Silvia, nahhh...he just UPROOTS the entire plant and leaves it dying in the sun!!! Ack!!! Meems, Silvia has answered your borage question for ya. (Great pictures, Silvia).Also, Judy (atreelady) has grown it and had lovely big plants all spring and early summer. Don't know if they are still hanging in there or not. Also, Meems, you may have missed my comments on ruellia. It is beautiful, it is hardy, it is totally drought and heat resistant, and it does NOT have to spread. Home Depot sells a completely sterile one that grows 4 feet tall or so, just like the "regular" ones, and they do not seed, and they do not spread by long runners. The clump will increase very slightly in size over a long time, but nothing more than a daylily, say. It is one of my favorite plants and my hummers and butterflies love it. I would never be without it. Home Depot is the ONLY place I've seen selling the ones marked "Florida Friendly, Sterile and Non-invasive." Raising the caterpillars is easy and fun. The hardest part is not running out of FOOD. And if you don't know this, caterpillars are host specific critters. In other words, if you move a caterpillar to a plant that isn't the host plant, it will just do its best to get back to the plant that IS the host. They won't eat anything that isn't one of their host plants. Now if you can move them from a plant you want to save to one that is RELATED and included on their host list, then you are fine. But otherwise, they will probably just die anyway, if they can't make it back to the original plant. OH, yes, Silvia! I remember that beautiful cake!! Lovely little blossoms. You folks are SOME GOOD COOKS at your house!! Marcia

From a Buddhist perspective, the act of purchasing--voting with the dollar--a product that is toxically produced and shipped to its desired location is ethically and morally wrong. It is against the interconnectedness of beings, as the destruction of one habitat is also a destruction of the extended self. From a Jesuit-Catholic perspective, Genesis dictates that all Earthly creations are impoverished of their own, independent nature (they are /of/ God) and are sacramental (they provide a vessel for us to experience God). By mistreating or misguiding our efforts in the natural world, we are misguiding our efforts to respect God as it exists in all things. Religious theory aside; As a geologist, I have an academic bias towards the use of any chemical fertilizer, especially in coastal habitats like southeastern MA. Because Rehoboth/Seekonk are part of the Ten Mile sub-watershed, my groundwater's "drainage path" to the ocean is through the Narragansett basin. Any and all pollution that enters the groundwater table in the Rehoboth/Seekonk area WILL OVER TIME flow to its final destination. Parameters that impede the flow of pollutants are typically Darcy's Law parameters: the density of the chemical, the nature/likelihood of the chemical to adsorb (chemically 'stick') to rock particles, the porosity of the aquifer through which the water is flows, the amount of water flowing through the aquifer, and the relief/topography of the watertable as a whole. Flatter, more coastal areas will see pollutants slowly bloom and spread over time. There is less gravitational potential 'flowing' water downstream to the ocean, and therefore less energy to disperse pollutants. In some areas with typically sandier soil, high porosity can lead to extremely fast chemical/pollutant leaching from the area. Especially at risk to water pollution are those on Cape, where the groundwater is focused into fresh water 'lenses' due to salt water intrusion of the watertable. The freshwater rain that falls onto the Cape is the only way for the watertable to recharge itself. Research conducted at the MMR at the bicep of the Cape has shown that pollutants deposited here from the military as earlier as 40 years ago are still leaching through the groundwater, and are toxifying the deep-earth environment of the region. Even scarier, underground glacial flow channels carved from the region approx. 14-12,000 years ago have become "high ways", regions of increased flow potential, for these pollutants to be directed to Buzzards Bay and the Sounds. After studying the estuarine and coastal hydrophysics which actively shape our coastline, I've come to realize that pollutant in the water table all drain, eventually, to one place. And that's the estuary at the mouth of your watershed. Through processes like eutrophication (in my opinion one of the milder consequences of pollution), estuarine grass and sea-weed organisms cannot survive. Because their main function in an estuary is to collect and trap sediments, essentially building out the estuary and protecting the coastline from sever coastal storms, the destruction of these organisms by human pollution WILL cause the landward migration of sand bars, "outer banks", and the ocean front. We saw the effects of this in New Jersey on the Shore. We are beginning to see the effects of this on the South shore of Cape Cod, an area that is NOT environmentally protected by the national government. When chemicals are applied to the lawn properly, and at the right time, the plants that are supposed to be fertilized will act on the chemicals to grow. But what sorts of pollution issues does this cause across the globe? Minerals are being extracted from locations across the globe in order to synthesize the chemical fertilizer that you're desiring to put into your lawn. Minerals, that, without the pollution of fossil fuels, you wouldn't have in your area or at your immediate disposal. What about the others' environment that you might be polluting? Mineral mining for fertilizers may not cause immediate damage. But fossil fuel mining across the globe is making places literally uninhabitable for any species, not just humans. According to my friend Seun, also a geologist, places like his home in Southern Nigeria host oil companies that have lobbies so extensively in the local and federal government that the government has stolen millions of dollars from the people in exchange for selling their land to oil companies for drilling. Seun discussed with me the implications that fossil fuel mining has had on his home town. People's farms are covered in spilled petrochemicals and other inorganic wastes so badly that these people can no longer grow food and are being forced to flee the region as refugees. My friend is unsure if he will be able to return home after he completes his Masters degree because he doesn't know if there will be food for him to eat. His family's farm has fallen victim to the humanitarian crimes that are being undertaken in Southern Nigeria. So for me it's not about proving one person right, one person wrong, another person a crazy liberal, and another person a mad scientist. By default, I think we're all scientists (because we're all experimenting with plants through the act of gardening) and what each of us has to say has equal importance. TL-DR: The issue of purposely adding pollutants to the earth and also the issue of indirectly supporting industries that do so are issues that require all of us to join in discussion. Is it worth having the greenest, healthiest lawn? From a chemists' perspective, as long as the chemistry is handled right, yes. From a geologists' perspective (and not a petro-chemical geologist, mind you), I'll tell you that any pollutants added to any groundwater system can be considered pollution when the scope of the pollution is taken into consideration, so no. From a religious perspective, we have a higher calling to educate ourselves on the dangers that we are presenting to the natural creation that we have the privilege of experiencing, although we are aiding in the growth of life on our own soil, is it truly balancing the harm that we are causing in other parts of the globe? Please consider Steve's suggestion of topping off the soil in your yard with an organic amendment. Please consider that grass is one (1) of many, many, many plants and biodiversity never hurt a single being.

I think the KD's latest version makes problem worse. The talls now seem to go on forever. Also, by recessing the refrigerator, you make it even farther away from any real landing space. It just seems like it would be a real ordeal to get out more than a couple of ingredients at a time. I certainly don't want to push my plan on you, but I also don't want you to lose out so dramatically on function in an effort to create a visual separation that I don't think the pony wall accomplishes any better. I've seen many islands that seem to do a nice job of separating the kitchen from the family room. If you don't like this look, you might want to consider exploring other ways to create that visual separation. You have space for such a large island that adding some architectural accents like columns at each end and, perhaps, an arch of some kind above it would create a real feeling of separateness without sacrificing good kitchen functioning. There are several kitchens in the FKB that have this set up. Perhaps others can name a few. You could even use part of the island that faces the family room for shelving or something else that might look less kitchen-y. Even if you decide to stick with the U and the pony wall, I really think you should reconsider putting that island where you have it. Others have pointed out the many functional drawbacks. In addition to those, I think it would just look awkward.

This is actually a newly framed and plumbed room, and the pipe is as low as it can go. It's in the basement, and this was our only solution that avoided having to tear up the slab to reach a drain stack. Both units have a 6-year warranty, and both have stainless grind components, but don't mention the chamber, so I suspect it's not stainless. Haven't yet found a compact unit that obviously has a stainless chamber. This will be an occasional use installation, so I'm not worried about wear and tear too much. Corrosion from lack of use is more of a concern.