Linda Giannoni 
Member since Jun 12, 2013


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “The Eucalyptus Is Part of California

Thank you for this excellent well-informed and carefully reasoned article.

I'd like to add that in my forty years in the East Bay hiking on trails and observing all trees with great appreciation, I've noticed that groves and stands of eucalyptus tend to occupy the same size areas for decades. It's inaccurate to describe them as "invasive"--a word that is emotionally loaded, anyway, and has its origins in warfare.

It's technologically-dependent human beings who continue to build and spread artificial environments that destroy plant and animal habitats, who use poisons that injure and kill, and who have created hazards that did not exist before. Using chainsaws and bulldozers to kill "non-native" trees and adding yet more poison to land, water and air only perpetuates the same pattern. Instead, we need to put our energies and resources towards learning how to work and live with nature instead of against it.

18 likes, 20 dislikes
Posted by Linda Giannoni on 07/25/2013 at 1:00 PM

Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?

I don’t think any trees should be cut, not even for thinning. It’s not necessary, especially if dry litter is removed periodically. Besides being unnecessary, tree cutting is harmful because it is being followed up by herbicide on the stumps and on “unwanted foliage.” No herbicides should be used, ever. All living organisms, including us humans, are already poisoned through and through. This means enormous suffering in the form of illness, disability and death. It makes no sense to continue poisoning ourselves and all life around us.

The proposed plan would create a definite ecological and health disaster lasting for generations while actually increasing the risk of wildfire—all on the pretext of preventing a fire disaster that might never happen. There are real fire prevention measures, like creating and enforcing better building codes and better landscape maintenance by homeowners, some of which have already been done.

A life-sustaining plan would be to hire unemployed people to clear dry forest litter whenever needed and maybe remove low-hanging branches. Don’t give more money to Monsanto and Dow or to logging companies.

For some great national and international perspectives on this profit-driven plan, see http://www.care2.com/causes/fema-to-replac…

The comments include one from a Katrina survivor who warns against trusting FEMA. And this pithy comment from Gloria p., “What about filling up the oceans with cement so we don’t have hurricanes?”

7 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Linda Giannoni on 06/13/2013 at 11:58 AM

Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?

I don’t think any trees should be cut, not even for thinning. It’s not necessary, especially if dry litter is removed periodically. Besides being unnecessary, tree cutting is harmful because it's being followed up by herbicide on the stumps and on “unwanted foliage.” No herbicides should be used, ever. All living organisms, including us humans, are already poisoned through and through. This means enormous suffering in the form of illness, disability and death. It makes no sense to continue poisoning ourselves and all life around us.

The proposed plan would definitely create a ecological and health disaster lasting for generations while actually increasing the risk of wildfire—all on the pretext of preventing a fire disaster that might never happen. There are real fire prevention measures, like creating and enforcing better building codes and better landscape maintenance by homeowners, some of which have already been done.

A life-sustaining plan would be to hire unemployed people to clear dry forest litter whenever needed and maybe remove low-hanging branches. Don’t give more money to Monsanto and Dow or to logging companies.

For some great national and international perspectives on this profit-driven plan, see http://www.care2.com/causes/fema-to-replac…

The comments include one from a Katrina survivor who warns against trusting FEMA. And this pithy comment from Gloria p., “What about filling up the oceans with cement so we don’t have hurricanes?”

5 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Linda Giannoni on 06/13/2013 at 11:54 AM

Re: “Is UC Berkeley's Plan to Cut Down 54,000 Trees Necessary?

Thank you for this article--the information from URS Corporation is crucial and revealing. It supports the common-sense response most people have that the proposed plan is a bad idea and a shameful waste of taxpayer money that is badly needed elsewhere.

There is additional expert testimony, by a former Chief of Fire Prevention for the Oakland Army Base, at http://sutroforest.com/2009/08/08/no-tree-….
David Maloney was part of the Oakland-Berkeley Mayors’ Firestorm Task Force after the 1991 hills fire. His letter states:

“The Task Force Report concluded that the spread of the fire was mostly due to the radiant heat generated by burning houses. A burning house has a sustained radiant heat transmission of 2,500-3,000 degrees. The spread of the fire was not due primarily to burning trees — eucalyptus or any other species.

The Hills Conservation Network is correct in its support of thinning out the East Bay Hills wooded areas. It would be a waste of taxpayers’ money to clear-cut the East Bay Hills of trees that are highly fire-resistant, and it could lead to another devastating fire. Because of our conclusions, new fire prevention codes relative to housing construction were promulgated by the State of California and various cities throughout California. There were no new fire codes promulgated relative to the species of trees that would populate the East Bay hills.”

As for the herbicides they want to use, Roundup is bad enough, but Garlon is even worse,(and others are mentioned as well). Dow AgroSciences’ MSDS sheets for Garlon 4 Ultra and Garlon 3A show that the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act lists both as “immediate (acute) health hazard” and “delayed (chronic) health hazard”.

From the Garlon 4 Ultra MSDS: “…highly toxic to aquatic organisms…; “Prevent from entering soil…waterways and/or groundwater”; “decomposition products can include…: hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxide, phosgene.” (All toxic)

How are these poisons not going to harm anyone? How are they not going to be washed into creeks and eventually into the Bay? How are residues in dry soil not going to be carried by wind for miles around?

6 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Linda Giannoni on 06/12/2013 at 7:43 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation