I see a consolidation of the nursery industry, in much the same manner the 80's and 90's saw a consolidation of the banking industry (my previous profession). It is becoming increasingly difficult for small independent retailers and growers to stay afloat. Fuel costs are a huge factor (all of my vendors were applying surcharges long before Katrina did her damage), as well as basic overhead costs like labor (no one will work for minimum wage in my area, including high school kids and recent immigrants - just too many entry level jobs available), water and power. And plant costs are increasing as well, partially because of patenting and licensing restrictions but also because of the impact of higher operating expenses. And competition is fierce - even grocery stores are offering less common or new plant introductions, often at well below what it costs me to bring them in. My local, high-end grocer had phormiums for sale last week at $9.99 for 6" pots from one of my local vendors (recognized the tagging), barely above and in some cases below their cost. Yes, these are loss leaders that they make up for with other, higher priced, more profitable items and with volume, but it still is competition. Heck - I'd buy the plants from them myself at that price! All these factors, together with other, less predictable influences like weather and crop failures make it harder and harder for small independents to stay in business, much less make a profit. Several of the larger retail nurseries in my area are having financial and cash flow problems and a few smaller ones are about to close the doors - it is a tightknit community and the word travels fast. That makes them ripe for larger, financially secure operations to snatch them up. It is a tough, competitive market out there and only those who are creative and flexible in their marketing approach, like the product expansion Garrickza refers to, and willing or able to subsist on peanuts for the long haul are going to come out intact on the other end.

Hi AuroraWA: You are right about the genetic factor which raise the risk of PD & plus more sensitive to pesticides. Not everyone is allergic to raisins like my kid, she has hay fever and many food allergies, which make her sensitive to pesticides. Raisins also has sulfur dioxide added as preservative. Sulfur dioxide is highest in yellow raisins, and that's her favorite for the past years. Thank God that my kid stops stuttering and neck-muscle-spasm after removal of raisins and dirty-dozen produce from her diet. Sam's Club, Walmart, and Trader's Joe all have organic produce at decent price. Genetic factor: if I have 1/4 cup of wine, I break out in rash rather than muscle-spasm. There's a genetic factor in Parkison's which makes a person more sensitive to pesticides. In my previous link on PD and hereditary, a twin posted on how his identical twin has PD, and he doesn't, see below link: "My identical twin brother has had Parkinson's for 14 years or so and has diskonesia; a side effect from the drugs he takes to manage his parkinsons. As we know identical twins start out from one egg and split into equal parts. Needless to say I don't have Parkinson's and can guarantee I will not get it. My twin brother is confined to his unit where he lives mostly and has cracked 9 ribs as well as his sturnum with the many falls caused by parkinsons." http://www.caring.com/questions/parkinsons-disease-hereditary Here's an excerpt from WebMD: "The UCLA researchers also found that people with a common variant of the ALDH2 gene are particularly vulnerable to these ALDH-inhibiting pesticides, according to a university news release. People with the variant are two to six times more likely to develop Parkinson's than those without the variant when exposed to the pesticides. The levels at which the pesticides inhibit ALDH are much lower than those at which they are currently used, according to the study in the Feb. 5 online issue of the journal Neurology ... "These pesticides are pretty ubiquitous, and can be found in our food supply and are used in parks and golf courses and in pest control inside buildings and homes." http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease/news/20140203/more-pesticides-linked-to-parkinsons-risk From the below link: "According to the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation: Epidemiological research has identified several factors that may be linked to Parkinson’s, including rural living, well water, manganese and pesticides. Some studies have demonstrated that prolonged occupational exposure to certain chemicals is associated with an elevated risk of PD [Parkinson’s disease]. These include the insecticides permethrin and beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (beta-HCH), the herbicides paraquat and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and the fungicide maneb. In 2009, the US Department of Veterans Affairs added Parkinson’s to a list of diseases possibly associated with exposure to Agent Orange.” Separate research has further revealed that ambient exposure to organophosphate pesticides also increased the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.6 Rotenone and paraquat are two additional pesticides linked to an increased risk of Parkinson's disease, and both are lipophilic, meaning they resist breaking down in water and accumulate in your fat. Both are also known to cross your blood-brain barrier. Dousing our crops with large amounts of glyphosate ��" the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup ��" may be another factor in the rising rates of Parkinson’s disease we’re now seeing,7 as these residues are found in all virtually all food containing genetically modified ingredients. " Here is a link that might be useful: Pesticides that trigger PD This post was edited by Strawberryhill on Wed, Oct 8, 14 at 9:39

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of "robber sues homeowner and wins" stories seem to be urban myths. I did study one case in law school where a homeowner was successfully sued, but in that case, he had set up a gun on some sort of automatic trigger connected to the front door of an unoccupied cabin. The court said that this was going too far, taking the chance of killing someone to protect property, rather than life. The basic rule on self-defense is that you have to try to run away rather than use force, if you can do it safely. That basic rule does *not* hold true in your own home. There is no "duty to retreat" in your own home. The other basic rule on self-defense is that you can use only enough force to repel the attack. However, what amount of force is reasonable depends on your duty to retreat. Since you have no duty to retreat inside your home, you can use more force than you would outside your home. As to whether you can use wasp spray as a weapon, I don't know the answer. My best guess would be that if you used it during an attack on the street, the courts would treat it as any other dangerous weapon. If you used it in your home (or car, at least in some states), even if you planned to use it as a weapon, I doubt there would be an issue. The law varies by state. If you want to see what your state thinks about these matters, look up the "castle doctrine," as in "my home is my castle." As a practical matter, I think most people are okay using whatever force they need to protect themselves inside their own homes. And that's even more so for women. Where I could see it getting dicey is if some teenaged kid broke into a house for drug money, having no weapon and thinking the house was unoccupied, tried to run away when he saw someone was home, and the man of the house grabbed him and beat the living s*^t out of the kid. Even then, I'll bet most police officers would tell the kid that he shouldn't have been in the house in the first place. As to whether the man of the house could then be sued, well, of course he could. Some of the castle laws protect people from being sued in these situations, but for the most part, anyone can sue anyone. Can't necessarily win, but can start the suit.

"Have you known anyone whose house was broken into during the night?" YES! My SIL was burglarized twice, while she was in bed. Once shortly after she retired for the night, the other time in the wee hours of the morning. And she lives in a residential section that is considered very 'safe'. She says she did the only thing she knew to do, and just stayed very very still, pretending to be soundly asleep. And the police told her that was a wise decision on her part. Don't think I could have done that! Yes I have a phone with me at all times. My smart phone is clipped to my jeans' pocket or belt at all times during the day, and on my night stand at night. Before I had a cell phone, the land line was on my night stand. Back then it was because my husband was a trucker so I kept the phone close in case he needed to contact me about anything. Also in case one of the kids or grandkids needed me. Husband is deceased and kids and grandkids are grown, but I still keep it close for the same reasons. Also because my kids (and Grands) want me to for their peace of mind. They know my balance is very bad, along with other health issues. I really do feel much safer with a phone within arms reach. Rusty