It's just crazy enough that it might work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/sc...tml?ref=dining
--

modom
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On 2008-07-15, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
> It's just crazy enough that it might work.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/sc...tml?ref=dining

Unfortunately, you give us a link we have to sign up for, provide our email
address, and then log in. Screw the NYT! Why not just give us the
information from the source?

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

nb

Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
slope. And lots of labor.

Steve

On 2008-07-15, Steve Pope > wrote:

> slope. And lots of labor.

I can see it now. NY homeless with signs reading:

will vert farm if u get me high

nb

Steve Pope said...

> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
> slope. And lots of labor.
>
> Steve


I don't see how it's going to be cheap or even feasible to provide
controlled artificial sunlight to all the floors year round.

In Kennett Square, PA, "The Mushroom Capital of the World," they VF indoor
farm mushrooms since they can be carefully climate controlled and grow in
the dark so artificial sunlight is minimal, mostly for the benefit of the
mushroom farmers to work their crops. They've been vertical farming for
years, just not 10 stories tall, I don't think.

Since mushrooms grow so fast, farmers can turn over harvests every day in
rotation.

Vertical farmers would need to genetically engineer crops to grow in the
dark. I don't think we're there yet nor should we be, imho.

And what illegal alien with half a brain would go to work in a building to
pick the harvest?

Andy

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

>Steve Pope said...

>> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
>> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
>> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
>> slope. And lots of labor.

>I don't see how it's going to be cheap or even feasible to provide
>controlled artificial sunlight to all the floors year round.

I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
like a business or residential district, taking advantage
of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
rather than from straight above.

Only pot farmers can afford much artificial light...

Steve

On Jul 15, 12:22*pm, "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:
> It's just crazy enough that it might work.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/sc...tml?ref=dining

I was wondering about something like that this afternoon. Thanks for
the link.

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-07-15, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>> It's just crazy enough that it might work.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/sc...tml?ref=dining
>
> Unfortunately, you give us a link we have to sign up for, provide our email
> address, and then log in. Screw the NYT! Why not just give us the
> information from the source?

I didn't have to sign up at all. I loved the slide show.

Serene

--
"I think I have an umami receptor that has developed sentience." -- Stef

On 2008-07-15, Serene Vannoy > wrote:

> I didn't have to sign up at all. I loved the slide show.

hmmm...

Might be cuz I have a browser utility that kills all scripts... java, cgi,
php, etc... ('etc' is not a scripting language!

nb

Steve Pope said...

> In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>>Steve Pope said...
>
>>> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
>>> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
>>> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
>>> slope. And lots of labor.
>
>>I don't see how it's going to be cheap or even feasible to provide
>>controlled artificial sunlight to all the floors year round.
>
> I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
> light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
> sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
> like a business or residential district, taking advantage
> of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
> rather than from straight above.
>
> Only pot farmers can afford much artificial light...
>
> Steve


It still can't work. Each succeeding lower floor would get less and less
sunlight, yielding less and less. Even if the building rotated, the "inner
sanctum" of each floor wouldn't see direct sunlight.

Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
acre/10 story building. No other way to do it. It would be "Insanity
Architecture & Engineering."

Let's just think of the illegal aliens and put VFs to rest!!

Andy

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

>Steve Pope said...

>> I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
>> light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
>> sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
>> like a business or residential district, taking advantage
>> of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
>> rather than from straight above.

>It still can't work. Each succeeding lower floor would get less and less
>sunlight, yielding less and less. Even if the building rotated, the "inner
>sanctum" of each floor wouldn't see direct sunlight.

All this implies is that the vertical spacing from floor to
floor must be large compared to the width of the floor.

>Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
>acre/10 story building. No other way to do it.

I completely disagree. Why would you need to build a tall building
(as opposed to a flat one) if you're simply piping in
electricity for lighting? The whole purpouse of a vertical
arangement is to intersect a large segment of sunlight
for a given footprint, thus justifying the construction cost
of a tall structure.


Steve

Steve Pope said...

> In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>>Steve Pope said...
>
>>> I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
>>> light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
>>> sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
>>> like a business or residential district, taking advantage
>>> of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
>>> rather than from straight above.
>
>>It still can't work. Each succeeding lower floor would get less and less
>>sunlight, yielding less and less. Even if the building rotated, the
"inner
>>sanctum" of each floor wouldn't see direct sunlight.
>
> All this implies is that the vertical spacing from floor to
> floor must be large compared to the width of the floor.
>
>>Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
>>acre/10 story building. No other way to do it.
>
> I completely disagree. Why would you need to build a tall building
> (as opposed to a flat one) if you're simply piping in
> electricity for lighting? The whole purpouse of a vertical
> arangement is to intersect a large segment of sunlight
> for a given footprint, thus justifying the construction cost
> of a tall structure.
>
>
> Steve


OK, let's take the Pentagon, for example. It sits on 34 acrews but has
149.219467 acres of floor space.

Would you rather pay electricity and water and construction costs for
building 150 acres of vertical farm or just use 150 acres of God's green
earth. Which is the greener solution?

When you add up all the time it would take to creat the Pentagons you'd
have to build to have supply meet demand, we'd all be dead of starvation.

Andy

Andy <q> wrote:

>Steve Pope said...

>> All this implies is that the vertical spacing from floor to
>> floor must be large compared to the width of the floor.

>>>Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
>>>acre/10 story building. No other way to do it.

>> I completely disagree. Why would you need to build a tall building
>> (as opposed to a flat one) if you're simply piping in
>> electricity for lighting? The whole purpouse of a vertical
>> arangement is to intersect a large segment of sunlight
>> for a given footprint, thus justifying the construction cost
>> of a tall structure.

>OK, let's take the Pentagon, for example. It sits on 34 acrews but has
>149.219467 acres of floor space.
>
>Would you rather pay electricity and water and construction costs for
>building 150 acres of vertical farm or just use 150 acres of God's green
>earth. Which is the greener solution?

The premise of vertical farming is that you can site the
things in the middle of a densely populated area, thus
saving transport cost/energy in taking the product to market
relative to conventional farming. Whether these costs
offset the cost of building/maintaining the vertial structure
are to me unclear, but that's the premise.

Steve

Andy wrote:
>
> Steve Pope said...
>
> > In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
> >
> >>Steve Pope said...
> >
> >>> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
> >>> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
> >>> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
> >>> slope. And lots of labor.
> >
> >>I don't see how it's going to be cheap or even feasible to provide
> >>controlled artificial sunlight to all the floors year round.
> >
> > I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
> > light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
> > sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
> > like a business or residential district, taking advantage
> > of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
> > rather than from straight above.
> >
> > Only pot farmers can afford much artificial light...
> >
> > Steve
>
> It still can't work. Each succeeding lower floor would get less and less
> sunlight, yielding less and less. Even if the building rotated, the "inner
> sanctum" of each floor wouldn't see direct sunlight.
>
> Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
> acre/10 story building. No other way to do it. It would be "Insanity
> Architecture & Engineering."
>
> Let's just think of the illegal aliens and put VFs to rest!!
>
> Andy

Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have that
much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced hillsides,
although the terracing isn't really about supplying more light.

Still very expensive to get going.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:48:13 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
>sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have that
>much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced hillsides,
>although the terracing isn't really about supplying more light.
>
>Still very expensive to get going.

I agree that it would be way too expensive to make any sense
(hydroponic gardening under full spectrum lighting isn't all it's
cracked up to be either).... but it's fun to dream.

How about mixed usage? The lower, "darker" floors could be set aside
for businesses and residences. I'd also like to see rooftop parks and
orchards.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:30:17 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-07-15, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>> It's just crazy enough that it might work.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/sc...tml?ref=dining
>
>Screw the NYT!

Awwww. I really don't wanna. Do I have to?

>Why not just give us the information from the source?
>
>http://www.verticalfarm.com/
>
Thanks for the link.
--

modom
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Arri London said...

> Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
> sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have that
> much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced hillsides,
> although the terracing isn't really about supplying more light.
>
> Still very expensive to get going.


Arri,

OK, so if you constructed a Vertical Farm at Bryant Park, Midtown
Manhattan, NYC, shadowed by the American Radiator Building (prior offices
of the "Chuckle of the Day"), you'd still be blocked by the sun!

Whatcha gonna grow? ))

<Chuckle>

Andy
CotD #2

Steve Pope wrote:
> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
> slope. And lots of labor.

Common in many parts of the world where good soil is scarce.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:23 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-07-15, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>
>> I didn't have to sign up at all. I loved the slide show.
>
>hmmm...
>
>Might be cuz I have a browser utility that kills all scripts... java, cgi,
>php, etc... ('etc' is not a scripting language!
>
>nb

once you've registered at the n.y.t. site, it seems to remember you
for a pretty long time.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Jul 15, 6:03*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Andy *<q> wrote:
> >Steve Pope said...
> >> All this implies is that the vertical spacing from floor to
> >> floor must be large compared to the width of the floor.
> >>>Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
> >>>acre/10 story building. No other way to do it.
> >> I completely disagree. *Why would you need to build a tall building
> >> (as opposed to a flat one) if you're simply piping in
> >> electricity for lighting? *The whole purpouse of a vertical
> >> arangement is to intersect a large segment of sunlight
> >> for a given footprint, thus justifying the construction cost
> >> of a tall structure.
> >OK, let's take the Pentagon, for example. It sits on 34 acrews but has
> >149.219467 acres of floor space.
>
> >Would you rather pay electricity and water and construction costs for
> >building 150 acres of vertical farm or just use 150 acres of God's green
> >earth. Which is the greener solution?
>
> The premise of vertical farming is that you can site the
> things in the middle of a densely populated area, thus
> saving transport cost/energy in taking the product to market
> relative to conventional farming. *Whether these costs
> offset the cost of building/maintaining the vertial structure
> are to me unclear, but that's the premise.

You also need to include the assumptions of higher yields due to
better weather and moisture control and, the some dubious assumption
of fewer preditors and diseases.

One could also probably postulate 3-4 harvests per year for many
items.


According to a reference in one of the papers at the website NASA had
been funding closed ecology research that may be adaptable.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:25:41 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:23 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>On 2008-07-15, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't have to sign up at all. I loved the slide show.
>>
>>hmmm...
>>
>>Might be cuz I have a browser utility that kills all scripts... java, cgi,
>>php, etc... ('etc' is not a scripting language!
>>
>>nb
>
>once you've registered at the n.y.t. site, it seems to remember you
>for a pretty long time.
>
I had no trouble accessing it and I didn't need to sign in either.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:05:16 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:25:41 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:22:23 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-07-15, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't have to sign up at all. I loved the slide show.
>>>
>>>hmmm...
>>>
>>>Might be cuz I have a browser utility that kills all scripts... java, cgi,
>>>php, etc... ('etc' is not a scripting language!
>>>
>>>nb
>>
>>once you've registered at the n.y.t. site, it seems to remember you
>>for a pretty long time.
>>
>I had no trouble accessing it and I didn't need to sign in either.

are you sure you didn't register at some point?

sometimes it wants me to sign in and sometimes it doesn't. when it
does, my name and password is already filled in. i'm not sure why
this is (firefox 2.0.0.something, and i do have firefox remember
passwords, but the n.y.t. page looks different somehow.)

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

blake murphy > wrote:

>are you sure you didn't register at some point?

>sometimes it wants me to sign in and sometimes it doesn't. when it
>does, my name and password is already filled in. i'm not sure why
>this is (firefox 2.0.0.something, and i do have firefox remember
>passwords, but the n.y.t. page looks different somehow.)

Unless the NYT website is persistently storing login info
somewhere other than a cookie, the link in question required no
login for me.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> are you sure you didn't register at some point?
>
>> sometimes it wants me to sign in and sometimes it doesn't. when it
>> does, my name and password is already filled in. i'm not sure why
>> this is (firefox 2.0.0.something, and i do have firefox remember
>> passwords, but the n.y.t. page looks different somehow.)
>
> Unless the NYT website is persistently storing login info somewhere
> other than a cookie, the link in question required no login for me.
>
> Steve

I'm registered at the NYT site, but occasionally wipe out cookies.
Sometimes I can get in after wiping cookies, sometimes I have to
re-register.
I think they allow unregistered views with certain stories, maybe if
they are popular(?) as an advertisement for the site.

There sometimes seems to be a link depth, maybe two or three,
before they want a login.

--
Dave S

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:48:13 -0600, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
> >sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have that
> >much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced hillsides,
> >although the terracing isn't really about supplying more light.
> >
> >Still very expensive to get going.
>
> I agree that it would be way too expensive to make any sense
> (hydroponic gardening under full spectrum lighting isn't all it's
> cracked up to be either).... but it's fun to dream.
>
> How about mixed usage? The lower, "darker" floors could be set aside
> for businesses and residences. I'd also like to see rooftop parks and
> orchards.
>

Mixed usage is always a better use of space in any case.

Plenty of those rooftop parks and gardens (and swimming pools) in any
city with skyscrapers. Helps insulate the top of the building besides
providing a respite from the urban landscape.
> Mae West

Andy wrote:
>
> Arri London said...
>
> > Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
> > sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have that
> > much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced hillsides,
> > although the terracing isn't really about supplying more light.
> >
> > Still very expensive to get going.
>
> Arri,
>
> OK, so if you constructed a Vertical Farm at Bryant Park, Midtown
> Manhattan, NYC, shadowed by the American Radiator Building (prior offices
> of the "Chuckle of the Day"), you'd still be blocked by the sun!
>
> Whatcha gonna grow? ))


Shade-grown coffee of course. One has the altitude and the shade
>
> <Chuckle>
>
> Andy
> CotD #2

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:39:03 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>Andy wrote:
>>
>> Arri London said...
>>
>> > Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
>> > sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have that
>> > much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced hillsides,
>> > although the terracing isn't really about supplying more light.
>> >
>> > Still very expensive to get going.
>>
>> Arri,
>>
>> OK, so if you constructed a Vertical Farm at Bryant Park, Midtown
>> Manhattan, NYC, shadowed by the American Radiator Building (prior offices
>> of the "Chuckle of the Day"), you'd still be blocked by the sun!
>>
>> Whatcha gonna grow? ))
>
>
>Shade-grown coffee of course. One has the altitude and the shade
>>
>> <Chuckle>
>>
>> Andy
>> CotD #2

But not the soil and water and the happy plants. NYC is out of the
range, so sorry. Coffee needs the sun a lot of the year! Just my
$.02.

aloha,
beans
roast beans to kona to email
farmers of Pure Kona

Arri London said...

>
>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:39:03 -0600, Arri London >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Andy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Arri London said...
>> >>
>> >> > Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
>> >> > sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have
>> >> > that much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced
>> >> > hillsides, although the terracing isn't really about supplying
>> >> > more light.
>> >> >
>> >> > Still very expensive to get going.
>> >>
>> >> Arri,
>> >>
>> >> OK, so if you constructed a Vertical Farm at Bryant Park, Midtown
>> >> Manhattan, NYC, shadowed by the American Radiator Building (prior
>> >> offices of the "Chuckle of the Day"), you'd still be blocked by the
>> >> sun!
>> >>
>> >> Whatcha gonna grow? ))
>> >
>> >
>> >Shade-grown coffee of course. One has the altitude and the shade
>> >>
>> >> <Chuckle>
>> >>
>> >> Andy
>> >> CotD #2
>>
>> But not the soil and water and the happy plants. NYC is out of the
>> range, so sorry. Coffee needs the sun a lot of the year! Just my
>> $.02.
>>
>> aloha,
>> beans
>> roast beans to kona to email
>> farmers of Pure Kona
>
> People grow coffee in all sorts of places that don't have that much sun.
> Soil and water aren't a problem for rooftop gardens. Sun can be
> reflected from all sorts of places and artificial light to fill in the
> gaps. It's called shade-grown for a reason


beans,

I'd love to visit and have breakfast in HI, and your coffee of the big
island!

Best,

Andy

wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:39:03 -0600, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Andy wrote:
> >>
> >> Arri London said...
> >>
> >> > Lots of buildings in NYC are 'set back' or stepped to provide more
> >> > sunlight to more floors. The building frames wouldn't need to have that
> >> > much floor 'acreage' to work. Think more like terraced hillsides,
> >> > although the terracing isn't really about supplying more light.
> >> >
> >> > Still very expensive to get going.
> >>
> >> Arri,
> >>
> >> OK, so if you constructed a Vertical Farm at Bryant Park, Midtown
> >> Manhattan, NYC, shadowed by the American Radiator Building (prior offices
> >> of the "Chuckle of the Day"), you'd still be blocked by the sun!
> >>
> >> Whatcha gonna grow? ))
> >
> >
> >Shade-grown coffee of course. One has the altitude and the shade
> >>
> >> <Chuckle>
> >>
> >> Andy
> >> CotD #2
>
> But not the soil and water and the happy plants. NYC is out of the
> range, so sorry. Coffee needs the sun a lot of the year! Just my
> $.02.
>
> aloha,
> beans
> roast beans to kona to email
> farmers of Pure Kona

People grow coffee in all sorts of places that don't have that much sun.
Soil and water aren't a problem for rooftop gardens. Sun can be
reflected from all sorts of places and artificial light to fill in the
gaps. It's called shade-grown for a reason

Andy said...

> beans,
>
> I'd love to visit and have breakfast in HI, and taste your coffee on the
big
> island!
>
> Best,
>
> Andy


P.S. I'm fairly certain I caused Kilauea to erupt back in 1983! Stole an
airplane bottle of black sand from South beach your big island, HI. (

Day before leaving, it erupted! (

Pele hates me. I mean to return it!

It's all my fault! SORRY! (( --A

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:07:46 -0500, Andy <q> wrote:

>Andy said...
>
>> beans,
>>
>> I'd love to visit and have breakfast in HI, and taste your coffee on the
>big
>> island!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andy
>
>
>P.S. I'm fairly certain I caused Kilauea to erupt back in 1983! Stole an
>airplane bottle of black sand from South beach your big island, HI. (
>
>Day before leaving, it erupted! (
>
>Pele hates me. I mean to return it!
>
>It's all my fault! SORRY! (( --A

Oh I am a realist first. You and others and+++++ who knows what Pele
was thinking. Just happens when you live on a "young" island.

Check out this site to see what living on Hawaii is like.
http://tux.wr.usgs.gov/ I look at this every morning wondering what
if anything happened or whether it was the fat Border Collie who loves
avocados ran through the house ----or the earth making new stuff....

Part of the fun.

with aloha,
beans
roast beans to kona to email
farmers of Pure Kona

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:54:56 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
wrote:

>
>People grow coffee in all sorts of places that don't have that much sun.
>Soil and water aren't a problem for rooftop gardens. Sun can be
>reflected from all sorts of places and artificial light to fill in the
>gaps. It's called shade-grown for a reason

My SO who has a BS in Tropical Ag, claims that it is soil and water
and conditions as much as everything. Just because you plant Jamaica
in NYC does not make it JBM. Kona typica either....
aloha,
beans
roast beans to kona to email
farmers of Pure Kona

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:59:50 -1000, wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:07:46 -0500, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>>Andy said...

>>
>>P.S. I'm fairly certain I caused Kilauea to erupt back in 1983! Stole an
>>airplane bottle of black sand from South beach your big island, HI. (
>>
>>Day before leaving, it erupted! (
<snip>
>Oh I am a realist first. You and others and+++++ who knows what Pele
>was thinking. Just happens when you live on a "young" island.
>
>Check out this site to see what living on Hawaii is like.
>http://tux.wr.usgs.gov/ I look at this every morning wondering what
>if anything happened or whether it was the fat Border Collie who loves
>avocados ran through the house ----or the earth making new stuff....
>
>Part of the fun.
>
I used to experience lots of jolts too.... the first thing I'd think
was "earthquake", but it was just a big truck passing by. Every now
and then I got a real one.

Maybe my POV changed after '89.... or maybe big vehicles started
respecting the signs saying they weren't allowed on my neighborhood
streets unless they had business here. I dunno what happened, but
"jolts" are not on the radar anymore.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

said...

> Oh I am a realist first. You and others and+++++ who knows what Pele
> was thinking. Just happens when you live on a "young" island.
>
> Check out this site to see what living on Hawaii is like.
> http://tux.wr.usgs.gov/


beans,

I visit that site several times a day (the USA & world views), being a
Kalifornia BUM!!! Always a constant wonder!

Concerned about other BUMS!!! in the family over there.

Best,

Andy
Earthquake insured in Pennsylvania

wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:54:56 -0600, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >People grow coffee in all sorts of places that don't have that much sun.
> >Soil and water aren't a problem for rooftop gardens. Sun can be
> >reflected from all sorts of places and artificial light to fill in the
> >gaps. It's called shade-grown for a reason
>
> My SO who has a BS in Tropical Ag, claims that it is soil and water
> and conditions as much as everything. Just because you plant Jamaica
> in NYC does not make it JBM. Kona typica either....
> aloha,
> beans
> roast beans to kona to email
> farmers of Pure Kona

No of course not. We all know that. The same cultivars will turn out
differently in different environments/microclimates. That doesn't mean
the product can't be marketable in the end...Rooftop Coffee (TM) LOL

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:21:16 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:54:56 -0600, Arri London >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >People grow coffee in all sorts of places that don't have that much sun.
>> >Soil and water aren't a problem for rooftop gardens. Sun can be
>> >reflected from all sorts of places and artificial light to fill in the
>> >gaps. It's called shade-grown for a reason
>>
>> My SO who has a BS in Tropical Ag, claims that it is soil and water
>> and conditions as much as everything. Just because you plant Jamaica
>> in NYC does not make it JBM. Kona typica either....
>> aloha,
>> beans
>> roast beans to kona to email
>> farmers of Pure Kona
>
>No of course not. We all know that. The same cultivars will turn out
>differently in different environments/microclimates. That doesn't mean
>the product can't be marketable in the end...Rooftop Coffee (TM) LOL

like manhattan silver. similar in concept to sewer alligators,
manhattan silver was pot growing from stashes flushed down the toilet
when unwelcome guests arrived. said to be especially potent because
it survived despite a distinct lack of sunlight.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **