Did anyone notice the article in the Wall Street Journal - March 16, 1999 "Dr. Rasmussen Knew It all Along Trees Do Help Make Smog"
----------------------------------
Having been abscent from participating in the board discussions in recent months, I truly am saddened by Kevin's deparutre. Much of the philosphical views are quickly altered when new scientific theories, biases, and facts enter the picture to increase or demise valuation procedures.

Does Kevin Know it All? I certainly do not.

A novice reader(non-arborist) visiting this site would most likely be encouraged by visional drive of dialogue towards a sound understanding and thought process given to valuation procedures.

Kevin, should you revist this site and read this, I hope it will inspire you to join back into the conversations. You're philosphical poses and debates could be discussed in threads that address the artistical side of arboriculture, and or? Why? throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Kevin, I know neither you, Russ, or Scott personally. Yet I have enjoyed the differences in thought approach and learn from all of you. Thus, the intent of this board is working. I do know that your attitude: " I'll take my toys and go play elsewhere, benefits no one, yourself especially".

Russ, forgive me for elaborating to long on Kevin! However, I feel he owes not just you but all of the board readers an apology.
--------------------------

Now on to the article:

Dr. Rasmussen research has shown that trees produce huge amounts of isoprene. A natural hydrocarbon that is considered to be a key ingredient in smog production. This greatly is in opposition of what has been understood about emissions of isoprene.
The article goes on to talk about federal funded research in the Ozarks.

Is anyone familiar with these studies? What implications on tree valuations have diminished or will diminish based upon the acceptance that trees produce more pollutants than oxygen?

Time to play ball !!

Sincerely, Steve

Reply to post by Stephen Wiley, on April 25, 1999 at 14:59:38:

Best search engine yet!

Reply to post by Stephen Wiley, on April 25, 1999 at 14:59:38:

I don't think it will greatly affect the value of trees, in the sense of appraising monetary value. The impact of individual trees is not weighed by their oxygen production, or of isoprenes, etc. As has been discussed, maybe these things should be weighted more, but that is not where we are yet.

Although various compounds released by trees are components of smog, and can be considered as pollutants, they are naturally produced. What this research is showing is that some forms and some amount of 'smog' may be natural. But that neither absolves us (humans) of our very significant contribution to it, nor does it mean that all trees must be cut down because they pollute. We would then have to ban lightning, because it produces ozone, also a pollutant.

To me, this seems to be interesting research, and another piece of the huge puzzle of our environment. But every time we can drop another piece into place doesn't mean we have to react with another policy to control or direct it.

Reply to post by Stephen Wiley, on April 25, 1999 at 14:59:38:

Apparently some trees (Scots pine) produce large amounts of toluene also. Happens when under stress. Bad thing for the air. Given the anthropcentric outlook, that is. Toluene is considered a pollutant by us. That does not make toluene production a bad thing in genetral, however. Pollution is in the lung of the beholder. Humans are a short-lived species by the look of it, so what is wrong about toluene or isoprene production, I wonder?

Reply to post by Peter Torres, on April 25, 1999 at 14:59:38:

Even from an anthropocentric viewpoint, you'd have to look at the whole picture. What's the net function of trees. OK they produce some smog inducing stuff. What would the chemical environment and the quality of life (the warm & fuzzy non-physical stuff) be without the trees.

And you get into issues of scope again. Are you looking at single trres, small groups of trees or large scale ecosystems.