To those of you who vomit in yr mouths a little whenever you read the MSM, you may wish to turn yr attention elsewhere for a spell … There’s a story in today’s online version of the NYTimes that uncannily echoes an Arthur post from last week in which we called yr attention to the importance of old growth forests.
The article focuses on Irish-Canadian scientist Diana Beresford-Kroeger, who is quoted as saying: “In a walk through old growth forest, there are thousands if not millions of chemicals and their synergistic effects with one another. What trees do chemically in the environment is something we’re only beginning to understand.”
Beresford-Kroeger goes on to advocate “what she terms a bioplan, reforesting cities and rural areas with trees according to the medicinal, environmental, nutritional, pesticidal and herbicidal properties she claims for them, which she calls ecofunctions.”
Now check this out: The Magpie post, plucked from terrain.org and written by Joan Maloof, raised a nearly identical point six days prior.
“So what could be in the forest air that makes us feel better?” Maloof asks. “In a study done in the Sierra Nevadas of California, researchers found 120 different chemical compounds—but they could only identify seventy of them! We are literally breathing things we don’t understand; which also means, of course, that when we lose these forests, we don’t know what we are losing.”
What gives? Is the New York Times assigning science stories based on Magpie postings? Is The Man so bereft of original ideas that he has to plunder the underground for copy?
Based on my brutal and intimate experience with the world of print journalism, I’d say no. The panel of judges would likely rule this a happy coincidence.
But it’s encouraging to see stuff like this poking its head up where millions can see it.
Not to mention an ironic use of dead trees.
By the way, Maloof, who teaches biology and environmental studies at Salibury University in Maryland, has written a book on the topic, bits of which you can read here.