[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]]

[Sojourner]

C'mon, guys, check your TO field.  Remember, this list is set up so that
hitting the "Reply-to" button AUTOMATICALLY sends your reply to the
individual rather than the list.

That's the way the list-owner wants it, so we have to be extra-careful
to make sure our replies are going where we intend them to go.

I'm not picking anyone out in particular, its just this is about the 6th
message TODAY that came to me personally when it was intended for the
list, I'm just reminding, not blaming anybody or mad or anything. 

OK?

Thanks.

Now, on to the message.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2099 16:20:07 -0500
From: "H. Wayne" <hcrowbird at lawtonnet.net>
To: "Sojourner" <sojournr at missouri.org>

    Hey, have you guys thought about burning bamboo instead?  Or is that
just an oriental thing?  I know most bamboo types will not grow all that
far
north, but then there are a few that can tolerate temperatures down to
-20
F.  You are probably thinking, who would want to grow and burn over
sized
grass?  Like I said, Orientals might be very smart about something that
is
possible over us, since we are so spoiled and do not consider what can
be
done at little or no cost like they do from necessity.
    By the way, I have two kinds of bamboo started in my back yard now.
Bamboo is more than just useful, it grows like a weed, and China has
some
very hard temperatures there, and since bamboo grows there...well you
get
the point.  It is amazing what you can make with it, do with it, and how
fast it grows.  One warning though, many types of bamboo can grow
themselves
into a weed problem.  Some are better for a purpose than others, and you
can
use the leaves also.  If you compost it, it is just as good as grass
clippings as mulch and stuff like that.  Great source of renewable pea
and
other stakes.  Dang, they are basically free!  How can you beat a deal
like
that?
    Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: Sojourner <sojournr at missouri.org>
To: coblist <coblist at deatech.com>
Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 2:35 PM
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]


>I'm PRETTY SURE this was intended for the list as well.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation
>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:02:29 +0100
>From: Michael Saunby <mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK>
>Reply-To: "mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK" <mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK>
>Organization: Teachmore
>To: "'Sojourner'" <sojournr at missouri.org>
>
>On 17 July 1999 13:28, Sojourner [SMTP:sojournr at missouri.org] wrote:
>>
>> Wood burning is actually sustainable only if it is practiced only by a
>> small percentage of the population on enough land to maintain their own
>> personal woodlots (and I do mean maintain - NOT just cut 'n clear until
>> you run out of wood).
>>
>> Coppicing might work well with a masonry stove, but coppiced wood is not
>> so good for the typical wood stove - has a high potential for increased
>> creosote buildup in your chimney.
>>
>> If everybody in the country started burning wood the pollution would not
>> only be incredible, we would run through every burnable stick quicker 'n
>> you could say "jack flash".
>>
>> What's "sustainable" on a small scale is not always "sustainable" on a
>> large scale.
>>
>> Of course, you could say that our current population level is itself
>> "not sustainable".  But I'm not planning on doing anything to reduce the
>> population level to one I think IS "sustainable", myself.
>>
>
>I guess your talking "middle scale" if such a thing exists.  I'm pretty
>sure that for domestic fuel wood is the human fuel of choice, i.e. if
>you
>check per household globally the vast majority of the population (global
>of
>course, anything else is largely irrelevant) nearly all use, and
>probably
>prefer wood.  Now it is also likely to be the case that wood is being
>burned faster than it's being planted, though it's also likely that we
>could easily grow (in many parts of the world) a great deal more.
>
>For the US I realise this is largely irrelevant, per capita fuel
>consumption is incredible, so I'm not too surprised by your figure of 40
>acres per family, but for most (global) households it would be just an
>acre
>or so, much more realistic. But then they're already doing it, though
>not
>always sustainably.
>
>It doesn't help anyone to suggest that the only way to provide adequate
>fuel supplies for domestic use require gas, oil or nuclear power, or in
>truth any form of power distribution.  The large energy hungry cities of
>the northern hemisphere are a peculiar anomaly when you take a global
>view,
>and their needs are not those of normal human families.  In most parts
>of
>the world access to fuel wood is much more realistic than access to
>other
>types of fuel.
>
>In the long term I suspect that per capita fuel consumption in the
>northern
>hemisphere will fall and that although most will choose to use
>sanitised,
>switchable, metered power the source of that power could just as easily
>be
>industrially grown wood as nuclear, wind, wave or any other power
>source.
> Because on a global scale wood does not pollute, the sun shines the
>trees
>take chemicals from the air (almost nothing from the soil, and they
>return
>that) and when burned the chemical return (in the same form, i.e. mostly
>CO2) to the atmosphere.
>
>Michael Saunby
>