Some good comments by everyone. Hman, while I agree with some of what you're saying in principle, I may differ on some of the specifics. Namely, I'm not certain Amish ground is all that more productive than those that farm conventionally. I know you live where there are a lot of Amish folk, and they have a reputation of being outstanding farmers, but I wonder if their reputation exceeds its worth. The reason I say that is that although I've no experience with the Amish, I do have experience with the Mennonites. They too, have a reputation as very good farmers. Indeed most have a strong work ethic. However, I used to examine their production records (pig farmers) and while, on average their production was above the mean, it was only slightly so. That improvement seemed to be dependent upon cheap labor (their large bunches of children). In the whole scope of things I'm not sure that agricultural model is the best for the planet (meaning the huge volume of people already on the planet). But like I say, I've little knowledge of the Amish, and even less of their specific farming practices. I will say that there are commercial corn growers getting over 300 bushel/acre, which is very productive indeed. One may think that kind of production is burning out the ground, but it doesn't appear to be so. I've seen some of that good corn ground in IL. It's been farmed for decades and decades, and still the richest looking black stuff you ever saw. I think part of the key is that the land was flat, so in the years where tillage farming was the rule, none of that good stuff was ever washed away. Probably the biggest threat to it is urban encroachment gobbling up that prime land. Keepitlow, Well said. However, I might take issue with the the part that our food quality has declined. This is pretty hard to discuss objectively though, because the word "quality" is so subjective. Additionally, it also depends on what years are being discussed. I'm just about through reading a different kind of American history book. It's the first book of it's kind that I've read. Most history books examine the "important" events of history (i.e. Revolutionary war, Civil war, etc.) and spend little time discussing the day to day lives of ordinary citizens. This book is the opposite. It's spends almost all of it's time discussing daily life, and ignores the "major" events. What I'm coming away with reading this book, is the profound struggle to survive before, and during the early part of the industrial age. This idea of southern plantations with abundance, defining the way of life was not the reality for the most folk. Before the modern industrial age the average American life span was amazingly low, largely due to inadequate and poor food quality. Even in somewhat later times, the food quality has seemed to improve. I remember hearing former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz speak. He gave examples of how food quality had increased since he was a kid (no worms in cereal, no worms in apples). I once read Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle" about the meat packing industry in the early 1900s (actually I didn't finish it, it made me too sad. I may go back and finish it some day). Anyway, that book described conditions of meat packing as so bad, that reportedly Roosevelt was reading the book at his breakfast, and spit a mouthful of sausage across the table. From that book came the rigorous meat packing inspections we have today. This is getting a little long. Better stop here.

Lars, I just re-read your post. I really like you & this statement didn't register at first... "...but I imagine that there were a lot of people from out of town there." Were you implying that, as the other team, there were many Bostonians & New Englanders there & that if THEY would have rioted you wouldn't have been surprised? I hope that's not what you meant...'cause while I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise, New England has lost their reputation as "long-suffering losers" & have some experience nowadays with winning championship games without doing tens of millions of dollars in damage to Boston or somebody's else's town. New England Patriots: 2002, 2004, & 2005 (Super Bowl Champs) Boston Red Sox: 2004 & 2007 (World Series Champs) Boston Celtics: 2008 (NBA title champs) Boston Bruins: 2011 (Stanley Cup) We surely understand how Vancouver feels. The Red Sox, the Bruins and the Patriots delivered many calamities but zero championships for a LONG TIME. But this city has ridden an unprecedented wave of success over the past decade. The Bruins' victory in the Stanley Cup finals on Wednesday night made Boston the first city to win championships in all four major sports within a 10 year span. Like the other trophies, the Stanley Cup will go on "tour" throughout New England so all the loyal fans can touch it & snap a picture. Yesterday, it was pushed through the streets of Boston in a baby carriage so fans could admire. :) It's been a LONG time since Boston's won the Stanley Cup & they were the last of our four teams to get their championship...they knew New England was counting on them to deliver. Fans were too happy to destroy anything. They were too busy kissing people they'd never met before! :) /tricia

barco, I finally got thru to your link - it was worth the wait. I'm wondering - how come you're sold on ozone rather than UV? Seems like a combo SWG/UV might be better? Also, I thought you were talking before about SWG/ozone combined but now you seem to be just ozone? Would you mind sharing your thinking that got you to this point? (I agree with you about the metals, btw. To hype them as if they are benign is irresponsible. Copper is the most common one - The standard American diet already has an overbalance of copper & the symptoms are there -- and if you've ever bought copper to treat plant disease like fireblight, the warnings about not letting it get into the water supply make you want to just forget about it) dlzc, I'm sorry for your difficulties. I looked back over the thread trying to figure out what was making you so antagonistic & I guess it was my swipe at your M.O. following your dismissal of my "scare story". It sounded like an unwarranted sneer with nothing to back it up so I figured you must be pitching something. I was not sobbing in your beer, but trying to explain to you that I have no agenda other than my family's health. I apologize for whatever misunderstanding occurred - I just don't have the time or energy for this. lindamarie, I hope this hasn't messed up your thread. It sounds like we are asking the same questions. I do not have a pool yet, but am planning on a build probably at the end of next year. (And we're in the process of setting up a generic Intex pool so that we can get a better feel for the chemistry & make sure we want to have a permanent pool) My younger sister (31yo) is about to undergo an operation to remove a grapefruit size cyst from her abdomen - looks benign so far, thankfully. She swam competitively during high school. All of the pools in her school district were indoors & chlorinated. I can't help but wonder, you know? The devil you don't know can be worse than the devil you do know so we're trying to find the path of least risk - known or potential. Haven't been able to find much outside of the EPA here in the US so I'm trying to get a look at what Europe & Australia have been doing since they have apparently been doing a lot more with the alternative sanitizers in their pools. One point that keeps getting mentioned consistently is to minimize the organic matter that enters the pool as that is what oxidizes into DBP's - so showering before entering the pool will actually minimize the chemicals & toxicity. Someone needs to explain that in some way that kids can understand because when I was a kid, I hated those pool showers (they were always so cold) and couldn't for the life of me figure out why you had to get wet to get into the pool, LOL!

I watched all of it and thoroughly enjoyed it. The Eleanor and Franklin story fascinates me, so I've read a fair amount about them and watch any movie or documentary available. There's an outstanding mini-series, Eleanor and Franklin, starring Jane Alexander and Edward Herrmann, winner of many Emmys, made in the 80s, now available from Amazon and Netflix. It is so worthwhile. It portrays everything shown in last night's program. Alexander and Herrmann are at the peak of their acting power. Eleanor's personal life was heartbreaking beyond belief. She lived in the shadow of her controlling and criticial mother-in-law for almost the entirety of her marriage to Franklin, and she bore all the slights and insults without complaint. She didn't ask for a divorce when his affair with Lucy Mercer was discovered. She simply said that she would do whatever he wanted. So the decision to stay married was made by Franklin and his mother, for political reasons. It was his cousin Laura Delano who revealed to Eleanor that Franklin was with Lucy when he died. Most of the women who were close to Franklin hated and were jealous of Eleanor and IMO Laura couldn't wait to permanently and cruelly hurt her in the worst way, which she did. My contempt for Laura Delano knows no bounds. OTOH, Eleanor ignored Franklin's failing health in his final years. Payback, perhaps. His private doctors were incompetents; his primary doc was an ENT specialist, even though he suffered from heart disease and high blood pressure. After one attack, a cardiac specialist was brought in. He was alarmed at what he found and begged for changes in FDR's treatment and lifestyle, and was largely ignored by everyone. The details of FDR's final years in terms of his health are horrifying. This would not happen today with any president. In fact, anyone walking into a "doc in the box" clinic today would receive better treatment than FDR did.