"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
...

I suspect that you are funning but I'll play.

So I planted 1,000 trees over an eight-year period, and then Ronny
Reagan said that trees cause pollution.

The Ronny Rayguns who was almost as cogent as little Georgie Bush? The
reason their pronouncements are noted is not because the words are so wise
but because the speaker is so powerful.

Apparently, a University of
Helsinki study confirmed this assertion in finding that trees,
especially conifers, release volative organic compounds that pollute.
In addition, they release NOX which contributes to smog.


So what? 1000s of years ago before humans set about cutting down forests
there were many more trees than there are today. Was that bad? Should we
avoid that in future?

I'm not getting into a ****ing contest with those who disagree; hell,
I ain't a scientist anyway. But there is no doubting the fact that
trees use copious amts. of H2O which, we are remineded, is in short
supply for an ever-growing world population.

Yes trees do need water but forests act very positively as part of the water
cycle. Think of this way - what proportion of the water that trees use
stays in the tree? Over the life of the tree very little. In a healthy
forest even the small amount (by comparison to the total turnover) held in
the tree gets recycled. But in the life of a tree it sends round huge
amounts of water, to the great benefit of many organisms that grow with
them.

If you like deserts cut down all your trees.

David