in time uses some sort of fossil fuels which we all know causes damage to the enviroment, not to mention the factories who will use electricity from the national power grid which uses mostly fossil fuels to acheive the electricity needed for the transport fro mthe growing site to the factories for processing.

so unless the whole world changes its use of fossil fuels full stop then we are all doomed to wandering around in the posion clouds that appear frequently over our major cities worldwide.

just my thought on this subject



-------------
aint no beef with the leaf


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 24 August 2005 at 14:13

True, but without hemp, we're using the same (or more) fossil fuels and electricity to process synthetic or less enviromentally-friendly materials.

So, the use of energy is the same, plus the extra negative effects of the particular product that's being processed.

Hemp equals a net gain for the state of the environement, even if we went on using fossil energy.

Then there's the fact that hemp is one of the most efficient producers of biomass (for the production of bio-diesel, methane gas and alcohol fuel) on the planet, even when grown on a relatively small scale.

IF grown on a global/industrial scale, it could be a source of massive amounts of energy, possibly rivalling oil.

IF the infrastructure was in place.

That's two big IFs. Both entirely possible in a logistical sense, both quite unlikely in a political sense, as it would require the energy monopolies to release their stranglehold on the world.

The same argument is true of so many alternative energy sources - wind, solar, hydrogen fuel-cells for cars. They would require a lot of money and energy to be spent on building the infrastructure to make them efficient and competitive, which is often given as a reason for not doing so - "We'd be using even more resources to switch over!"

This, of course, is a childishly short-sighted answer, as it refuses to look at long-term efficiency (and by 'long term', I mean ten or twenty short years).

To me, it's like a hunter-gatherer society consciously deciding NOT to switch to agriculture - because the change from wandering and foraging to settling and farming requires too much social upheaval and work; that the concept of farming is some wacky ideal that cannot work as well as the PROVEN system of hunting (even if hunting leads to regular brushes with starvation when no animals can be caught).

If such a strange situation ever occured, the biggest obstacle would probably be the hunters themselves, who would have no wish to lose their important place in society and their cushy job of going out once or twice a month to catch an animal.

After all, in most hunter-gatherer societies, gathering must be done every day, while hunting is a much more occasional and ritualised job. Needless to say, it's mostly the women who do the gathering and almost invariably the men who do the 'important' (and much less tedious and constant) work of hunting.

 Well, I don't think I'm off topic...



-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: budking86401
Date Posted: 31 October 2005 at 17:41

Hello from the US.

I believe your ideas are heart felt and sincere, but one thing will throw a wrench in your cogs.....MONEY  MONEY  MONEY. I work at a power generation plant that PROFITS anywhere from $ 750,000.00 to 1,300,00.00  US dollars per day..per day. And that is only one plant they own. So you are fighting an uphill battle to start with. A whole state planted with hemp would not produce that kind of power. The one power plant alone will light up 1.5 million homes, so you are also fighting people that do not want their lives interrupted from their electricity.

As Ganga stated..if the infrastructure were in place to use hemp for the many things it is suited for, we would be in better shape. Hemp has many other uses that would get the public to think of hemp as the norm, not the " thing we talk about behind closed doors " . One step at a time, get the idea of hemp an everyday thing without the negative connotations and we may succeed with making it more mainstream .

I am all for hemp and its attributes, and hope for a change. But hope is oly a small part of the puzzle....hard work and dedication is the key to success. Just keep your course straight and work hard. Many many things have been changed that way !!



-------------
No worries...be happy


Posted By: rudy
Date Posted: 30 December 2005 at 18:55
Originally posted by administrator


HempFlax will wager 100.000 euros to anyone who can provide proof to the contrary of the following proposition.

‘If the greenhouse effect were to be reversed by a ban on all fossil fuels and their derivatives, or if their use were to come to an end, and no more trees were allowed to be felled in order to prevent further deforestation, then there would be one natural resource able to supply the greater part of the world’s demand for products such as paper, food, textiles and construction material. This annually renewable resource can also provide energy to the industry, transport and the home. Meanwhile, the soil and the atmosphere on Earth can be restored and pollution reduced. This sustainable resource does it all at one time and is an old acquaintance: cannabis – hemp.’

You are a consumer, retailer, manufacturer, banker, politician, journalist, human being. If you do not refute the above proposition, taking responsibility for the environment will be your duty too. By effectively supporting hemp as you go. Help HempFlax.



The Chinese are using bamboes for more than thousand years to build houses, make paper, textile and food. So I think that bamboe is also a very useful plant for humanity and nature. Bamboo also grows fast and is stronger than Hemp.

This makes your thesis incorrect, by telling that Hemp is the only plant with those qualities.

Greetz
Rudy


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 04 January 2006 at 13:01

The Chinese have been using hemp for the same applications you mention - paper, textiles and food - for well over 3000 years.

The argument is not that no other plant has such useful qualities.

The argument is that hemp is a superior source of these qualities, that hemp has them ALL and that every part of the hemp plant has multiple, valuable applications. 

Most importantly, the argument is that ridiculous laws written in the 1930s to protect the profits of a small group of industrialists continue to prohibit 6 billion people from making use of a plant that could enrich and improve lives all over the planet.

The central thesis is not simply that cannabis is a supremely useful plant, but that it is a supremely useful plant that is in the unique and irrational position of being an illegal life-form.

No other life-form becomes illegal as soon as it begins to live -not even papaver somniferum or coca. Only hemp.

Bamboo is one of the only other plants that grows at the same speed as hemp, so it would have some similar potential uses in a global economy. 

Unlike hemp, bamboo can easily become a pest - spreading beyond its planted area and becoming very hard to remove. Bamboo is perrenial, rather than annual, so it can form 'forests' if left unattended.

Both intensively farmed hemp and intensively farmed bamboo would exclude most other plants from growing on the same land - by taking up all available light and soil with their vigourous growth.

Hemp, however, will die in the winter, leaving improved soil and no woody roots. Bamboo will live on and takes a lot of work to remove.

I don't know enough about bamboo to be sure that it depletes the soil upon which it grows, but I think it's a pretty safe bet.

Hemp improves the land upon which it grows - aerating it and using up excess water and nitrogen - and returns the nutrients it extracts if its foliage is allowed to compost back into the soil.

As to the quality of raw materials produced, hemp is greatly superior to bamboo. Hemp paper and textiles are the strongest in the world, no competition. I recently saw a shirt made out of bamboo cloth. It was finely woven and reasonably soft (a bit like raw silk) and I was amazed that such a textile could be made from bamboo.

Still, there is no way that bamboo textiles are comaparable to hemp textiles. Hemp has the strongest fibres in the natural world, and can be made into a huge range of  textiles.

I've never heard of a ship rigged with bamboo ropes and sails. The majority of ships from the time of the Phoenicians until the 19th century sailed on hemp.

Same for paper. Hemp makes the finest, strongest, longest-lasting paper in the world. No competition.

The Chinese technique of making paper from hemp was a closely guarded secret that did not make it to the west for 1000 years. Historians speculate that one of the reasons that Chinese society was so well-organised and so stable (for so long) was their invention of hemp paper - an essential information storage medium (which was no small thing in the pre-paper world).

Hemp paper was the first that could be expected to last several generations (or centuries) and thus was the only medium capable of passing down knowledge and written records. By comparison, papyrus lasts about 20 years.

The value of hemp can be seen in the Mandarin name for it - 'ma'. Originally, this word referred only to cannabis but in more recent times it has become a generic term for all fibre-producing plants, because hemp fibre was the original, definitive form that was intrinsic to Chinese culture.

Under the modern usage, hemp is now referred to as 'king ma' or 'mighty ma', to distinguish it from all the lesser fibres.

Just as hemp fibre and hemp paper are superior to bamboo (or other plant versions), hemp is a much more valuable food source than bamboo.

Bamboo shoots can be eaten, but hemp seeds contain all the essential fatty acids required by humans, and contain them in their correct proportions.

That's a significant difference - bamboo is edible, but hemp seeds contain enough nutrition to suistain human life.

Cannabis has dozens or hundreds of important medicinal applications. Bamboo has none (as far as I know)

Bamboo, in its unprocessed form (ie a bamboo stem vs the stem of a hemp plant) may be stronger than hemp, which is why it makes an excellent renewable scaffolding material (bamboo scaffolding is still in use all over Asia). However, the extracted fibres of hemp are longer and stronger than those of bamboo.

It is possible to argue that other plants could have a huge positive impact for the environment if cultivated on a massive scale. Eucalyptus trees are another good choice - they grow with amazing speed when planted outside their native Australia (they have evolved to make the most out of the limited water and nutrition available on that continent, so they explode with growth in richer environments). Eucalyptus trees have many valuable by-products that can be used for a wide variety of purposes.

The point is that cannabis (the plant, the fibre, the byproduct) does more, does it better and faster, with lower costs and with a much lower environmental impact.

Hemp farming can produce resources of comparable value to those produced by several other crops:

  • Cotton or flax for textiles (not to mention synthetics)
  • Wood-pulp for paper
  • Rice or wheat for nutrition;
  • Opium for pain relief/medicinal uses;
  • All the farming byproducts that are used to make biomass for methane and alcohol fuel.

And the all-encompassing point is that human beings are NOT ALLOWED ACCESS TO THIS VALUABLE RESOURCE, based on laws that were made in the 1920s and 1930s (back when eugenics was considered an ethical science, and fascism was considered a reasonable alternative to socialism).

It's an incredible, unprecedented situation.

One might even surmise that the reason for this abberation is not to protect the people of the world from the malicious influence of cannabis, but to protect the profits of the closely intertwined petro-chemical industries (especially when one investigates the names and organisations behind the push for cannabis prohibition).



-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: Falcon
Date Posted: 17 February 2006 at 01:38
I believe that cannabis has more potential than we are aware of. Have hemp or hemplflax products been used to slow or reduce erosion In Canada a current issue being dealt with is soil erosion. In provinces such as P.E.I. there has been regulations put in place to control erosion (enforcing 3yr-rotations). Potatoes are the dominant crop in P.E.I. which leads to a lot of water pollution. This is because potatoes are a row crop that exposes bare soil to the elements. This leads to tremendous soil loss, as well as pollution of pesticides that are adsorbed to soil particles then carried away by surface flow, or leached to the groundwater. This all eventually reaches the Atlantic ocean.   Practices referred to as BMP's (Beneficial Management Practices) aim to develop ways to cause the least soil loss and disruption of the ecosystem, an example would be planting a cover crop, or simply leaving crop residues to slow water on the surface. I am wondering if hemp has been used for this purpose. I would like to add that hemp farming would be a positive step forward to farming in P.E.I. for many reasons such as reduced erosion, to break disease & insect cycles, and of course to reduce the sh*tload of pesticides applied to the Island. The problem exists in the law somewhat but mainly the innability to process the product. Has hemp been used to reduce erosion in agriculture settings or newly developed land? Some unexpected company has just arrived, see you all soon.


Posted By: DonQuichote
Date Posted: 01 March 2006 at 23:14
Originally posted by dmdm

i think that there must be someway in the future of gathering power from space.


No problem:
http://www.solarcookers.org/ - http://www.solarcookers.org/



Posted By: BC-ML7
Date Posted: 14 September 2006 at 20:58
The green house effect is a natural phenomenon that can't be stopped. Humans are just speeding up this process by the use of fossil fuels and other pollutants.

   And how exactly can hemp be used as fuel (other than in a steam engine)?


Posted By: americano
Date Posted: 14 September 2006 at 21:02
speculation once again. I must say.

-------------
I REMAIN
U KYIN SWAN


Posted By: BC-ML7
Date Posted: 14 September 2006 at 21:08
And another thought... if the plant is used to remove pollutants from the soil, those pollutions build up in the plant and are sooner or later released into the air causing MORE harm to the atmosphere then when they were trapped in the soil.

Just a thought...


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 15 September 2006 at 13:39
It's not speculation, though admittedly the infrastructure is (for some odd reason) not in place. Vast ethanol refineries aren't as common as (ahem) vast oil refineries.
But before oil became entrenched as the combustible fuel (originally due to the fact that was dirt cheap because it could be removed from poor countries without paying them much), most farm vehicles ran on ethanol, because farmers could produce it themselves.

Methane and ethanol can be made from biomass - green waste from farming. You've probably heard about the push to increase use of ethanol (made form corn husks and the like) and add it to petrol.
Cannabis produces more biomass per hectare of land than any other farmed crop, so it has the potential to produce large amounts of fuel just from its waste products. If grown specifically for biomass, hemp/cannabis can produce enormous amounts of fuel.

And cannabis is not used for taking toxins and pollutants from soil so much as using up excessive amounts of nutrient and fertiliser that are a byproduct of industrial farming. For instance, nitrogen  build-up that runs into water sources and causes huge outbreaks of toxic blue-green algae
These elements can toxify land and water, so they're pollution in that sense, but they are nutrients that the plants actually use during growing.

As far as 'locking up' substances like CO2, no plant can remove them from the biosphere, as the uptake and decomposition of organic elements is the basis of life on earth. Nothing leaves the system.
The reason that we're probably heading for troubled times is that human industry and agriculture has unbalanced the process by releasing various substances at a higher rate than they can be reabsorbed into the system.

The Greenhouse Effect is not a natural phenomenon
, otherwise it should have  happened at some time in the billions of years since complex life evolved, and would have had a devastating effect on evolution. Instead, it's becoming a danger within the last hundred years - since we have been spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
'Climate change', where the planet has a cyclical rise and fall in temperature, is related to, but not the same thng as the GH effect. GH is the extreme end of climate change, where the planet's thermostat gets 'stuck' in the hot part of the cycle and is unable to return to cooling because heat is trapped within the atmosphere.

Even with less catastrophic climate change, scientists who make the claim that humans are having no influence on the process are on the level of the ones who argued for years that cigarette smoking had not been 'conclusively proven' to cause cancer, addiction and death.

There's a set amount of carbon on the planet, some solid and increasing amounts in the gaseous form of CO2.
Growing huge amounts of greenery - especially super-fast cannabis - takes the carbon from the air. Through photosynthesis the carbon atom is removed from the CO2 molecule and becomes part of the substance of the plants (and thereafter, all carbon-based lifeforms), while the two oxygen atoms are released into the atmosphere.
The carbon doesn't end its journey here, of course, but it also doesn't have be converted straight back to CO2. It depends what happens to the plant. If it's burned, the CO2 is released quickly. If it decomposes, CO2 and methane (another greenhouse gas) are relased more slowly. If the plant matter is processed into somtehing with a long life (paper, cloth, building material) the carbon within it is trapped until that item decomposes or is burnt.

So plants, including cannabis are not a magic solution for reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but aside from reducing the levels of emissions, photosynthesis is about the only solution we have for making any impact.
Cannabis, as an incredibly fast-growing, nutrient and CO2 hungry, supremely useful plant would be a great candidate for growing on unused land. If that land is also sub-agricultural quality, cannabis crops have a good chance of improving it to the point where its useful for agriculture.



Posted By: BC-ML7
Date Posted: 15 September 2006 at 23:26
Originally posted by Ganja





< The Greenhouse Effect is not a natural phenomenon<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">, otherwise it should have happened at some time in the billions of years since complex life evolved, and would have had a devastating effect on evolution. Instead, it's becoming a danger within the last hundred years - since we have been spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

What are you talking about? It has happened in the billions of years of life on this planet. Almost every mass extinction is due to global warming and green house gasses. Take the dinosaur era; the earth was f**king HOT, due to all the C02 in the atmosphere. And not only was it hot because of the C02 but the plants got huge because of it (so it did effect evolution and imagine growing weed!) So the earth got hotter and hotter with all thec02 and then something happened, the earths became unstable and the weather took a turn for the worst. If you’ve ever seen ‘the day after tomorrow’ you’ve seen the basics of what might have happened.
     Humans have even gone through a natural global warming episode and survived ( the mammoth wasn’t so lucky) But now were going into another one and with all our human pollutants (fossil fuels) the process is just getting sped up.


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 27 September 2006 at 17:46
Ahem, I don't think The Day After Tomorrow paints a particularly accurate picture of climate change. Maybe a climatologist will correct me on this, but I don't think so...

You also seem to mixing up the end of an ice age with global warming. It's more that the ice age was a short (on a global timescale) and unusually cold period. The end of the last ice age was not a product of the greenhouse effect but a return to the planet's normal range of temperature.

The beginning of the last ice age and the end of the dinosaur period are seperated by about 65 million years

And not all the mass extinctions were caused by global warming and greenhouse gas.

There's some contention about how hot it was in during the ages of the dinosaurs and whether this was caused by the greenhouse effect, but the Cretaceous-Tertiary (also called the K/T) event 65 million years ago, which destroyed 50% of the species on the earth is still agreed to have been caused by the impact of a comet or an asteroid.

There is evidence that the biggest mass-extinction - the  Permian-Triassic event 250 million years ago (when 90 percent of species in the ocean and 70 percent of species on land disappeared) - was caused by enormous global warming. It was after this event that the dinosaurs began to appear.

Other mass extinctions have been caused by shifts in the way the planet works - climate, sea level, the chemistry of its oceans and atmosphere.

I may have been using the term 'greenhouse effect' more apocalyptically than it's generally applied. It seems to be used to describe general warming of the planet due to increases in CO2.

However, there is a certain point at which the greenhouse effect becomes almost impossible to reverse. If the oceans heat up too much and the majority of microscopic life in the sea is killed off, this will pretty much destroy the planet's ability to process CO2 and generate oxygen. The plants on land do some of this work, but the majority is actually performed by algae in the sea.
And at the sort of temperatures that would kill of most sea life (mid to high 30's in the deep ocean), land plants would be few in number as well.

At this point, it would look pretty grim for all life on earth, and there would be little hope of the planet cooling again for a long time. If the microbes survived, life could conceivably evolve once more, but humans would be long gone.

This may have been what happened in the Permian-Triassic event, and is apparently the state of being on Venus (though that planet is a lot closer to the sun).

So it's true, the extreme form of the greenhouse effect may have happened naturally at least once in the history of the planet and it took a heck of a long time to recover. I think it's pretty clear however, that the current explosion of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not a natural phenomenon.

Whether it leads to the terminal version of the greenhouse effect or a less severe and reversible warming remains to be seen.


Posted By: positronic
Date Posted: 03 October 2006 at 00:01
Well we can thank Du Pont Petrochemicals for its aggressive lobbying many moons ago to stop the burgeoning hemp industry in favour of its own synthetics.
 
Incidentally, a volcanic `super eruption,` which there have been many thousands thru history, can release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a few days than man can in 10 years.
 
Combine this with the earth`s orbital eccentricity and axis obliquity/procession and we have a natural recipe for climate change...
 
Bring on global warming - tropical UK/EU = great outdoor growing!!


-------------
"Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope" FFF Bros


Posted By: shane
Date Posted: 03 October 2006 at 22:02
with respect Ganja, and I am loathe to argue with someone as educated and informative as yourself but I have read that evolution is very well served by global warming. It concentrates "survival of the fittest".
I think the earths cycles of hot and cold are so organic/chaotic that we can hardly predict the last 100 years of industrialisation are specifically the cause of the state we find ourselves in now.
several hundred years ago, the UK was a far more balmy temperature than now, with masses of vineyards across England benefiting from it. we could hardly have been the cause for climate change then could we?.
anyway I'm getting of topic, apologies :-)
 


Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 10 January 2007 at 22:49
never thought I would write in this forum.
 
I love cannabis, to say that at first.
 
by scientific news, plants ( every plant ) filters the air and sets fresh air to the atmosphere. ( simple spoken, without using any spells I dont know )
thats ok so long, but now scientists found out that 1/3 of the methan-gas, that destroys the atmosphere 3 times more than the stuff a car blows, is produced by plants.
that means 1/3 of that stuff can be also produced by cannabisfields.
and the growing in big dimensions would cause problems too. the fields that are able for making large spaces of canna cant absorb the water steam out of the atmosphere not as good as a simple forest. the soil is too tight on comercial fields like this. the watersteam (which plays important role in our atmosphere) cant develope right.
 
so the trees are the only plants that can ( mayb Ermm ) save our world, cause they have in forests, climative factors ( the watersteam plays a imprtant role in this case ) that comes together and a simple forest is better for the air and the atmosphere than any plant on a field. check all these facts.   
 
sooo ... I proved you wrong, right ?
 
good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 11 January 2007 at 11:19
Wrong.
 
Nice to think that you might have beaten all the scientists in the world though....


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 11 January 2007 at 11:56

(to repeat from the thread Q started, which will probably be removed soon)

Not even close.
 
I think you need to research methane a bit more.
 
If that were the case, animal life would have (or, rather would never have) arrived on a planet with an atmosphere entirely composed of methane, as there were only plants here for a billion years or more.
 
Where did you get this info on methane?
 
Plants may produce methane when they decompose, but that''s the only way I can think of. It's not part of their everyday metabolism. They take in CO2 by day and release oxygen. At night, the process is reversed.
 
At one point, the earth's atmosphere was almost entirely composed of CO2, in a concentration that no animal could have dealt with. Technically speaking, plants 'polluted' that atmosphere with the oxygen that is a byproduct of their growing, thus allowing all other air-breathing life to exist.
 
All in all, I think you're missing the point of the challenge...
 
 
(shane, if you're still around, sorry I missed answering you.
The short reply would be that GW might serve evolution and survival of the fittest, but there's a very good chance that 'the fittest' does not include any member of the human race.
To be clear, the planet itself is not in danger, and life on earth will likely continue for another few billion years.
Humanity, on the other hand, and life as we know it may be looking at tough times in the near future...


Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 11 January 2007 at 16:24

ganja, youre just writing its wrong.

but by these facts its prooved that cannabis is not the plant  " (...) that provides (...) that  the atmosphere on Earth can be restored and pollution reduced. " - through these new facts Wink
 
but I really dont think "hempflax" is "sensi seeds" and you do not have to "scratch" your money together for me ...
 
after all that, I have no ambitions to get my 100,000 € in any case, though it may be not prooved by me also through the scientific.
 
I would say let the hempflax company decide, if they post that challenge, they should also make a statement bout that !
 
good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen
 
ps. If I had written you past a year it could be bad to eat cinnamon in christmas time, you would have also said its wrong. but the scientific facts actualizes our sight on the world day by day !


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 11 January 2007 at 18:11

Actually, the challenge has existed for many years. It was first proposed in Jack Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes.

 

No-one has yet won the challenge, and I doubt anyone will. Basically, it’s asking you to prove that a sensible, sustainable approach to agriculture is not sensible. It’s meant to highlight the fact that according to data that’s been amassed over centuries, we have much better options for producing many important products, but laws designed to protect the profits of already-rich people and companies are stopping humanity from taking the sensible approach.

 

I'm not just writing 'it's wrong', I'm saying 'use common sense'.

Green plants made the atmosphere that you breathe. There’s no getting around that fact.

 

To assert that since there is now too much methane, the natural systems of the earth which have produced and reabsorbed methane for billions of years are contributing to the problem is senseless. If the natural systems were out of alignment, our species would never have evolved.

 

Also, you should read the rest of the thread, where the various ways that cannabis can reduce pollution are discussed.

 

It's not just a matter of reducing CO2, a couple of major points that you may have missed are:

 

1) That the products made from hemp (paper, textiles etc) require far fewer polluting chemicals in their manufacture. It's a major difference - for instance, it takes 3 or 4 times the volume of chemicals to transform wood into paper than it does to turn hemp into paper. And the chemicals used for hemp paper are much less toxic. This represents a large net reduction in pollution and preserves trees.

 

2) That hemp requires few or no chemical fertilisers for optimum growth, just natural ones like manure. This means that the hemp does not annihilate the land it grows on or pollute local water supplies, as opposed to cotton, tobacco, and many other commercial crops which hemp could replace. This represents a large net reduction in pollution and preserves arable land.

 

3) Hemp improves soil and combats erosion. This could be interpreted as a potential net gain in pollution, as more land could possibly be exploited by commercial agriculture, but that’s outside the terms of the challenge, as we’re talking about the responsible and sane use of hemp. The other side of the coin is that with more arable land, less pressure is placed on the rapidly shrinking amount of arable land that’s currently on the planet, meaning that less intensive and damaging farming methods need to be used to feed people from that land.

 

To be fair, you haven't provided any proof, just referenced a TV documentary you saw recently.

 

If you can point out where the proof you mention is written down, so people following the debate may read it for themselves, That may constitute proof, assuming that you’re correct in your assertions.

 

As it stands, I think you’ll find that methane is only produced by decomposing plants, not living ones.



Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 11 January 2007 at 18:56
http://www.rki-i.com/doc/METHAN.htm - http://www.rki-i.com/doc/METHAN.htm
 
good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen
 
ps. sorry only in german ! run http://uebersetzer.abacho.de/ - http://uebersetzer.abacho.de/
 
"Environment : Surprising discovery questions opinions of the science with climatic protection greenhouse earth - also Pfanzen heat a VDI realign, Heidelberg, 27. 1. 06, swe - Plants produce methane and are responsible for 10 % to 30 % of the concentration of this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The realization is surprising. So far researchers believed that methane develops only under exclusion of oxygen, so in the soil of sumps and rice fields or in fermenting stomachs of Cows.
Now a group found Keppier out of the Heidelberger Max-Planck-Institut around franc for nuclear physics that plants themselves form methane - even in oxygen-rich environment. Kepplers discovery, for the first time reported of the science magazine Nature, is not interesting only for plant researchers. Methane is beside CO2 the secondarymost important greenhouse gas. It contributes considerably to the global heating up. If plants have a so clear influence on the methane content of the atmosphere, climatologics will have to redefine the role of expanded forest surfaces in the course of climatic history for example. And its the vegetable methane evaporation in lab tests proved franc Keppler to colleagues. But they bred individual plants under plexiglass hoods in an artificial atmosphere, which corresponded to natural, oxygen-rich air, but no methane contained. Since the researchers in the air samples from the mini greenhouses found methane nevertheless, it must have been produced by the plants. Particularly since the methane concentration lay the more highly, the grew better the plants.
Thus methane production rose clearly, if the plants were illuminated with sunlight. In which way methane in the plants is formed, is however still unclearly. According to first estimations terrestrial plants form t and 240 millions t methane per year world-wide between 60 millions. That corresponds to global methane production up to 30 %; two thirds come from tropical areas, there develop most biomass. The new realizations supply an explanation for earlier, puzzling findings. Researchers of the University of Heidelberg observed unexpectedly high methane concentrations in the past year by satellite over tropical forests, without being able to clarify their origin. Also the question, why the methane content of the atmosphere rose in the last years clearly more slowly than from climatic researchers expected, can be answered with view of plants as source of methane: Since 1990 the total area of tropical forests shrank by clearing around more than one tenth. Accordingly lower also their contribution failed to the global methane household. The study caused world-wide a controversial echo. People in the media asked the question whether afforestation measures, as they are recognized in Kyoto minutes for the lowering of the CO2-Gehaltes of the atmosphere were still justified. Because by their methane missions the new forests could possibly accelerate the climative Changes.
That Keppler contradicted meanwhile and supplied the suitable calculation: Therefore a forest binds for so much CO2 from the atmosphere that the methane output of the plants could diminish this effect only over up to 4 %. For the climatic consequence research Kepplers is study of great importance. The question arises: As strongly humans affect the methane output of the plants. One seem clear: By the rising CO2-Gehalt the atmosphere and the associated higher temperatures plants grow better. That increases again the methane production of the plants and thus their greenhouse effect. Keppler: "this feedback reaction, which decreases/goes back finally to anthropogene effects, is not so far considered in the climative Model." To the many open questions it belongs also why this discovery succeeded only now. Franc Keppler explains the thing with the persistence of text book pointingnesses: "after the knowledge recognized so far methane was allowed to develop only under exclusion of oxygen. Therefore simply nobody has hang-sees exact."
 


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: farmer mick
Date Posted: 11 January 2007 at 21:21
I'm no expert and I have no desire to get involved in this little spat, but as far as I know, the earth needs a certain amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane. They act like a blanket and trap heat in the atmosphere, allowing life to survive.
 
In all likelihood, the level of methane produced by plant life, decomposition, farting, etc is perfectly safe and is one aspect of the extremely complicated ecosystem that makes our planet conducive to life.
 
The problem at the moment is that humans are interrupting this ecosystem by pumping billions of tonnes of extra gases into the atmosphere, effectively thickening the blanket and causing the earth to warm more than it would naturally.
 
Anyone who doubts climate change or who says the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling should watch Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. The graphs he displays show clearly that what's happening at the moment has never happened before in nature... and we are to blame, not the plants that have been thriving on our delicately-balanced little planet since long before the dinosaurs.


Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 11 January 2007 at 22:03
no spat in my opinion, fellas ! Star
 
but have you heard that the output of methan has a big part from cows ?
everyone wants beef, and if it comes to the case that every cow on earth farts - big fireball and the end of the human race !
 
again, about 1/3 of the methan comes from plants, 1/3 from deers, and 1/3 from humans and thats why theres anything wrong on earth.
we had the hottest summer of everytime here, the hottest january since notices of the weather, in about 1800.
its also the point that we have water steam in the atmosphere that sets to the earth and on acres
(acker? I dont know the word for commercial fields ) 
the steam cant get into the soil like in natural places like woods. thats one point why in huge citys the weather is irritated. it gets hot in the citys and the steam cant come into the earth, it rises and there comes big climative changes. rainstorm in taiwan - and its only cloudy 50 km in another town.
 
and tobacco, wheat, plants like these and also cannabis doesnt have the CO2 exchange like trees. only about 1/10 like trees or huge bushes, in thier enviroment.
 
so the point that it may be a big producer for oil, paper and other products like soil is right but an solid olive tree could provide the same or even more !
 
the once holy plant cannbis cant save our climative conditions, this can be done only by the woods and forests.
 
I really hate to post all these arguments, was a stoner idea in the begining.       
 
have all a good smoke, homies ! weed leaf 
 
Quarzen


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: Grasso
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 00:20
Hello,

the survival of mankind is often described or visioned with a lot of pathetic words. Hemp fields are just hemp fields.

Quartzen, it does not matter if temperatures in Germany are 7 °C off the average now because all that counts is the global temperature. The latter has risen by 1 °C due to mankind. But if the climate in every part of the world is changed so much that forests die and crops do not grow anymore then it does matter. We will see.

Uli

-------------


Posted By: Frank
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 15:04
Great argument guys. There are plain facts and a lot of guessing around by us novice and experts alike. Naturally scientific data can be considered legitimate as there are scores of experts working together,sharing information and debating arguments. Flora on our mother planet is absolutely vital for its survival and  balance since it evolved naturally ,even before cave men could  mutter. But as cave men evolved so did earth with its ice age and different climatic era. As mentioned earlier humans impact on our ecosystem only began a century ago along with industrialization. A hundred years is puny in earths life span but still significant regarding the impact it had so far. We are living in such a high transcient world today where the accelarative thrust is so great that we can barely hold on to our hats, values and forests. Our planet is over-populated with energy-hungry megapolises,greedy and ignorant politicians who breed a throw-away society which threatens the vital balance of our earth. Although I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel as our nature awareness is growing world-wide, backed up by the technological engine allowing far greater interactions amongst nations and means of conducting investigations,experiment and studies of our planets delicately intertwined ecosystem.

There was a great documentary on climate change by National Geographic, where they took air samples from ice drilled in the Antarctic. Tiny air bubbles get trapped in the ice layers over centuries and by testing the composition of these "air samples" they could compose a graph showing atmosperic conditions dating back to thousands of years.
Interestingly even before humans could have contributed to climate change,there were peaks in the graphs indicating a major change in climate possibly caused by huge volcanic eruptions or meteorite impacts.But unfortunately scientist predict the change we are facing now,indicated by the graphs will be the most severe to come.
Btw if I remember correctly from my biology studies from high school a cow produces something like four kg of methane gas every day."Early in the Earth's history—about 3.5 billion years ago—there was 1,000 times as much methane in the atmosphere as there is now. The earliest methane was released into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. During this time, Earth's earliest life appeared. These first, ancient bacteria added to the methane concentration by converting hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane and water. Oxygen did not become a major part of the atmosphere until photosynthetic organisms evolved later in Earth's history. With no oxygen, methane stayed in the atmosphere longer and at higher concentrations than it does today."From Wikipedia......Cheers bom siva.Cool



-------------
frank


Posted By: DonQuichote
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 17:50
Shall I have a go then?
Mind you - I am not going to prove anything. But I do not believe in any "magic" solution to the world's problems. The problem is how we do agriculture, not what we grow.

Originally posted by administrator

HempFlax’ Challenge

<snip>... and pollution reduced. This sustainable resource does it all at one time and is an old acquaintance: cannabis – hemp.’

I think you are wrong here. At this moment, hemp is an ecological sound product. Just like cotton was when it was still growing in the wild. But, as far as I know, hemp is not cultivated in absurd large monocultures like we do with cotton. And that's the problem.

Hemp may have a large number of good qualities, but not the necessary qualities for all the demands of any ecosystem. That means that you also need other things, which together form the "equilibrium in nature". If we try to change that equilibrium, nature reacts. This may be either a positive or a negative reaction, and equilibriums can be stable or unstable. So growing nothing but hemp will yield a paradise for nothing-but-hemp-eaters. Whether they already have evolved or not.

Introducing a successful lifeform in one ecosystem into an unprepared other ecosystem can even be downright dangerous. American lobsters are taking over dutch ecosystems, there was much to do about a lake in africa that has been taken over by introduced fish, and these are just examples. There have been insects introduced from europe into the USA that did a huge lot of damage to the american wood industry.

Potatoes used to be the magic solution to crop failure. So we switched to growing potatoes in europe, which in turn led to a giant crop failure in potatoes. And that crop failure killed a vast number of people.

There was a nice documentary on television a few years ago. It was about a biologist who researched the "arms race" between insect poisons and insects becoming resistant to them. At that time, cotton was genetically modified to produce a nerve poison to resist being eaten by insects. The reaction to this was a generation of insects that hardly used their nerve system at all. These insects were awfully slow, but could stay alive on the poisonous plants. Now the biologist remarked that such insects would hardly stand a change on normal, unpoisoned cotton, because these slow insects were an easy prey for any insect-eater. But the poisoned cotton protected them. The insect eaters could not stand the poison yet. So these insects did not survive despite the poisoning, but because of the poisoning. The farmers are thinking that they are fighting the insects, but they are in fact helping them. The biologist did some calculations and expected that the arms race could be stopped if the farmers would grow 20% of their cotton organically: the resistant insects would be eaten on the ecological plants, and enough of the rest would die on the poisonous plants they were already growing.

So I don't think hemp is the answer. No single crop is. Stopping to believe in monoculture would do more good. If you really want to affect the environment with just hemp, you would need a dangerous amount of it. This solution would rapidly become your next problem.
It would bring new diseases and pests, you'd need dangerous chemicals (made from oil probably) to fight them and you might come with a new statement about stinging nettles. Which are not a solution either.

Best regards


-------------
The world's first phyberpunk


Posted By: farmer mick
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 19:19
DonQuichote, the original post says nothing about cannabis/hemp being the only crop on Earth.
 
It says cannabis/hemp can supply "the greater part of the world’s demand for products such as paper, food, textiles and construction material" in the event of a ban on fossil fuels and the felling of trees.
 
The premise is that cannabis/hemp can meet most of this demand, while allowing other plants like trees (in conjunction with an end to use of fossil fuels) to restore the atmosphere of the Earth and reverse the greenhouse effect.
 
The basic argument is that there is no need for humanity to cut down trees or to burn and process fossil fuels.
 
That's not to say that a huge upsurge in cannabis cultivation wouldn't upset the ecological equilibrium on Earth, but personally I don't think it would cause any major problems if it was properly controlled.
 
If it did bring new diseases and pests, nature would almost certainly find a way of keeping these pests within safe limits, as long as farmers were willing to put their greed to one side and accept the loss of a small portion of their crop.


Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 23:27
cannabis can deliver paper, textiles, kind of food, oil, material for houses and various other things.
but its been proved ( and that not from me, I only posted it )  that any plant , except wide (rain) forests, cant save our climative conditions !
 
I find it funny that the last post was in 10/06 and now it comes to a new deabate on it, so its fun - and no stress ! 
 
wish you all a good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen
 
 


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: farmer mick
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 00:22
Quarzen, the Hempflax challenge doesn't say that cannabis can save our climatic conditions. It says cannabis can provide paper, textile, construction material, energy, etc while trees repair the damage to the environment.


Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 00:51
Originally posted by administrator

‘If the greenhouse effect were to be reversed by a ban on all fossil fuels and their derivatives, or if their use were to come to an end, and no more trees were allowed to be felled in order to prevent further deforestation, then there would be one natural resource able to supply the greater part of the world’s demand for products such as paper, food, textiles and construction material. This annually renewable resource can also provide energy to the industry, transport and the home. Meanwhile, the soil and the atmosphere on Earth can be restored and pollution reduced. This sustainable resource does it all at one time and is an old acquaintance: cannabis – hemp.’
 
good smoke !  weed leaf
 
Quarzen


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: farmer mick
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 12:21
"If the greenhouse effect were to be reversed by a ban on all fossil fuels and their derivatives, or if their use were to come to an end, and no more trees were allowed to be felled in order to prevent further deforestation..."
 
I think this makes it clear that the soil and the atmosphere on Earth would be restored and pollution reduced by an end to the burning of fossil fuels and an end to the destruction of forests, not by fields of cannabis plants.
 
The purpose of the cannabis plants is to provide the resources that are currently derived from cutting down trees and from burning and processing fossil fuels.
 
However, cannabis by itself can also be beneficial to the planet. As a food crop, or when grown for textiles, it is more environmentally friendly than existing crops.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp  - "While cotton uses 25% of the Earth's pesticides, hemp does not need any."


Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 16:39

if the development of the mankind goes on like this, they will stop felling trees when theres only few left in the rainforest (and its main regulator on our planet by now).

...and then hemp will be a good delivering source for all these things, but it will never help to restore the atmosphere or prevent pollution.
I wrote this now couple of times, its been proved cause they made new experiments with all kind of plants and recognized this output on methan the first time ( in 06 ). trees can help (though they have a great methan output), but no commercial using of cannabis and also not corn, tobacco, wheat, and so on.
and : commercial fields irrtate the atmophere above.
 
good smoke mick weed leaf
 
Quarzen
 


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: farmer mick
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 21:42
Okay Quarzen, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.
 
Neither I nor HempFlax have said that cannabis will directly restore the atmosphere or prevent pollution.
 
The argument is that cannabis can supply the majority of human beings' demand for paper, textile, construction material, energy, food etc.
 
Therefore, there is no need to cut down trees, burn fossil fuels or grow crops that require vast amounts of chemical pesticides and fertiliser added to the soil.
 
Now, can we please call a truce? I really wish I'd stayed out of this argument.


Posted By: Quarzen
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 21:45
no more comments from my side, but I will stay at my point.
 
good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/ - Sensi Seeds : the http://sensiseeds.com/indoorgreenhouse/1s26.html - Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!


Posted By: farmer mick
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 21:54
Cheers Q. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
 
Have a good one,
Mick...


Posted By: Grasso
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 22:17
Hello,

hemp is easily grown and easily worked into paper, ropes, fabric, food and so on. A sane world based on hemp did not need so much energy, minerals and water. Everybody can prove that for and reward oneself instantly.

Uli

-------------


Posted By: sickhaze
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 09:18
yeah that will really help it will a little but its true we still have waste i believe this will build up an excess of waste products from the hemp yeah maybe we should try it for a month lmao but the waste will build and then we have different problems yes hydro electric power is the way the onli consequence free power  


Posted By: Canna Zine
Date Posted: 17 June 2007 at 14:21
Hi guys - goeden dag;

Congratulations to Mr Dronkers and co for raising awareness to the hemp cause!

My name is Red dragon ;) and I'm the cannabis/hemp news editor at http://cannazine.co.uk - daily zine for the cannabis scene.

Having just signed up as a new member (looking for some information) I hoped no one would mind if I added my tuppenceworth (a frightfully British term if ever there was one) to the debate.

Lots of people believe hemp to be the saviour of the planet, and it has some great qualities, on this we all agree?

But saviour?

As much as people in the press would have you believe its simply a case of planting some hemp seeds to get the first commercial hemp crops grown legally since the second world war, thats just not the case!

In North Dakota farmers are sitting, waiting, wishing, whilst the administration umms and aah's over when the hemp licences will be released.

With the growing season already started, farmers are yet to procure seeds and equipment, essentially writing off this growing season even though the US administration received (and banked) the almost $2500 dollars a commercial hemp licence costs annually!

Elsewhere, because of the specialist nature of hemp (its tough - this we know), special machinery designed to cope the the rigours of processing hemp is being designed and built in barns on backwater farms as the technology just doesn't exist at this stage, to deal with the raw hemp in any mass.

Lets face it, apart from some well thumbed references to the "Indoore" method, there isn't a lot of hard fact around concerning hemp and its cultivation, as well as the handling of the raw material itself, and until this issue is resolved there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in growing it.

Stigma
Hemp still carries with it the stigma of a distant and 'accidental' relationship with the devil weed marijuana (a publicity job undertaken by Harry Anslinger which was more successful as well as a lot more expensive, than any undertaken by Pepsi).

And until power is wrenched from Harry's long deceased hands (he died in 1975) once and for all, any moves toward hemp legislation will carry on at the pace it does today..painfully slowly!

Without industry spending its money in research & development, hemp will continue to be classed as the hippie cause - one not to be taken seriously.

But before this can happen, the "prime-movers" within the hemp lobby need to mobilize, to organize, and to analyze, on the way to setting up a publicity machine which has the ability to spread the message far & wide. To counter the adverse messages with positive stories and articles, showing the benevolent side of hemp, as well as its subversive sibling, the cannabis plant.

The Internet (and the social bookmarking phenomena) have paved the way for people to take their own message and spread it far and wide, in communities of like minds on MySpace, Facebook etc and this is where the battle could be won!

Even politicians have not yet wised up to the use of the social networks to spread a message. But its a powerful tool, served to people who search for a specific topic genre, so spam filters are taken fully out of the equation and our information served hot and fresh, to a generation unafraid of undertaking transacions online. 

This is the Ebay generation!

If you would like to know more about how to use cutting edge technology to move information in a way that just wasn't possible a year or so back, check in with us at the canna zine - daily zine for the cannabis scene.

Good luck Hempflax!

Red Dragon


-------------
Canna Zine - Daily zine for the cannabis scene!


Posted By: Ganja
Date Posted: 18 June 2007 at 11:29
Some very good points.

One bit of info I could add concerns the following:


Originally posted by Canna Zine

Elsewhere, because of the specialist nature of hemp (its tough - this we know), special machinery designed to cope the the rigours of processing hemp is being designed and built in barns on backwater farms as the technology just doesn't exist at this stage, to deal with the raw hemp in any mass.


It's entirely true that hemp is much tougher than modern crops and that normal harvesting equipment just jams when trying to cut it.

However, HempFlax encountered this problem way back in the Nineties and actually invested a huge amount of money in designing farm machines that could cut down hemp.

They've also improved the post-harvest process of turning hemp-stalks into fibre.

I'll see if I can dig up a few pics...




-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/s-en/cannabis-seeds/auto - Auto-flowering http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds - Cannabis Seeds!
No growing questions by PM, please!


Posted By: farmer mick
Date Posted: 18 June 2007 at 17:20
Can I also say, the Chinese have factories containing huge machines specifically designed to process hemp.
 
The technology does exist, it's just Western politicians have no interest in helping to develop the hemp industry because it would adversely affect the rich business interests they're beholden to.
 
They're also afraid that their opponents will be able to blacken their names by claiming they support the growing of cannabis.


-------------
"A rat race is for rats. We're not rats. We're human beings." - Jimmy Reid, RIP


Posted By: Jonney
Date Posted: 08 August 2007 at 00:12
fantastic read!! learned more in the last hour than i have in any other.

-------------
"It is possible that a certain amount of brain damage is of therapeutic value."

Dr Paul Hoch
------------------------------


Posted By: Infalicious
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 20:29
Aha! After much debating I have decided I can prove the statement wrong and claim my 100000 euro's!
 
....................
 
 
Uhhhhhhhh.............give me two more minutes.........what was it again............ damn............I knew I shouldnt have smoked that bowl  Unhappy


Posted By: bartmanuk
Date Posted: 22 February 2008 at 20:48
Originally posted by farmer mick

Okay Quarzen, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.
 
Neither I nor HempFlax have said that cannabis will directly restore the atmosphere or prevent pollution.
 
The argument is that cannabis can supply the majority of human beings' demand for paper, textile, construction material, energy, food etc.
 
Therefore, there is no need to cut down trees, burn fossil fuels or grow crops that require vast amounts of chemical pesticides and fertiliser added to the soil.
 
Now, can we please call a truce? I really wish I'd stayed out of this argument.
 
talk about  lmao,
for about 5 or 6 posts previous to this one from farmer mick, ive been sitting here saying to myself that this quarzen geezer dont seem to be getting whats being said, then at last farmer mick tries to tell him where hes going wrong, and he still argues it.. f*ckin brilliant.
you could never get this type of conversation on any other forum in the world.
i love being stoned with you lot.
 
BM weed%20leaf


Posted By: Nemo
Date Posted: 10 July 2008 at 19:52
OK, I've been trying really hard not to post this, but I can't take it any more.
 
I feel the spannerish need to point out that where the challenge says "the greenhouse effect" it should say "global warming" or "climate change" or even "the enhanced/multiplied/increased greenhouse effect".
 
The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the surface of the Earth is warmed due to its atmosphere, and if it were "reversed" as the challenge states then the surface temperature of the Earth would plummet to a point so low that what your paper was made from would be the last of your concerns.
 
"Global warming" or "climate change" is the recently observed phenomenon where temperatures are rising globally as the greenhouse effect is multiplied by man's activties increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
 
Sorry, I know that's really anal, but can I claim my 100,000 on a technicality please, it'd come in pretty handy at the minute loving%20itloving%20itloving%20it


-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds/ - Sensi's collection of http://sensiseeds.com/indoor/1s25.html - Indoor Cannabis Seeds

No Turn Unstoned


Posted By: bartmanuk
Date Posted: 10 July 2008 at 22:38

lol, do you realise this thread will be 4 years old on sunday?

BM weed%20leaf

 
edit- 600 and 800 posts nemo


-------------
I grow weed for my own use and feel no guilt over it.If you want to arrest me,fine,thats your job.My aim is to put real criminals out of business by refusing to pay into the illegal distribution scene


Posted By: Nemo
Date Posted: 10 July 2008 at 22:55
Scary huh? Evil%20Smile

-------------
http://sensiseeds.com/cannabis-seeds/ - Sensi's collection of http://sensiseeds.com/indoor/1s25.html - Indoor Cannabis Seeds

No Turn Unstoned


Posted By: snoopy85
Date Posted: 07 September 2008 at 20:41
I didnt understand very good,but isn that that what jack herrer sais before that hemp could problaby heal the athmosphere fo the planet...and I even heard from tschernobyl that hemp helped out there to get back an athmosphere to live and it helped too to reduce radioactivity


Posted By: martiniGR
Date Posted: 28 November 2010 at 22:17
the solution is not the problem...
the problem is that everyone can grow hemp
thats why it still isnt working
if your idea works, every person can copy the idea
to much competition, less profit..
profit is the bottleneck..


-------------
Some say friends do not exist, we cant make words for things that do not exist...
Willie van het Kerkhof, Groningen NL


Posted By: martiniGR
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 08:45
it s not my style to show people what is the problem with their fantastic ideas
Fantastic ideas work, if it doesnt, the idea has some problems in it.
 
The main problem in this bizniz is  EARTH IS NOT A CONSUMER
create a budget for the earth, let scientists decide what earth would buy for her money
 
The problem has a solution, it will cost much more than 100.000,= to give that planetwide solution..


-------------
Some say friends do not exist, we cant make words for things that do not exist...
Willie van het Kerkhof, Groningen NL


Posted By: martiniGR
Date Posted: 29 November 2010 at 08:52
last 2 messages were for free:
 
profit is the bottleneck
 
Earth is not a consumer
 
2 problems, 2 solutions


-------------
Some say friends do not exist, we cant make words for things that do not exist...
Willie van het Kerkhof, Groningen NL


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 16 January 2016 at 22:54
the only way to save the planet is to turn off the internet and leave it off and stop using HID lights forever. even if you find some new and improved way of generating electricity and stop generating co2 and other green house gasses you still have the problem of the heat waste generated by all electrical devices and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. so its noble what you said but we can talk privately about the payment.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ - http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

just as a side note but if you do decide to pay up i would like to split the reward 50/50 with the author of the paper.

and just in case anyone in the future wanted to drink any fresh water they had better think about this, Biomass (crops grown for the purpose of fuel):  40,000 to 100,000 gallons per megawatt-hour.. and before you say solar desalination plant you still have the problem of heat waste and water vapor in the atmosphere.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/fuel.html - http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/fuel.html


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 11:29
so i'm pretty sure that the embedded water costs and consequences of this will make it non-viable in a couple of hundred years too. so hunker down kids its looking like a rough ride for your descendants no matter what we do.


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 11:49
you should be breeding fast growing cacti that can live on dew point moisture alone so you can colonize or stabilize desert areas rapidly as the climate shifts as it will.  


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 14:05
and finally co2 is good, water vapor bad, mechanical and electronically derived heat waste also bad. co2 levels directly relate to plant growth and end dry organic material weight so higher levels makes happier plants. plants transpire water vapor, water vapor collects thermal radiation from any source not just the sun like co2 does. this is the tricky bit, take the water vapor out of the air. the temps would go down naturally but how you do it without electricity and the heat generated by the process and all of this on a global scale is a mind boggling question. pretty sure there must be some kind of organic way of doing but who knows? not sure what the consequences of that type of Geo-engineering may be but with the way things are its going to take some serious abstract thinking to solve the problems that face us as a sentient race of beings who's future descendants are facing extinction in the not so distant future. (in the geological sense)


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 18 January 2016 at 15:01
i would like a riposte or rebuttal at some point please.


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 18 January 2016 at 23:45
oh and just on a further note when you say "soil restored", could you describe to me the action by which the hemp or flax will "restore" the micro flora and fauna in the soil that has been destroyed by over use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides over the last century as that would seem like a pretty big task to me and i dont think hemp can do it and im pretty sure they wont just spontaneously reappear either. again i await your counter.


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 19 January 2016 at 19:36
just a little more food for thought about practical realities and growing populations versus finite natural resources.

http://www.devex.com/news/time-to-end-the-false-debate-of-organic-vs-mineral-fertilizer-85982 - http://www.devex.com/news/time-to-end-the-false-debate-of-organic-vs-mineral-fertilizer-85982


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 22 January 2016 at 19:55
usually when someone doesnt reply to a retort to their claim on the internet its because they find their defense untenable. i would like a reply rebuking what i have said in terms of saving the planet with hemp. 


-------------
Nec Plus Ultra


Posted By: Charly Sensi
Date Posted: 08 March 2016 at 13:24
Hello CC

Sorry for the late reply, I normally don't come in the HempFlax part of the Forum.

Now, I've read the links you've posted, they're really interesting, but again, you should read properly what the original post was saying :

provide proof to the contrary of the following proposition:

If the greenhouse effect were to be reversed by a ban on all fossil fuels and their derivatives, or if their use were to come to an end, and no more trees were allowed to be felled in order to prevent further deforestation, then there would be one natural resource able to supply the greater part of the world’s demand for products such as paper, food, textiles and construction material. This annually renewable resource can also provide energy to the industry, transport and the home. Meanwhile, the soil and the atmosphere on Earth can be restored and pollution reduced. This sustainable resource does it all at one time and is an old acquaintance: cannabis – hemp.’


Your arguments are pretty good, but the point was not to find solutions to save the planet, no matter how logical or senseless they are, but it was to prove that this specific sentence wrong, and sorry, but you haven't.

Hemp is not the only thing that can save our planet, let's be realistic, but as you said, if we would stop all the HID lamps to grow outdoor, that could be a pretty good start on saving energy, but hard to do when it can get you to jail.

Anyway, was a nice try .

Talk to you soon.

Charly Sensi.


Posted By: CowardlyCustard
Date Posted: 09 March 2016 at 11:37
thanks Charly and thank you for your reply. i'm still pretty sure the logistics of using hemp to to feed, shelter and clothe most of the worlds population is an impossible ask. if the planet had a lot less people on it, maybe it could work but where would you grow it as by the time people come round to the idea there will be billions more of us and all of the available land and usable water will be spoken for. so its a nice statement in principal but the practical realities of it are such that it wont happen ever.


-------------
Nec Plus Ultra



Print Page | Close Window