Geoff Kegerreis schreef
For the sake of saving time, I will say that there's always a "fact checker"
in every crowd (usually an academidiot), which keeps us honest and on point,
but is kind of a pain-in-the ass.

For the record, "P" is correct on everything he stated below, except:
1. That wood itself IS dead, and is not alive (although there may be
something living amongst it).

+ + +
Any such pronouncement is necessarily inaccurate, you might as well say that
people are dead since several of their parts are dead (like nails and hair).
Some elements of wood die within months of being formed, others go on for
decades. It is perfectly silly to say that wood is dead as soon as some of
its elements are dead. Wood can remain part of the living system of the tree
for as long as the tree lives. Depends on the tree species. In some species
the interior wood will be dead after a tree passes a certain stage.
+ + +

and...
2. That a tree without healthy tissue will keep growing. In fact, if a
tree has only unhealthy tissue - it will not grow. It will die before it
puts on another year's worth of growth.

+ + +
It seems there is not that much difference with what I said: "The tree will
continue to grow even while dying. Only when it is totally dead will growth
stop." Trees are strongly compartementalized: look at the bristlecone pines.
+ + +

I still stand firm on my opinion that using an increment borer is safe for a
tree and will not likely cause damage, fungal or otherwise. I was trying to
keep this simple and based it on memory and experiences (not always
flawless).
Thanks for pointing out my incorrect termnology and lack of specificifity,
"P". (what, am I publishing an article for forestry source or something?)
Geoff Kegerreis

+ + +
You were proclaiming "The truth about finding a sugar maple age" and there
are always people who take such things seriously .
PvR

PS you wouldn't want to see me critizing an article for a forestry source or
something
:^)