Drunk pilot loses certificate [Archive]

Travis Marlatte

January 27th 04, 03:42 AM

Hmm. No wonder I don't watch the news. Either this guy was a solid, stand-up
citizen who has made one mistake in his life OR he is a drunk, has been a
drunk, always will be a drunk.

I'm guessing that I don't really know who he is or what really happened. I'm
also guessing that I never really will. I just hope that the FAA treats him
fairly, that he resolves whatever personal or physical issues he may have,
and that, someday, he gets to fly again.

But that's just my opinion!
--
-------------------------------

Travis
"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell ) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Apparently this guy was a solid citizen who had never done anything like
> > this before. Makes you wonder what happened to him.
>
> I believe you meant to type that he was a citizen who never got *caught*
> before. Who here can say whether this individual has ever flown under
the
> influence prior to this incident?
>
> IMO, I hope he never gets his certificate back.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Tom Sixkiller

January 27th 04, 05:35 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> According to AVweb, John V. Salamone was the drunk pilot who flew through
> controlled airspace near Philadelphia on Jan. 15. The FAA alleged that the
> pilot endangered the lives of others and forced diversions of several
> airliners. His breathalyzer was .13 alcohol level. The FAA has revoked his
> certificate.
>
> Apparently this guy was a solid citizen who had never done anything like
> this before. Makes you wonder what happened to him.
>

Sounds like he got liquored up...

Tom Sixkiller

January 27th 04, 05:36 AM

Tom Sixkiller

January 27th 04, 05:38 AM

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Hmm. No wonder I don't watch the news. Either this guy was a solid,
stand-up
> citizen who has made one mistake in his life OR he is a drunk, has been a
> drunk, always will be a drunk.

More likely the latter.

>
> I'm guessing that I don't really know who he is or what really happened.
I'm
> also guessing that I never really will. I just hope that the FAA treats
him
> fairly, that he resolves whatever personal or physical issues he may have,
> and that, someday, he gets to fly again.

Doesn't matter who he is; what matters is that he endangered hundreds of
people with a stunt that would make a teenager blush.

Dave S

January 27th 04, 03:05 PM

He got drunk.. thats what happened to him.

Dave

C J Campbell wrote:
> According to AVweb, John V. Salamone was the drunk pilot who flew through
> controlled airspace near Philadelphia on Jan. 15. The FAA alleged that the
> pilot endangered the lives of others and forced diversions of several
> airliners. His breathalyzer was .13 alcohol level. The FAA has revoked his
> certificate.
>
> Apparently this guy was a solid citizen who had never done anything like
> this before. Makes you wonder what happened to him.
>

Jeb

January 27th 04, 06:16 PM

"Jules Beaudoin" > wrote in message >...
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
> >
> >
> >

What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down millions
of trees or planting one Bush?

Big John

January 27th 04, 06:46 PM

Tom

Hate to drop a brick on your foot, especially if you have it in your
mouth for being so equivocal.

I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
their eyes closed for sleep at night.

They were able to pass any and all tests of ANY kind (memory, verbal,
body activity, etc) given to them other than a breathalizer (sp) which
only measures a approximation of alcohol in the body, not any
impairment. The powers that be, assume impairment with an arbitrary
level measured.

How do you know this individual was not one whose body assimilated
alcohol in a manner that did not effect normal activities by any
measure (test)? Were the results of any impairment tests published?

One last shot over the bow. How many stone cold sober individuals have
flown through controlled airspace (the alleged activity)? Were their
ticket revoked?

Big John

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:38:25 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> Hmm. No wonder I don't watch the news. Either this guy was a solid,
>stand-up
>> citizen who has made one mistake in his life OR he is a drunk, has been a
>> drunk, always will be a drunk.
>
>More likely the latter.
>
>>
>> I'm guessing that I don't really know who he is or what really happened.
>I'm
>> also guessing that I never really will. I just hope that the FAA treats
>him
>> fairly, that he resolves whatever personal or physical issues he may have,
>> and that, someday, he gets to fly again.
>
>Doesn't matter who he is; what matters is that he endangered hundreds of
>people with a stunt that would make a teenager blush.
>
>

Tony Cox

January 27th 04, 06:54 PM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you know this individual was not one whose body assimilated
> alcohol in a manner that did not effect normal activities by any
> measure (test)? Were the results of any impairment tests published?
>

Presumably because he was repeatedly busting class B and
causing other traffic to divert.

James Robinson

January 27th 04, 08:42 PM

Big John wrote:
>
> I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
> their eyes closed for sleep at night.
>
> They were able to pass any and all tests of ANY kind (memory, verbal,
> body activity, etc) given to them other than a breathalizer (sp) which
> only measures a approximation of alcohol in the body, not any
> impairment. The powers that be, assume impairment with an arbitrary
> level measured.
>
> How do you know this individual was not one whose body assimilated
> alcohol in a manner that did not effect normal activities by any
> measure (test)? Were the results of any impairment tests published?

The tolerance of long-term users of alcohol is somewhat of a myth.
Alcoholics certainly are able to appear to "hold" their liquor by not
having the same loss of motor skills and reaction times as casual users,
but those measures are not the complete story. Alcohol affects many
things, such as depth perception, night vision, the ability to do
multitasking, judgment, concentration, and so on. Many of these more
complex, but less obvious abilities are affected by the same amount
whether or not the person has gained a tolerance for alcohol. There are
precisely the skills that are necessary for safe flight.

Long term alcohol use does create a tolerance, which manifests itself
mostly in the area of motor skills. It takes a higher blood alcohol
content for an alcoholic to reach the same level of "impairment' as a
casual drinker, as measured by motor skill and reaction time testing.
However, while motor skills might be less affected, most research
suggests that alcohol equally affects those with an alcohol tolerance
and those without. Judgment and the ability to do several things at the
same time are prominent on those lists.

Alcoholics are the most dangerous, since they think they are not
affected, and other people don't notice the effects as quickly. However,
they do have many of the same physical reactions to alcohol,
particularly those which are critical to safety. These can include a
lowered ability to judge distances, to track other objects and determine
points of path intersection, some loss of night vision, and reduced
ability to absorb external information.

In particular, testing has been performed on simulators, and it has been
found that while a pilot with a tolerance for alcohol might be able to
fly a routine flight with an elevated blood alcohol level with no
noticeable problems, things change when his workload increases. The
alcoholic pilot tends to concentrate on the mechanics of flying to the
exclusion of all else, just as much as a casual drinker. This results
in a tendency to overcontrol, lapses in judgment, and a tendency to
block out more and more external information, such as inputs from
peripheral vision, radio communications, non-essential gauges, and so
on. In short, they focus, and lose the ability to absorb and evaluate
information. Imagine what happens in IMC with a partial panel failure,
or a fuel problem while trying to stabilize for landing.

Because alcohol has similar effects on all people for the more complex
tasks, the impairment levels are not arbitrary, and long term alcohol
use does not give people immunity from its effects.

Big John

January 27th 04, 09:05 PM

James

I was/am familiar with what you say and have two comments.

1. There are always exceptions to the rules. One of my points was that
no effort was made to see if the pilot was an exception.

2. Your statement about night vision I take exception to. During my
tenure in the Air Defense Command (USAF) where we flew at night and in
bad Wx a lot, a study was commissioned and the results showed that an
ounce of alcohol would increase night acuity (and adaption) and reduce
accidents.

Of course all the 'jocks' clamored for a 'shot' before flying at night
but the powers that be felt that the 'great unwashed masses' wouldn't
understand pilots drinking before flying.

So safety be damned.

Big John.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:42:17 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>Big John wrote:
>>
>> I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
>> their eyes closed for sleep at night.
>>
>> They were able to pass any and all tests of ANY kind (memory, verbal,
>> body activity, etc) given to them other than a breathalizer (sp) which
>> only measures a approximation of alcohol in the body, not any
>> impairment. The powers that be, assume impairment with an arbitrary
>> level measured.
>>
>> How do you know this individual was not one whose body assimilated
>> alcohol in a manner that did not effect normal activities by any
>> measure (test)? Were the results of any impairment tests published?
>
>The tolerance of long-term users of alcohol is somewhat of a myth.
>Alcoholics certainly are able to appear to "hold" their liquor by not
>having the same loss of motor skills and reaction times as casual users,
>but those measures are not the complete story. Alcohol affects many
>things, such as depth perception, night vision, the ability to do
>multitasking, judgment, concentration, and so on. Many of these more
>complex, but less obvious abilities are affected by the same amount
>whether or not the person has gained a tolerance for alcohol. There are
>precisely the skills that are necessary for safe flight.
>
>Long term alcohol use does create a tolerance, which manifests itself
>mostly in the area of motor skills. It takes a higher blood alcohol
>content for an alcoholic to reach the same level of "impairment' as a
>casual drinker, as measured by motor skill and reaction time testing.
>However, while motor skills might be less affected, most research
>suggests that alcohol equally affects those with an alcohol tolerance
>and those without. Judgment and the ability to do several things at the
>same time are prominent on those lists.
>
>Alcoholics are the most dangerous, since they think they are not
>affected, and other people don't notice the effects as quickly. However,
>they do have many of the same physical reactions to alcohol,
>particularly those which are critical to safety. These can include a
>lowered ability to judge distances, to track other objects and determine
>points of path intersection, some loss of night vision, and reduced
>ability to absorb external information.
>
>In particular, testing has been performed on simulators, and it has been
>found that while a pilot with a tolerance for alcohol might be able to
>fly a routine flight with an elevated blood alcohol level with no
>noticeable problems, things change when his workload increases. The
>alcoholic pilot tends to concentrate on the mechanics of flying to the
>exclusion of all else, just as much as a casual drinker. This results
>in a tendency to overcontrol, lapses in judgment, and a tendency to
>block out more and more external information, such as inputs from
>peripheral vision, radio communications, non-essential gauges, and so
>on. In short, they focus, and lose the ability to absorb and evaluate
>information. Imagine what happens in IMC with a partial panel failure,
>or a fuel problem while trying to stabilize for landing.
>
>Because alcohol has similar effects on all people for the more complex
>tasks, the impairment levels are not arbitrary, and long term alcohol
>use does not give people immunity from its effects.

Orval Fairbairn

January 27th 04, 09:35 PM

In article >,
(Jeb) wrote:

> "Jules Beaudoin" > wrote in message
> >...
> > If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down millions
> of trees or planting one Bush?

Environmentalists cause the most damage.

Peter Gottlieb

January 27th 04, 10:28 PM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell ) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Apparently this guy was a solid citizen who had never done anything like
> > this before. Makes you wonder what happened to him.
>
> I believe you meant to type that he was a citizen who never got *caught*
> before. Who here can say whether this individual has ever flown under
the
> influence prior to this incident?
>
> IMO, I hope he never gets his certificate back.

Hard to say without knowing more. It might be fair then to permanently
revoke driver's licenses for the same offense. Unless, of course, you are
suggesting that pilots get even more regulations without any added
benefits...

Maule Driver

January 28th 04, 12:08 AM

"Big John" > >
> How do you know this individual was not one whose body assimilated
> alcohol in a manner that did not effect normal activities by any
> measure (test)? Were the results of any impairment tests published?
>
> One last shot over the bow. How many stone cold sober individuals have
> flown through controlled airspace (the alleged activity)? Were their
> ticket revoked?
>
There is a tendency irrationally condemn intoxicated people. But in this
case, the pilot was objectively intoxicated and he clearly acted in a
reckless and careless manner. Whether he was sober or drunk while doing
what he did, it would seem to justify pulling the ticket. The alcohol is a
reasonable explanation for the bizarre behaviour. Without the alcohol, the
guy needs medical help,

James Robinson

January 28th 04, 02:49 AM

Big John wrote:
>
> James
>
> I was/am familiar with what you say and have two comments.
>
> 1. There are always exceptions to the rules. One of my points was that
> no effort was made to see if the pilot was an exception.

He blew a 0.13 on a breathalyzer when he landed. There is no reason to
look for an exception, he was way over the limit.

> 2. Your statement about night vision I take exception to.

It has been well documented over the years. If the pilot had taken any
tranquilizers along with the alcohol, the deleterious effect on night
vision is amplified. Here are a couple of web pages with further
discussion:

http://www.cs.wright.edu/bie/rehabengr/vision/visionalcohol.htm
http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/workingpartners/sp_iss/affects.asp

> During my tenure in the Air Defense Command (USAF) where we flew at
> night and in bad Wx a lot, a study was commissioned and the results
> showed that an ounce of alcohol would increase night acuity (and
> adaption) and reduce accidents.

The pilot had something like 7 ounces in his system, assuming typical
weight. That reverses the effect.

>
> Of course all the 'jocks' clamored for a 'shot' before flying at night
> but the powers that be felt that the 'great unwashed masses' wouldn't
> understand pilots drinking before flying.

Drinking has too many ill effects to even consider using it before
flying. Even if it might help in some way, it hurts in too many others.
For a start, it is a depressant and would make people drowsy. Not
something you want on a long combat mission. Even 0.02% has shown a
negative effect on reaction, judgment, and alertness. Anyone who thinks
it is useful is mistaken.

People who think they have a tolerance for it, and can therefore operate
any type of equipment with higher than normal allowances are deluding
themselves.

Dean Wilkinson

January 28th 04, 04:48 AM

> 2. Your statement about night vision I take exception to. During my
> tenure in the Air Defense Command (USAF) where we flew at night and in
> bad Wx a lot, a study was commissioned and the results showed that an
> ounce of alcohol would increase night acuity (and adaption) and reduce
> accidents.

So if a shot is good, a fifth should give you X-Ray vision. Somehow I
doubt that the pilot in question had a blood alcohol of 0.15 from 1
shot, or that his vision was better with that much alcohol in his
system. Yes, a small amount of alcohol can be beneficial, but give me
a break!

I for one am glad that he lost his license. He doesn't deserve to
have it after showing such poor judgement. Pilots can and should be
held to a higher standard than drivers in this regard. For that
matter, drunk drivers often get away with DUI after DUI until they
finally kill someone.

Dean

Tarver Engineering

January 28th 04, 04:53 AM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...

> Of course all the 'jocks' clamored for a 'shot' before flying at night
> but the powers that be felt that the 'great unwashed masses' wouldn't
> understand pilots drinking before flying.

One ounce of alcohol a day will make you live longer and signifigantly
reduces the probability of altzheimers at 70, but that does not mean a lot
of alcohol is a good thing.

Big John

January 28th 04, 07:49 AM

Dean (and Dr James)

Your last in this part of the thread so will get the reply attached to
your post.

If you read close I said one Oz not a fifth. Guess you speed read and
jumped over that?

Also in the past few years the AMA has stated that red wine is good
for the heart (based on some studies of people in Italy). Recently
they have changed their recommendations to a couple of Oz's of alcohol
a day to get the benefits and reduce heart attacks.

So alcohol is not the evil portrayed in this thread. If does have some
socially redeeming values.

On the subject of reaction time and drinking. I have always been able
to catch eating utensils before they hit the floor if I knocked them
off the table. I am still able to do that even after my evening
libations and I use it as a measure of how much (if any) I have slowed
down with old age (somewhere over 80)

The statements that he put many people at risk I seriously doubt. This
group has had so many posts about how GA is taken to task for how
dangerous it is to everything and everyone. The media pains GA as the
worst thing that ever has happened to America and we see strong
opposition to their actions from all on the News Group. GA may kill
those in the aircraft but they just don't kill people on th ground. It
does happen, but is so rare to almost be a non event

Enough ranting. Need a night cap to calm down to get a good nights
sleep.

Big John

On 27 Jan 2004 20:48:09 -0800, (Dean
Wilkinson) wrote:

>> 2. Your statement about night vision I take exception to. During my
>> tenure in the Air Defense Command (USAF) where we flew at night and in
>> bad Wx a lot, a study was commissioned and the results showed that an
>> ounce of alcohol would increase night acuity (and adaption) and reduce
>> accidents.
>
>So if a shot is good, a fifth should give you X-Ray vision. Somehow I
>doubt that the pilot in question had a blood alcohol of 0.15 from 1
>shot, or that his vision was better with that much alcohol in his
>system. Yes, a small amount of alcohol can be beneficial, but give me
>a break!
>
>I for one am glad that he lost his license. He doesn't deserve to
>have it after showing such poor judgement. Pilots can and should be
>held to a higher standard than drivers in this regard. For that
>matter, drunk drivers often get away with DUI after DUI until they
>finally kill someone.
>
>Dean

Gary Drescher

January 28th 04, 01:09 PM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Also in the past few years the AMA has stated that red wine is good
> for the heart (based on some studies of people in Italy). Recently
> they have changed their recommendations to a couple of Oz's of alcohol
> a day to get the benefits and reduce heart attacks.
>
> So alcohol is not the evil portrayed in this thread. If does have some
> socially redeeming values.

No one here doubted that, but it doesn't bear on the question of drinking
and flying. Sleep is good for you too, but that doesn't mean you should do
it while piloting a plane.

--Gary

James Robinson

January 28th 04, 01:50 PM

Big John wrote:
>
> Dean (and Dr James)
>
> If you read close I said one Oz not a fifth. Guess you speed read and
> jumped over that?

If you read my response closely, you would see that I mentioned that
even a BAL of 0.02 can be clearly seen in simulations to adversely
affect your ability to do a task. That is just one ounce of alcohol.
I'm not going to argue one way or the other about whether one drink does
or does not help you, but there is no question that any more than one
drink has a decidedly negative effect on people's ability.

> Also in the past few years the AMA has stated that red wine is good
> for the heart (based on some studies of people in Italy). Recently
> they have changed their recommendations to a couple of Oz's of alcohol
> a day to get the benefits and reduce heart attacks.

Yes, and medical journals regularly print contradicting articles about
the benefits and risks of drinking coffee or eating chocolate. It is no
different with alcohol. People who like those things only remember the
articles that proclaim the health benefits.

Beyond that, whether or not red wine or alcohol prolong life, they have
absolutely no place in an aircraft, or at least in the PIC of that
aircraft.

> So alcohol is not the evil portrayed in this thread. If does have some
> socially redeeming values.

Again, that has nothing to do with flying airplanes. Your initial post
suggested that the pilot might have been unfairly charged, as there
might have been extenuating circumstances. You even suggested that an
alcohol abuser might not be affected by the amount of alcohol he had
consumed, and that should be taken into consideration. I work in a
transportation company, and believe me there can be absolutely no other
policy regarding the use of alcohol or any other "mind altering" drug
than that of zero tolerance. No extenuating circumstances can be
considered. Period.

> On the subject of reaction time and drinking. I have always been able
> to catch eating utensils before they hit the floor if I knocked them
> off the table. I am still able to do that even after my evening
> libations and I use it as a measure of how much (if any) I have slowed
> down with old age (somewhere over 80)

That's nice. I had a great uncle who was a complete teetotaler
throughout the first part of his life. He only started drinking after
he retired, but purely for medicinal purposes. He justified his
drinking based on its supposedly social and medical value, but for the
rest of us it was not very pleasant watching him go through DTs in his
70s.

I may be overly sensitive about the subject at the moment, since I just
buried a high school friend. His obit stated that he was 48, and that
he died of massive organ failure. His friends would more accurately
describe it as acute alcohol abuse. This was a university-educated
person with a comfortable income. He would justify his drinking with
just the sort of rationale that I see in your posts: The AMA says that
it will extend your life; It sharpens my mind when I need to do
something; It enhances my social life; and so on. He totally misjudged
every one of those.

I'm not being evangelical about this, since I enjoy a drink with meals
and on social occasions, and I am thankful that I don't seem to be
inclined to overindulge, unlike some friends and relatives. Alcohol is
to be enjoyed, but at the same time it is to be feared. When one is
considering taking control of an aircraft, or machinery of any kind, for
that matter, alcohol is to be completely avoided. There is no
justification for any other course of action.

> Enough ranting. Need a night cap to calm down to get a good nights
> sleep.

That's what my great uncle used to say, you know, the one who died of
alcohol abuse.

Dennis O'Connor

January 28th 04, 03:02 PM

One oz. of liquor definitely affects my motor skills... I never fly if I've
had a drink, but as a ham radio operator who does morse code with a
mechanical key - which is spinal cord reflexes all the way - I can tell you
from experience that my keying deteriorates after one drink, even followed
immediately by a big meal, and I go to the radio room an hour later... Now,
the guy on the other end may not notice the change from one drink, but I
DO...
denny

"James Robinson" > wrote in

Dennis O'Connor

January 28th 04, 03:07 PM

The other comment I failed to add, is that one oz. of liquor affects my
motor skills but not my judgement, and I notice the degraded motor skills...
3 or 4 oz. will affect the judgement to where you loudly proclaim your motor
skills are perfect, whilst you are falling all over the room... As an old
emergency room doc, I absolutely loath stupid, ****y faced, drunks - which
is probably why I refuse to become like them and limit myself to one social
drink, period!
denny

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Big John wrote:
> >
> > Dean (and Dr James)

Tarver Engineering

January 28th 04, 03:38 PM

Tarver Engineering

January 28th 04, 03:38 PM

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:FwORb.175069$na.285264@attbi_s04...
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Also in the past few years the AMA has stated that red wine is good
> > for the heart (based on some studies of people in Italy). Recently
> > they have changed their recommendations to a couple of Oz's of alcohol
> > a day to get the benefits and reduce heart attacks.
> >
> > So alcohol is not the evil portrayed in this thread. If does have some
> > socially redeeming values.
>
> No one here doubted that, but it doesn't bear on the question of drinking
> and flying. Sleep is good for you too, but that doesn't mean you should
do
> it while piloting a plane.

Actully, there are some that recomend a nap, on a long haul.

James Robinson

January 28th 04, 03:52 PM

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> The hatred alcohol draws is mostly from Christians reading Jewish
> water purification rituals, in the Old Testiment, and then going
> about cursing the Holy Spirit. (lying about God)

The bible makes out Christians to be cannibals: Drinking the blood and
eating the flesh of Christ.

The hatred of alcohol comes from watching people who are in denial die
from overindulgence.

Tarver Engineering

January 28th 04, 04:03 PM

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > The hatred alcohol draws is mostly from Christians reading Jewish
> > water purification rituals, in the Old Testiment, and then going
> > about cursing the Holy Spirit. (lying about God)
>
> The bible makes out Christians to be cannibals: Drinking the blood and
> eating the flesh of Christ.

That is what Christ came for.

> The hatred of alcohol comes from watching people who are in denial die
> from overindulgence.

Is the pilot going to fight and win back his ticket?

John Harlow

January 28th 04, 07:48 PM

> The hatred alcohol draws is mostly from Christians reading Jewish
> water purification rituals, in the Old Testiment, and then going
> about cursing the Holy Spirit. (lying about God)

What color is the aptmosphere in your world?

Tarver Engineering

January 28th 04, 09:20 PM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > The hatred alcohol draws is mostly from Christians reading Jewish
> > water purification rituals, in the Old Testiment, and then going
> > about cursing the Holy Spirit. (lying about God)
>
> What color is the aptmosphere in your world?

The religious have a lot to do with prohibition, Harlow.

Orthadox Jews are of two minds about Christians even reading the five books
of Moses, one group says Christians have such a lack of understanding of
Jewish culture that they should never read the Old Testiment and another
group that say it is OK, as long as Christians stay away from Jewish water
purification rituals. In those rituals many churches have found validation
of their own fears and curse the Holy Spirit every Sunday.

John E. Carty

January 29th 04, 12:47 AM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dean (and Dr James)
>
> Your last in this part of the thread so will get the reply attached to
> your post.
>
> If you read close I said one Oz not a fifth. Guess you speed read and
> jumped over that?
>

> Also in the past few years the AMA has stated that red wine is good
> for the heart (based on some studies of people in Italy).

I've heard that it has to be red wine that has been processed with the grape
skins.

> Recently
> they have changed their recommendations to a couple of Oz's of alcohol
> a day to get the benefits and reduce heart attacks.
>
> So alcohol is not the evil portrayed in this thread. If does have some
> socially redeeming values.
>
> On the subject of reaction time and drinking. I have always been able
> to catch eating utensils before they hit the floor if I knocked them
> off the table. I am still able to do that even after my evening
> libations and I use it as a measure of how much (if any) I have slowed
> down with old age (somewhere over 80)
>
> The statements that he put many people at risk I seriously doubt. This
> group has had so many posts about how GA is taken to task for how
> dangerous it is to everything and everyone. The media pains GA as the
> worst thing that ever has happened to America and we see strong
> opposition to their actions from all on the News Group. GA may kill
> those in the aircraft but they just don't kill people on th ground. It
> does happen, but is so rare to almost be a non event
>
> Enough ranting. Need a night cap to calm down to get a good nights
> sleep.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On 27 Jan 2004 20:48:09 -0800, (Dean
> Wilkinson) wrote:
>
>>> 2. Your statement about night vision I take exception to. During my
>>> tenure in the Air Defense Command (USAF) where we flew at night and in
>>> bad Wx a lot, a study was commissioned and the results showed that an
>>> ounce of alcohol would increase night acuity (and adaption) and reduce
>>> accidents.
>>
>>So if a shot is good, a fifth should give you X-Ray vision. Somehow I
>>doubt that the pilot in question had a blood alcohol of 0.15 from 1
>>shot, or that his vision was better with that much alcohol in his
>>system. Yes, a small amount of alcohol can be beneficial, but give me
>>a break!
>>
>>I for one am glad that he lost his license. He doesn't deserve to
>>have it after showing such poor judgement. Pilots can and should be
>>held to a higher standard than drivers in this regard. For that
>>matter, drunk drivers often get away with DUI after DUI until they
>>finally kill someone.
>>
>>Dean
>

Tarver Engineering

January 29th 04, 12:52 AM

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dean (and Dr James)
> >
> > Your last in this part of the thread so will get the reply attached to
> > your post.
> >
> > If you read close I said one Oz not a fifth. Guess you speed read and
> > jumped over that?
> >
>
>
> > Also in the past few years the AMA has stated that red wine is good
> > for the heart (based on some studies of people in Italy).
>
> I've heard that it has to be red wine that has been processed with the
grape
> skins.

You have heard wrong, any alcohol works for cardio vacular health.

The AMA is just shy of the religious and since wine is recommended by Paul
in the Old Testiment for health, they are safer from attack for saying
something true.

Paul Sengupta

January 29th 04, 10:06 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Big John" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Also in the past few years the AMA has stated that red wine is good
> > > for the heart (based on some studies of people in Italy).
> >
> > I've heard that it has to be red wine that has been processed with the
> grape
> > skins.
>
> You have heard wrong, any alcohol works for cardio vacular health.

Some work more than others. Red wine:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1719675.stm

Not just red wine:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3266819.stm

The grape-skin thing:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971219062019.htm

And a rather strange sort of supporting view (amazing what
google comes up with sometimes!)
http://www.islamicgarden.com/truthredwine.html

Quoting:
Though initial studies conducted by non-Muslims appeared to indicate that
moderate drinking could provide protection against certain diseases, later
studies concluded that the alcohol component of wine plays no part
whatsoever in the seemingly miraculous effects of the beverage. In fact,
further trials have demonstrated that plain grape juice is just as effective
in boosting the body's immunities to the same diseases. What's more, it is
now understood that almost all red-pigmented fruits such as red and purple
grapes, strawberries and raspberries share common properties which serve to
improve the health of individuals who consume such fruits on a regular
basis. (And Allah knows best.)

I thought I'd leave the bit in brackets at the end! :-)

Paul

Tarver Engineering

January 29th 04, 03:45 PM

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...

I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved in
politically correct religous ass kissing.

Tarver Engineering

January 29th 04, 07:31 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved in
> politically correct religous ass kissing.

To add to this:

A human body creates about 1 ounce of alcohol each day, if you do not
consume alcohol. Two ounces of Wild Turkey each day is much more healthy
than the carbo-loading recommended by the FDA.

UK studies of 70 year olds yielded the following results:

1. Drinkers live, on average, 5 years longer than tea todlers.

2. Men who were light drinkers in their youth are ten times as likely as a
tea todler to know their own name at 70 and even those that were heavy
drinkers as youths are 3 times as likely as a tea todler to know their own
name at 70.

Earl Grieda

January 29th 04, 07:37 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in
message
> > ...
> >
> > I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved in
> > politically correct religous ass kissing.
>
> To add to this:
>
> A human body creates about 1 ounce of alcohol each day, if you do not
> consume alcohol. Two ounces of Wild Turkey each day is much more healthy
> than the carbo-loading recommended by the FDA.
>
> UK studies of 70 year olds yielded the following results:
>
> 1. Drinkers live, on average, 5 years longer than tea todlers.
>
>

"Tea todlers"? Children who drink tea? You mean "teetotalers".

Earl G

Tarver Engineering

January 29th 04, 07:41 PM

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in
> message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved in
> > > politically correct religous ass kissing.
> >
> > To add to this:
> >
> > A human body creates about 1 ounce of alcohol each day, if you do not
> > consume alcohol. Two ounces of Wild Turkey each day is much more
healthy
> > than the carbo-loading recommended by the FDA.
> >
> > UK studies of 70 year olds yielded the following results:
> >
> > 1. Drinkers live, on average, 5 years longer than tea todlers.
> >
> >
>
> "Tea todlers"? Children who drink tea? You mean "teetotalers".

I mean a tea drinker, as opposed to alcohol. It is an old social trick, for
those who would rather not drink.

G.R. Patterson III

January 29th 04, 10:40 PM

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Tea todlers"? Children who drink tea? You mean "teetotalers".
>
> I mean a tea drinker, as opposed to alcohol. It is an old social trick, for
> those who would rather not drink.

Then Earl is correct. A teetotaler is one who completely abstains from alcohol.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

Tarver Engineering

January 30th 04, 12:08 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > "Tea todlers"? Children who drink tea? You mean "teetotalers".
> >
> > I mean a tea drinker, as opposed to alcohol. It is an old social trick,
for
> > those who would rather not drink.
>
> Then Earl is correct. A teetotaler is one who completely abstains from
alcohol.

I didn't know and I was not disagreeing with Earl.

Big John

January 30th 04, 12:38 AM

Earl

Are you kidding or don't you know the English life style?

Big John

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:37:45 GMT, "Earl Grieda"
> wrote:

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in
>message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved in
>> > politically correct religous ass kissing.
>>
>> To add to this:
>>
>> A human body creates about 1 ounce of alcohol each day, if you do not
>> consume alcohol. Two ounces of Wild Turkey each day is much more healthy
>> than the carbo-loading recommended by the FDA.
>>
>> UK studies of 70 year olds yielded the following results:
>>
>> 1. Drinkers live, on average, 5 years longer than tea todlers.
>>
>>
>
>"Tea todlers"? Children who drink tea? You mean "teetotalers".
>
>Earl G
>

Earl Grieda

January 30th 04, 07:57 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved
in
> > > > politically correct religous ass kissing.
> > >
> > > To add to this:
> > >
> > > A human body creates about 1 ounce of alcohol each day, if you do not
> > > consume alcohol. Two ounces of Wild Turkey each day is much more
> healthy
> > > than the carbo-loading recommended by the FDA.
> > >
> > > UK studies of 70 year olds yielded the following results:
> > >
> > > 1. Drinkers live, on average, 5 years longer than tea todlers.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > "Tea todlers"? Children who drink tea? You mean "teetotalers".
>
> I mean a tea drinker, as opposed to alcohol. It is an old social trick,
for
> those who would rather not drink.
>

Over the past ten years or so I have read in the papers of a few studies
that appear to show that moderate drinkers live longer than teetotalers.
However, in the case of "tea todlers" maybe the tea is shortening their
lives.

Earl G

Happy Dog

January 30th 04, 08:38 AM

"Big John" > wrote in message

> I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
> their eyes closed for sleep at night.
>
> They were able to pass any and all tests of ANY kind (memory, verbal,
> body activity, etc) given to them

What do you mean by "drank"? What BAC are we talking about? Seasoned
drinkers can mask the symptoms of imparment to an extent. But above .15,
it's nearly impossible.

> How do you know this individual was not one whose body assimilated
> alcohol in a manner that did not effect normal activities by any
> measure (test)? Were the results of any impairment tests published?

No need. Impairment by any intoxicating substance is just too dangerous to
sanction. Or do you suggest that only certain types of flying be allowed
when impaired?

le moo

Peter

January 30th 04, 08:44 AM

Earl Grieda wrote:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in
>>>
>>>message
>>>
...
>>>>>
>>>>>I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved
>
> in
>
>>>>>politically correct religous ass kissing.
>>>>
>>>>To add to this:
>>>>
>>>>A human body creates about 1 ounce of alcohol each day, if you do not
>>>>consume alcohol. Two ounces of Wild Turkey each day is much more
>>
>>healthy
>>
>>>>than the carbo-loading recommended by the FDA.
>>>>
>>>>UK studies of 70 year olds yielded the following results:
>>>>
>>>>1. Drinkers live, on average, 5 years longer than tea todlers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Tea todlers"? Children who drink tea? You mean "teetotalers".
>>
>>I mean a tea drinker, as opposed to alcohol. It is an old social trick,
>
> for
>
>>those who would rather not drink.
>>
>
>
> Over the past ten years or so I have read in the papers of a few studies
> that appear to show that moderate drinkers live longer than teetotalers.
> However, in the case of "tea todlers" maybe the tea is shortening their
> lives.

A "toddler" can be either a young child or someone who is walking
unsteadily (i.e. like a very young child).
Perhaps there is something in their tea other than herbs and caffeine. In
which case the 'tea toddlers' may be consuming more alcohol than the drinkers.

Paul Sengupta

January 30th 04, 01:55 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> I like the UK studies of alcohol best, as they do not get involved in
> politically correct religous ass kissing.

As opposed to the Islamic Garden article I found with google! :-)

Paul

Big Dave

February 1st 04, 09:06 AM

Big John > wrote:

>Tom
>
>Hate to drop a brick on your foot, especially if you have it in your
>mouth for being so equivocal.
>
>I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
>their eyes closed for sleep at night.

You frequently defend pilots who habitually drink to excess. I would
not be surprised to find that you are a chronic alcoholic. Of course,
you'll deny everything here but that is neither here nor there. Most
alcoholics are in extreme denial anyway. As one with three alcoholics
in the family, one a retired airline pilot (my father), one dead (my
mother), and my brother being the third, your words and attitude are
all too familiar.

Big John

February 1st 04, 07:58 PM

BD

"No way jose" as they say down here.

My posts were against those who arbitrarily made comments about
drinking that are/were not supportable by facts.

In this regard, can you give me cites where a drunken pilot killed any
one on the ground? This was the thrust of several vocal posts re the
pilot having his ticket pulled for flying with a breathalizer (sp)
test showing an arbitrary amount of alcohol in his system. No
impairment was ever tested for or shown in that event yet he was
pilloried. I would expect those who posted so vehemently to also

I have see where GA pilots killed themselves and their passengers with
a high amount of alcohol in their systems but never an accident in
commercial aviation where alcohol caused the accident. This of course
could be having two pilots in commercial planes and mostly single
pilots in GA?

I'm sorry about your family. I was never faced with that type of
problem. Kudos for not falling into the trap of father/son.

I never became a stand up or falling down drunk and limit myself to a
cocktail before dinner.

I don't do drugs but did take 'dexadrene' (sp) on rare occasions when
issued by the Fight Surgeon when mission required.

Have a nice day and get a cold beer and popcorn and watch the Super
Bowel.

Big John

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:06:52 -0500, Big Dave >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote:
>
>>Tom
>>
>>Hate to drop a brick on your foot, especially if you have it in your
>>mouth for being so equivocal.
>>
>>I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
>>their eyes closed for sleep at night.
>
>You frequently defend pilots who habitually drink to excess. I would
>not be surprised to find that you are a chronic alcoholic. Of course,
>you'll deny everything here but that is neither here nor there. Most
>alcoholics are in extreme denial anyway. As one with three alcoholics
>in the family, one a retired airline pilot (my father), one dead (my
>mother), and my brother being the third, your words and attitude are
>all too familiar.

Tom Sixkiller

February 1st 04, 08:40 PM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have a nice day and get a cold beer and popcorn and watch the Super
> Bowel.

As one who dislikes football, I'll drink to that.

John Harlow

February 1st 04, 09:44 PM

>> Have a nice day and get a cold beer and popcorn and watch the Super
>> Bowel.
>
> As one who dislikes football, I'll drink to that.

Lol - same here. What a fitting description!

Big John

February 2nd 04, 02:30 AM

I'm glad you both understood what I said. Every one will be gone
Monday thank God.

Big John

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:44:01 -0500, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>
>>> Have a nice day and get a cold beer and popcorn and watch the Super
>>> Bowel.
>>
>> As one who dislikes football, I'll drink to that.
>
>Lol - same here. What a fitting description!
>

Snowbird

February 2nd 04, 01:50 PM

Big John > wrote in message >...
> 2. Your statement about night vision I take exception to. During my
> tenure in the Air Defense Command (USAF) where we flew at night and in
> bad Wx a lot, a study was commissioned and the results showed that an
> ounce of alcohol would increase night acuity (and adaption) and reduce
> accidents.

I'd be extremely interested in having a look at that
study. Can you tell me where to obtain a copy? Not
that I think it's what you intend here, but of course one
can prove any point by reference to mysterious studies
not available for general review.

Of course, it stands against the results of a number of
other studies which show that even a modest amount of
alcohol produces measureable impairment, not necessarily
of basic motor skills but of ability to divide attention,
judgement under stress, and so forth.

So some people might think, instead of "safety be damned"
the conclusion was more like "well it improves X but
Y suffers and Y is equally or more important".

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird

February 2nd 04, 01:56 PM

Big John > wrote in message >...

> I've see a number of individuals who drank from wake up to the time
> their eyes closed for sleep at night.

> They were able to pass any and all tests of ANY kind (memory, verbal,
> body activity, etc) given to them

Can you direct me to the published results which show this?

In contrast, there are a large number of published studies
which show impairment of some form, even in habituated
individuals who show less apparent effects. When the *same*
individuals were tested on tasks requiring judgement, ability
to divide attention/multitask and so forth, their skills
suffered vs. their skills when measured in the absence of
alcohol (or hangover).

This includes a number of individuals who loudly asserted
that alcohol had no effect on their skills.

This result is so consistant that I'd be very interested to
see a study showing a number of individuals who could pass
"any and all tests of ANY kind" while drinking from wake
up to lights out.

Regards,
Sydney

James Robinson

February 2nd 04, 04:33 PM

Big John wrote:
>
> I'm glad you both understood what I said.

I understood completely what you said as well, but I also completely
disagree.

> Every one will be gone Monday thank God.

Wrong on that count as well. However, I will be away the rest of the
week.

James Robinson

February 2nd 04, 05:24 PM

Big John wrote:
>
> My posts were against those who arbitrarily made comments about
> drinking that are/were not supportable by facts.

There was nothing arbitrary in the posts. The pilot was measured at
0.13 BAC, which is well above any measure of impairment, whether for
flying or driving a car. Those were the facts.

> In this regard, can you give me cites where a drunken pilot killed any
> one on the ground? This was the thrust of several vocal posts re the
> pilot having his ticket pulled for flying with a breathalizer (sp)
> test showing an arbitrary amount of alcohol in his system.

First, the limit for the amount of alcohol in a person's body is
definitely not arbitrary. Study after study has shown that certain
abilities, such as multitasking and spatial awareness are always
affected by a given proportion of alcohol in your blood. Long term
alcohol users are equally affected, and do not gain a tolerance for
those abilities. Only apologists think otherwise. The pilot was
impaired, period.

> No impairment was ever tested for or shown in that event yet he was
> pilloried.

That is wrong. The pilot had a BAC of 0.13, which means he was clearly
impaired. That level is well above any regulations that govern the use
of alcohol while flying or driving. It's almost four times that allowed
in many countries. There is no need to do any other tests.

> I have see where GA pilots killed themselves and their passengers with
> a high amount of alcohol in their systems but never an accident in
> commercial aviation where alcohol caused the accident.

Are you now advocating the use of alcohol by commercial pilots. I can
think of at least one commercial accident where high blood alcohol was
considered responsible for a number of poor decisions on the part of the
pilot. It was a Japan Airlines cargo flight at Anchorage. AK in 1977.
There are probably more, but I don't have time to look for specifics
right now.

You might like to read this report on the subject:

http://www.aviationcrm.com/alcoholFAA.pdf

It reports that 5% of all the pilots involved in fatal accidents tested
positive for alcohol or drugs. ATP and commercial-rated pilots had
similar percentages.

> This of course could be having two pilots in commercial planes
> and mostly single pilots in GA?

It could also be because commercial pilots are subject to random checks,
so are less likely to indulge. Something like 10 commercial pilots were
caught last year over the limit as a result of the tests.

> Have a nice day and get a cold beer and popcorn and watch the Super
> Bowel.

Personally, I watched the Super _Bowl_, and left the _bowel_ watching to
others. I also had a few beer, and walked home after the party.

Andrew Gideon

February 2nd 04, 10:00 PM

James Robinson wrote:

> It reports that 5% of all the pilots involved in fatal accidents tested
> positive for alcohol or drugs. ATP and commercial-rated pilots had
> similar percentages.

But 95% of all the pilots involved in fatal accidents were sober. It sounds
like drunk is the safer way to fly <grin>.

- Andrew

Robert Lyons

February 3rd 04, 07:56 PM

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down millions
>>of trees or planting one Bush?
>
>
>
> Environmentalists cause the most damage.

Yeah, just like flashlights create cockroaches when you point them into dark corners.

Legrande Harris

February 3rd 04, 11:36 PM

In article >,
Robert Lyons > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down
> >>millions
> >>of trees or planting one Bush?
> >
> >
> >
> > Environmentalists cause the most damage.
>
> Yeah, just like flashlights create cockroaches when you point them into dark
> corners.
>

Banning DDT has caused more deaths than any dictator. Muslims should be
envious of the success environmentalists have had in killing and causing
suffering.

Doug

February 4th 04, 03:48 AM

A forest in Colorado had Spruce Budworm back in the 1930's. They
sprayed with DDT. It killed the worms. The trees died, but their roots
did not. A new tree grew out of each root structure right next to the
dead tree trunk. We now have the world's weirdest forest, with a dead
tree and a distorted live tree right next to the dead one. This would
not have happened if they had not sprayed.

I was flying up in Canada west of Prince George. There is a huge area
there infected by pine beetles. The locals are bemoaning that the
government doesn't do anything. Trouble is, there isn't any fix that
will give a better result than mother nature running her course. Been
there, done that.

I'm not saying there aren't times when insecticides are appropriate.
But not always. Biological systems are very complex. We humans just
don't know and don't have all the tools to do the right thing. Nature
does. Just give it time.

Legrande Harris > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Robert Lyons > wrote:
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>What causes the most severe damage to the environment? Cutting down
> > >>millions
> > >>of trees or planting one Bush?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Environmentalists cause the most damage.
> >
> > Yeah, just like flashlights create cockroaches when you point them into dark
> > corners.
> >
>
> Banning DDT has caused more deaths than any dictator. Muslims should be
> envious of the success environmentalists have had in killing and causing
> suffering.

C J Campbell

February 4th 04, 05:50 AM

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
| A forest in Colorado had Spruce Budworm back in the 1930's. They
| sprayed with DDT. It killed the worms. The trees died, but their roots
| did not. A new tree grew out of each root structure right next to the
| dead tree trunk. We now have the world's weirdest forest, with a dead
| tree and a distorted live tree right next to the dead one. This would
| not have happened if they had not sprayed.
|
| I was flying up in Canada west of Prince George. There is a huge area
| there infected by pine beetles. The locals are bemoaning that the
| government doesn't do anything. Trouble is, there isn't any fix that
| will give a better result than mother nature running her course. Been
| there, done that.
|
| I'm not saying there aren't times when insecticides are appropriate.
| But not always. Biological systems are very complex. We humans just
| don't know and don't have all the tools to do the right thing. Nature
| does. Just give it time.

Sure, if you don't mind the Dutch elm becoming extinct.

Peter

February 4th 04, 07:02 AM

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Doug" > wrote in message
> om...

> | I'm not saying there aren't times when insecticides are appropriate.
> | But not always. Biological systems are very complex. We humans just
> | don't know and don't have all the tools to do the right thing. Nature
> | does. Just give it time.
>
> Sure, if you don't mind the Dutch elm becoming extinct.

Since there has never been a "Dutch Elm" species I don't see why anyone
would mind if it became extinct.

There is a fungal infection called Dutch Elm disease to which different elm
species show varying degrees of susceptibility, but not to the point of it
causing extinction. The American elm is particularly susceptible, but would
not have become extinct given the length of time it takes for the fungus to
kill the tree. Even if infected, new trees may already reproduce before
they are killed by the fungus. In a natural setting the more susceptible
species will have their range reduced and there will be selective pressure
to increase resistance until stability is restored. The introduction of
resistant hybrid strains is an artificial attempt to speed up this process,
but extinction would not have been likely in any event.

The problem we perceive is largely manmade with the deliberate planting of
row upon row of the same species of elm down city streets and in replanted
forests followed by the inadvertent introduction of the fungus in imported
wood from Europe.

Dennis O'Connor

February 4th 04, 01:44 PM

In my part of Michigan there is disease that goes through the white birch
trees in my woods about once a decade and kills them... Being they are not
a hot political issue no gov't agency has come to my 'rescue' with a cure
worse than the disease... As a result I still have lots of white birch trees
even if the big old ones have died off...
denny

"Doug" > wrote in message Trouble is, there
isn't any fix that
> will give a better result than mother nature running her course. Been
> there, done that.
>

Ron Natalie

February 4th 04, 06:52 PM

"Doug" > wrote in message om...
> A forest in Colorado had Spruce Budworm back in the 1930's.

Is Spruce Budworm a ancester of Spuds McKenszie?

Ron Natalie

February 4th 04, 06:53 PM

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message ...
> In my part of Michigan there is disease that goes through the white birch
> trees in my woods about once a decade and kills them... Being they are not
> a hot political issue no gov't agency has come to my 'rescue' with a cure
> worse than the disease... As a result I still have lots of white birch trees
> even if the big old ones have died off...

Of course, we don't have any American Chestnut to speak of anymore.

G.R. Patterson III

February 4th 04, 07:38 PM

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Of course, we don't have any American Chestnut to speak of anymore.

They're actually pretty close to having a survivable strain. Two approaches have
been used by different outfits. One guy has been cross-breeding with Asian
chestnuts and another outfit has been trying to build up immunity by working
with the most disease resistant wild trees he can find. IIRC, the latter group
is closest to release. The NPS is already talking about the need to relax the regs
against introducing plants to the National Parks when the time comes, especially
if it's the Asian cross-breed that's most successful.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.