The following link is to a "pro" glyphosate - soy February 24 2011 paper (not published in a reviewed scientific journal). It includes at least 3 references to 2011 articles. http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2011/GlyphosatesImpact11.pdf However, for some reason it did not include the following 2010 publication that appeared in a respectable ( Published on behalf of the Society for Applied Microbiology) reviewed scientific journal that had a UDSA scientist as the second author (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Cropping Systems & Water Quality Research Unit, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA). Fig 6, page 125 shows the decrease in shoot weight as a function of applied glyphosate. Fig 5, page 124 shows the root weight for the same conditions. Here is a link that might be useful: link for above (with USDA author) full reviewed paper

As I'm sure we all know, but I'm just stating it to make this post clearer: weather is an exact science from moment to moment - it is or isn't raining, it is or isn't hot, etc. Climate on the other hand, is an attempt to define a general truth about weather over time - which is why the plant hardiness zone maps are periodically revised. But it is basically impossible to define climate, because weather can be "freakish." I'm of the opinion that the Central Florida disparities arise from the Tampa area because of Tampa Bay. The 2006 arborday.org zone map (link below to download a version that can be enlarged) shows a Zone 10 area extending inland from Tampa Bay. The USDA cleverly, if you will allow me to say so, has avoided a detailed zone map of Florida. My apologies, but since GardenWeb only allows us one link per post, that reference is here: http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Maps.aspx Florida isn't available in the States dropdown. I think that the arborday.org map is more accurate in terms of the influence of Tampa Bay - more accurate, not exact, not most correct, nor anything like that. But IF the Zone 10 area exists, then one can easily see how confusion arises when including the Tampa area in Central Florida discussions. I have to laugh about this because the Tampa area is "Central Florida!" Geographically speaking Tampa is in Central Florida. But in terms of climate zone, maybe it isn't. Accurate statements that apply to plants in two different zones cannot be made*. This is why I believe that even though the Tampa area is IN Central Florida, it isn't Central Florida for the purposes of plant discussions. I feel like a Lewis Carroll character talking to Alice, but hopefully I'm being clearer than that. *It is difficult enough to make accurate statements about plants in the same zone. Here is a link that might be useful: The 2006 arborday.org zone map download

Greco: Sorry to say that at this time, there are no cures for any viral disease -- not one, nada, none. We do have vaccines which will prevent some viral diseases, but I don't think there are any for bees yet. If CCD really is viral, we may be faced with the necessity of finding resistant strains of bees, or instituting scrupulous controls to prevent the spread of the virus to healthy hives, but there's no real hope of "curing" it.

Sorry for leaving you questions unanswered for so long. I googled "John Brooke" for hints of what he might be getting at but came up with only variations of the statement quoted above. At this point, I'm not even sure what "cultural meaning" means. So, we might as well discuss ID. This article in today's NYTimes about the Board's redefinition of "Science" is alarming. It takes care of the problem with muddling the distinction of science and faith, making them one in the same. What if the U.S. Supreme Court is left to decide this issue? Yikes! Philosophers Notwithstanding, Kansas School Board Redefines Science By DENNIS OVERBYE Published: November 15, 2005 Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science. In the early 1990's, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed "the end of objectivity." The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth. The right defended the traditional notion of science back then. Now it is the right that is trying to change it. On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself. The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science. The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin's opponents, said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations." Here is a link that might be useful: nytimes