If an herb has historical and clinical uses to treat anxiety, if it also is shown to reduce anxiety in mice, if it is also shown to be a potent GABA agonist in experiments with nerve tissue, and if I take it and feel quite relaxed and my palpitations cease, then my perspective as a scientist is that there is good evidence that the herb in fact does reduce anxiety." No, that's not the perspective of a scientist. It's the opinion of an herb user who wants to believe that a remedy works. That's why you'll never see a scientific study close with remarks by the authors saying "well, our evidence is only preliminary, but since this stuff worked for us we think that no further research is necessary." They'd be laughed out of their profession. There is no "EBM community" at odds with the scientific and medical community. The people who are most interested in optimizing medical care and making it as rational and effective as possible naturally are drawn to these principles, and work closely with physicians and hospitals to promote evidence-based care. When it comes to herbalism, there are basically three sorts of users (conveniently, all three are represented in this thread). First there are those who don't care about scientific validation of herbs (or at least profess this opinion). There are others who strongly believe in the value of good scientific evidence for the safety and efficacy of herbs before they'll use them, especially for more than minor conditions or as substitutes for mainstream therapies. There's also a large group of people who, like apollog, seem to want it both ways. They'll call attention to scientific studies that appear to support their position. But when it's noted that those studies are irrelevant to the topic at hand, limited in important ways and more evidence is needed, they'll fall back on testimonials, point fingers at other types of medical practice (the tu quoque fallacy), or deny the legitimacy of scientific inquiry that invalidates their arguments. This latter form of denial can be summarized as "Your science can never adequately measure my brand of woo." This is what has people devoted to sound scientific inquiry and rational medicine shaking their heads. They want advocates of all forms of health care to follow the rules by which the value of care can be established, including valid research and disciplined clinical observation. Unfortunately there are still self-styled advocates of herbalism who think the rules apply only when convenient. LOL.

Ron, I can't see the need to get hostile toward anybody on this topic. You and I and many others have lots of experience with cabling. I agree with your statements as my comment stated. In our power plants we brought the Belden twisted pairs into the cabinets with the jacket stopped at times a foot and a half or more from the device, (RTD monitors, recorder or PLC, or what ever), and untwisted the pairs because they went to different locations. This never caused a problem. As you know what does cause a problem or can cause one is grounding the shield at both ends of the cable. We usually had a 5 or 6 ft long copper ground buss that we made up( drilled and tapped) and mounted it in the cabinet. There we terminated the bare shielding wires from the many cables. Soldered Burndy lugs on all ground and signal carrying conductors. Clamp or pressure terminated wires were used on some equipment that had those kinds of terminations, however they were avoided as much as possible. One problem with them was it made it harder to lift and lay back down the wires during troubleshooting or testing as the wires fray and are difficult to get back under the screw, especially when energized. And we had one guy that always made the strands of wire look like a worn out paint brush when he laid down those wires. At least 1/4 of the strands were sticking out. Terrible! One time we got a new pre-wired cabinet in from a manufacture and when we were putting the equipment into service it was not working. So naturally we looked at our own wiring and found no wires laid down wrong. After much troubleshooting we found where the manufacture had stripped the wire correctly but got the insulation under the screw where the conductor did not make contact. Boy that drove us crazy! Anyway, from one old sparky to another, good luck.

Deborah: Kohler is wrong. They are trying to think ahead to allow room for plumber hands to tighten junk and leaking clips. A 27" sink undermounts into a 27" cabinet if the sink is strapped, not clipped or blocked, in place. Plenty of room under a sink for tightening. Hercules Universal Sink Harness or Sink Straps. You can believe Kohler or you can believe a guy who has done this thousands of times and has pictures to prove it. I put a 33" sink into a 27" cabinet last month.

This wouldn't work for a lot of you, but it's a near-ideal setup for our household of two: I have a 30" gas cooktop, with a Max Burton portable induction unit sitting on an aluminum cookie sheet over the rear left burner (which was a rarely used and unreliable small 'simmer burner'). The induction top is where all boiling operations happen, from daily water boiling for the coffee press to pasta to blanching veg to (frequent) pressure cooking. A big advantage of this setup is that the placement at the back corner of the stove, directly under the under-powered vent hood and slightly elevated, ensures that steam is carried right up and away. Before, we had to use the front right burner, the most powerful, for boiling, and it's too far forward for the vent hood to capture the steam efficiently. In the heat of summer, the combination of dramatically less heat from the burner itself plus the steam removal makes a huge difference in kitchen comfort. A second big advantage of the induction rig here is for long, low cooking -- simmering down apple butter, or ketchup, or making carnitas. Our cheapo gas stove has real problems with the flame guttering out at low settings, particularly if another burner is in use; the induction unit makes a long simmer worry-free. Likewise, some pressure cooker operations, like chicken stock, spend 45 minutes to an hour at pressure, and it's a blessing to be able to regulate the burner precisely and with no worry about the effect of using any of the gas burners while it's going. This arrangement frees up the powerful front right burner for the more hands-on kinds of tasks it's suited to: searing, stir-frying, browning meat & veg before braising, crepe-making, etc. There are a lot of reasons I'd be very reluctant to give up gas: I've cooked for forty years on nothing but, I have some wonderful copper and aluminum pans that take maximum advantage of the flame, it works when the power goes out (several times a year in our rural area), I regularly toast tortillas directly on the burner, and (for me, at least) skillet operations are induction's weak point. But the 'hillbilly hybrid', while not a thing of beauty, gives us the best of both worlds, seriously increasing the usability of the existing cooktop at an extremely low cost. If I were to get a completely new kitchen, I'd probably go with an induction cooktop: Full induction cooktops have much finer-grained power levels than the portable, with the lowest settings much more usefully low. But I'd add a big gas burner for all the reasons in the paragraph above.