Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jrushing

There is a definite contradiction in this article.

They do not define "pollution." Naturally released chemicals do not logically fall under such a heading.


7 posted on 10/02/2004 10:06:11 PM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: farmfriend


8 posted on 10/02/2004 10:07:41 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Restorer

Re: Naturally released chemicals

Explain your point. I'm having trouble understanding.


9 posted on 10/02/2004 10:15:16 PM PDT by endthematrix (Bad news is good news for the Kerry campaign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Restorer
Although scientists knew that trees contribute substantial amounts of VOCs to the atmosphere, the rate of increase in recent decades was previously unrecognized.

"It's just one of those biological correlations," said Purves. "What you want is a fast-growing tree that doesn't produce a lot of VOCs, but that doesn't seem to exist."
11 posted on 10/02/2004 10:27:52 PM PDT by jrushing (Democrats=National Socialist Workers Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson