Wow, you really are twisted. Since you throw the COTS program out there, take a look at it yourself. It is the government exercising control and shifting the technological innovation to the private companies. Duh. Why? Because NASA couldn't cut it and now admits the private sector can do better if properly funded I see you've abandoned your line of argument that there are some sort of relevant "legal barriers" preventing private companies from launching their own spacecraft. Quite to the contrary, they've been trying since the inception of modern rocketry; their failures litter the landscape. Getting out of this gravity well is just incredibly difficult. Secondly, "the government" did not create COTS. COTS was the creation of NASA administrator Michael Griffin. Its origins date back to a 1990 *internal* NASA study called "Alt Access". And it's not because NASA "couldn't cut it". The whole point is to prop up private industry despite the fact that it has repeatedly not been able to "cut it", because if they can succeed in getting private craft to orbit, part of the development costs will be subsidized by the marketplace. I.e., NASA gets access for cheaper. But really, why are you dragging this conversation to this complete tangent? A silly attempt to try to discount NASA research via guilt-by-association? So what, on all of NASA's peer-reviewed papers, did they pay off the reviewers, too? How deep does this evil NASA conspiracy to promote LEDs go? You are obviously highly delusional if you see above where you linked over a dozen of anything. You link one I linked to a study showing the negative effects of yellow light on lettuce, the microgravity dwarf wheat experiments, and there are a ton of studies covered in the Helsinki paper which I didn't feel the need to re-link on my own but were mentioned in one of my links. Straight from the link you provided: "The purpose of the experiment was to study the effects of microgravity on the reproductive physiology of higher plants." Where is there a mention of it being about lighting? Just two lines later: "This research was designed to further evaluate the technology used to support food production by crews on long duration space flights" Is this Gardenweb School for the Blind or something? Many experienced gardeners that grows radishes knows you can grow radishes just as I said. Give me a break. Search for "sun" and "radish". Radishes grow optimally under two key conditions: cool and very sunny. Too hot and they bolt. Too little sun and they don't put on bulb mass. These are facts. Just so you know, my radishes (under the protection of peppers) have nice bulbs to them. You're still growing radishes in June? Mine are all full sized and out of the ground by May. You know, you might want to consider giving them more sunlight if you want to grow them faster. ;) Or is *your* goal to grow crops slowly? Well, if that's your standard, then by all means, my LED grow room is an abject failure! ;) So yippee, the study covered lettuce, too. Good to see that discovering your mistakes makes you happy. Judging from this thread, you'll probably live a very happy life. Lettuce is commonly grown the same way to extend it's season beyond late spring Like radishes, lettuce gets shaded to *slow it down* in the summer heat to stop it from bolting. This is really basic gardening here. or even to wheat Ha! That's really funny. Close-packed wheat pretty much defines a dense canopy. Peppers can't hold a candle to grains in terms of shading. Peppers even have a pretty spare canopy compared to lettuce and radishes. Come to think of it... I'm having trouble coming up with garden crops that have a *less* dense canopy than peppers generally do. Tomatoes? Nope. Eggplant? Maybe, but not usually. Mint? Nope. Etc. I suppose basil might be considered on-par with peppers. a university I have never heard of Oh! Well, that seals it right there! Everybody, Joe has never heard of Helsinki University of Technology; therefore, I'm wrong! FYI: Helsinki University of Technology is Finland's top tech college, and is one of the top 100 schools in the world for degrees in technology-related fields (according to QS's rankings of the world's universities.). TO THE ELECTRONICS DEPARTMENT Good point. After all, LEDs are handled by the Underwater Basketweaving Department. Do you expect us to follow every one of those sources the guy cites? If you care about peer review? Yeah, I do. The fact that you're basically saying "I haven't read it, but they must be wrong!" really shows how much you think of peer-reviewed scientific research. Exclamation points aren't indicative of hostility. They are exclamatory. Get a dictionary lady. "The act of exclaiming; outcry; loud complaint or protest: The speech was continually interrupted by rude exclamations." So, you were exclaiming, outcrying, offering loud complaint or protest... but in a kind, non-hostile manner, right? ;) Of course, you will interpret it to mean whatever you want or you will just settle on one definition that suits your argument, right? Nah, only Definition #1. From there, you hijacked this thread Hey, how's that "NASA sucks and here's why" tangent you dragged this into going? even you admit it became about LED's rather than about "My hot pepper situation" that simply mentions LED's You know, I recall the poster devoting a whole paragraph to asking about LED lights. I don't recall them asking about whether the Bush administration tried to pressure NASA scientists to deny global warming (which you brought up in a strange attempt to argue that if an organization does something wrong -- which, funny enough, they did just the opposite of what you insinuated -- then all research conducted by all groups associated with them becomes null and void, even when peer-reviewed.) Hmm, what's a tangent: discussing peer-reviewed research on LEDs when the original poster asked about LEDs, or smearing NASA? I'll have to think about this one.... ;) By the way: sorry for the sarcasm, but I really do find your posts amusing, so it's just coming out on its own. I get a kick out of the fact that you don't seem to realize that you're contradicting and damning yourself with every post.

Shannon, Check out the Unicorn Peppermills. The Magnum Plus is rated the best by Cooks Illustrated. They rated it the best back in July/August of 2001 and again in January 2005. Quote........ "We have yet to find a pepper mill that can approach the Unicorn Magnum Plus, winner of our July/August 2001 test; it offers the ultimate in grind quality and speed. But it is expensive at $45. It turns out that the Magnum Plus is an overgrown version of the $31 Magnum, which seemed worth a try. The 5 3/4-inch Magnum grinds just as quickly and effectively as the 9-inch Magnum Plus. In the test kitchen, we really appreciate the huge 15-tablespoon capacity of the Magnum Plus, but the Magnum's 7-tablespoon capacity is fine for home use. All in all, for cooks who want a less expensive option than the Magnum Plus, the unassuming Magnum a great choice." Sometime last week I lost my favourite Travel Size grinder that I kept in my purse. Today I ordered one of the Unicorn mini mills and the Magnum Plus. A girl can never have to many pepper mills. LOL! Ann

I have one of the cheapest, yet best, mills you've ever seen. I learned about it on the Kitchens Forum I think. It's the Ikea "Spice Mill". It has the ceramic grinders (I have one Ikea mill for pepper and one for sea salt, and it is the only grinder I've owned where the sea salt hasn't ruined it). Did I say it was dirt cheap LOL? Plus it is glass so you can see how much you have left, it holds a whole lot, it cleans really easily, and the grind is adjustable from coarse to fine. But one of my favorite things about it is that it sits on the table or counter with the grinder part on top - that means no annoying pepper crumbs on the table. P.S. I have a Unicorn mill too, and as others have said, it works really well. But I still reach for the Ikea Spice Mill first because the Unicorn grinder does leave pepper crumbs on the table, and also sometimes when I use the Unicorn, if I don't hold it just right, the filler-opening opens and peppercorns fly out. Plus, the Unicorn isn't very attractive. The Ikea one isn't gorgeous either, but can look pretty cute when filled with multi-colored peppercorns. Here is a link that might be useful: Ikea 365+ Spice Mill

I bought an Atlas in 2015 but the handle broke after a couple of years. The grind was fine, no matter what setting. Then, I used whatever came with store-bought pepper for a while. I bought a Kuhn Rikon set at the end of 2017. I didn't adjust the grind so can't speak to that. I really liked how it worked but the mechanism was attached with plastic spokes and it broke off a week ago. I gave the other in the set to my mom, who lives 10 hrs away, a week before that! Her grinder took forever to produce. Now, I have the Unicorn Magnum. It arrived a few days ago and I love the adjustment even though I tend to use one grind most of the time. You get a LOT of pepper very easily so it's my favorite mechanism, so far. It's just not pretty like the Atlas or cute like the KR. I use Kosher Salt or Maldon flakes, so no grinder.