I liked the Nat Geo show, but have a couple of reservations. I thought the account of the two that made the transverse of the redwood region from south to north was not nearly as interesting as the other parts of the program. And one point made in the program was misleading. When it was said that the old redwoods are still growing fast, and in fact faster than second growth redwoods, that does not mean that old growth forests are adding new wood faster than second growth forests. Now, in case anyone is confused, I am as ardent a preservationist as any alive today. BUT, it is important not to be misleading. As "carbon sinks," old growth tree stands of any kind are generally neutral--the process of building up biomass doesn't continue to infinity. Forest research scientists have studied this issue extensively, and after a clearcut, the biomass/carbon additions accelerate slowly. At some point, depending on the kind of forest/tree species, etc., the biomass increase levels off, and at some point--in a redwood forest it can be after a thousand years or more--it reaches an equilibrium. But, of course, Sillet is right when he talks about the individual trees--the largest trees generally add wood volume faster then smaller trees. But, of course, in a mature forest, there are far fewer of them. Also, this insight is not new. I think it was as long ago as the mid 50's that I heard that the General Sherman giant sequoia was in all likelihood, not only the largest tree on earth, but also the fastest growing. Also, are any of you watching the new Ken Burns film on the National Parks? Much of this is really, really outstanding, and is some of his very best work. Last night one problem was the story of the couple from Nebraska and the story of their national park visiting experiences. I won't go into detail, but in the end I thought it a very sad story. Now I am now past 70 years old, and have had many, many wonderful experiences in the national parks. Many of these parks I will never get back to see again. I will never be able to share with my wife the experience of hiking down the "Bright Angel trail, and then up the Kaibab trail, having a thunderstorm come up when I was halfway up the Kaibab, etc. etc. I may never get to see the redwoods again. But let me tell you all this. All the memories of all the wonderful times I have had are as alive in my mind today as they were when I actually experienced them, and are a constant joy to me and always will be. And, unlike this couple, I was never sorry to get back home again either, even though at the time I may have wished my stays in the parks could have been longer. This couple seemed to me to be particularly joyless, and the story of the wife after her husband died and she could no longer visit the parks was very sad. I felt their story detracted from the film. I make this point to encourage you all to go see the redwoods. "Make memories," as it were--they will stay with you always and be a constant joy. --Spruce

Despite my past troubles with NG I was offered wollemi pine at a discount price ($89.41 including shipping; or $69.30 for the tree alone) and I ordered one tree (I should have ordered two or three) on 17th Nov. 2008 and it arrived on 26th Nov. 2008. The shippers charged my card on the same day I placed an order, but shipped it several days after I made an inquiry on why they charge card before shipping. Not a problem. I received a much larger tree and in a nice shape this time (great!), but am not planting it outside; it will stay in the house at least for a year or two, until it becomes at least 5 ft. tall, so I can try planting it outside (in Columbia SC). So my request is - could someone advise what soil to use to replant it into a much larger pot? I bought a huge package of "SPHAGNUM PEAT MOSS". Should I mix 50% of it with any kind of soil? Last time I planted wolemia in a regular soil outside and it d(r)ied. Perhaps it was too young, or it was too cold, too little or too much water or the wrong soil. Please advise exactly what soil to use and where to buy it. Thanks very much in advance for your advise!

I lived in Massachusetts for my first 10 years then Illinois for the next 15. I came to California 31 years ago. Out of all the places I have lived I would say I like this the best. I like the weather most of the time and there is quite a variety geographically. We have beaches 5 miles away, ancient redwood forests within walking distance, we live in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mts. so have great views of valleys and even the ocean. I can drive to the mountains in a few hours if I want to play in the snow or to the desert if I want heat. I have lived close to the CA coast for 22 years and enjoy the Mediterranean climate. I can garden all year long and have fresh veggies, flowers and fruit. We are north enough to have some seasonal changes, but don't usually get the extremes in heat or cold. Though in the last couple of years I have been noticing some changes in the weather pattern. Everything you could want is close by, great 5 star restaurants, big shopping malls, historical sites; Santa Cruz, San Jose and San Francisco museums, symphonies, theaters. We get lots of big name entertainers. You could go 24/7 for a week and never repeat anything if you wanted. I don't miss the very cold snowy winters or hot humid summers of the East Coast or Midwest. Occasionally I get nostalgic for the Autumn changes that you get in New England. And I miss the fresh clams and fresh picked blueberries. The only other place I would want to live is Hawaii. Clare

I got dizzy looking at the pictures that were taken from directly above. The cranberry sauce looks better because it is shown in perspective, as one might really see it. The main problem with the pictures is the camera angle - not sophisticated at all! Even the turkey, which is somewhat better, is shown straight on instead of from an angle. She obviously didn't take very many shots, or else she would have had something better to choose. Many of the photographers were are much better, including Ann and Diana. I've done professional product photography myself (for furniture), but Ann's food photos are better than mine. Lars