BM_discussion http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion BM_discussion@googlegroups.com
Today's topics: * from BM Main group(mail about tree planting) - 2 messages, 2 authors http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/592b882be941b73a * CAN ANY ONE CONTRIBUTE MORE TO A CAUSE BY REMAINING CELIBATE - 2 messages, 2 authors http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/b68b2bd0fa8d5263 * rights of chapters - 2 messages, 2 authors http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/ca0447823c508749 ============================================================================== TOPIC: from BM Main group(mail about tree planting) http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/592b882be941b73a ============================================================================== == 1 of 2 == Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 2:49 am From: lucky verma Moderator BhartUdayMission <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This mail has been redirected to BM Discussion Group. From: Arvind Kale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Tree planting not always green.Forests suck water & soil. Pl. react to this. Dear Knowledgable & Expert Friends, Pl. react to this News / Research item that Forests can be harmful to the Nature. Tree planting is not always green ,and that " Forests can suck up water and change the soil.............. " (Arvind Kale) NAGPUR (India) News Published online: 22 December 2005; | doi:10.1038/news051219-14 Tree planting not always greenForests can suck up water and change the soil. Michael Hopkin These pine plantations in South Africa were shown to dry up local streams. © SciencePlanting forests to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere can have a range of side effects, including drying up streams and making soil saltier, according to a global study. The discovery highlights the tradeoffs involved in tree-planting projects, say researchers. Because plants use carbon dioxide to grow, planting forests of large, fast-growing trees is one way to remove the gas from the atmosphere, thus staving off global warming. But such forests need a lot of water, say Robert Jackson, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and his colleagues. The team surveyed more than 500 places where new forests have been planted over the past half-century. In 13% of cases, streams dried up completely for at least a year. On average, plantations cut local stream flow by more than 50%. "It doesn't matter where you are in the world, when you grow trees on croplands, you use more water," Jackson says. The effect can reduce the water available for drinking and irrigation, and harm local aquatic ecosystems. And forest soils are saltier and more acidic, compared with other types of plant cover such as crops or grasslands, the researchers found. They publish their results in this week's issue of Science1. Carbon trading These changes occur partly because tree-planting projects choose fast-growing species that suck up more carbon dioxide, Jackson explains. Often these are evergreen trees that grow all year round, meaning that they take up a lot of carbon dioxide and water. Some changes to water flow may be desirable, the team points out. For example, forest plantations in the US agricultural belt have reduced nutrient runoff from farmlands into the sea, which can cause algal blooms that kill marine life. The key is to consider local factors when implementing afforestation projects, the researchers argue. "Policy-makers often have a set of 'carbon blinders' on - they're thinking and talking only about carbon," Jackson says. Some nations and companies are currently planting forests as a way of earning 'carbon credits' in international carbon markets. These allow greenhouse-gas emitters such as power companies to balance their emissions by buying carbon savings elsewhere. The Clean Development Mechanism, the United Nations framework that approves and validates such efforts for projects under the Kyoto Protocol, has also approved the method of reforesting degraded land to suck up carbon. No forest-planting project has so far been registered by this mechanism, but Jackson says afforestation projects could be accredited soon. He only hopes that all the costs - including the effect on water - are being taken into account, he says. The begining of the Civilization depended on AGRICULTURE - so does it's FUTURE. dear friends, Every chemical reaction has some ignition temperature. Accordingly may be it be in the initial state of forest growing that it consumes water, may be afterwards forests may reduce global warming and invite more rain and help in water conservation. I m no expert so this is just an assumption.Afterall the earth has survived with denser forests than that of today. Good luck, kanika --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP. == 2 of 2 == Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 11:28 pm From: boywonder amit dear friends, anything done in excess and in haphazard way would cause probs. so planting trees in haphazard might be dangerous as sent in the attachment. but imagine earth with trees or no afforestation done hence forth, either way global warming is showing its effect, ozone has already ruptured in a part of earth(northern or southern hemisphere not sure) and if its in the southern hemisphere and if antartica starts melting then a point might come when whole earth would be under water. and also trees are also important near vegetative lands as it prevents soil erosion. imagine the high temp. wothout trees life would be impossible. so plant trees but in right way. but i have a suggestion over increasing the number of trees.... plant it in ur locality, in this trees will also be planted and would make it look better regards amit hargude On 1/15/06, lucky verma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > *Moderator BhartUdayMission <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote: > > *This mail has been redirected to BM Discussion Group.* > ** > *From:* Arvind Kale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *Subject:* Tree planting not always green.Forests suck water & soil. Pl. > react to this. > > > Dear Knowledgable & Expert Friends, > > Pl. react to this News / Research item that Forests can be harmful to the > Nature. Tree planting is not always green ,and that " Forests can suck up > water and change the soil.............. " > > (Arvind Kale) > NAGPUR (India) > > > News > Published online: 22 December 2005; | doi:10.1038/news051219-14 Tree > planting not always green*Forests can suck up water and change the soil.* > Michael > Hopkin <http://www.nature.com/news/about/aboutus.html#Hopkin> > > > These pine plantations in South Africa were shown to dry up local > streams. > *(c) Science*Planting forests to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere > can have a range of side effects, including drying up streams and making > soil saltier, according to a global study. The discovery highlights the > tradeoffs involved in tree-planting projects, say researchers. > > Because plants use carbon dioxide to grow, planting forests of large, > fast-growing trees is one way to remove the gas from the atmosphere, thus > staving off global warming. But such forests need a lot of water, say Robert > Jackson, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and his colleagues. > > The team surveyed more than 500 places where new forests have been planted > over the past half-century. In 13% of cases, streams dried up completely for > at least a year. On average, plantations cut local stream flow by more than > 50%. > > "It doesn't matter where you are in the world, when you grow trees on > croplands, you use more water," Jackson says. The effect can reduce the > water available for drinking and irrigation, and harm local aquatic > ecosystems. > > And forest soils are saltier and more acidic, compared with other types of > plant cover such as crops or grasslands, the researchers found. They publish > their results in this week's issue of > *Science*1<http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/051219-14.html#B1> > . > > *Carbon trading* > > These changes occur partly because tree-planting projects choose > fast-growing species that suck up more carbon dioxide, Jackson explains. > Often these are evergreen trees that grow all year round, meaning that they > take up a lot of carbon dioxide and water. > > Some changes to water flow may be desirable, the team points out. For > example, forest plantations in the US agricultural belt have reduced > nutrient runoff from farmlands into the sea, which can cause algal blooms > that kill marine life. > > The key is to consider local factors when implementing afforestation > projects, the researchers argue. "Policy-makers often have a set of 'carbon > blinders' on - they're thinking and talking only about carbon," Jackson > says. > > Some nations and companies are currently planting forests as a way of > earning 'carbon credits' in international carbon markets. These allow > greenhouse-gas emitters such as power companies to balance their emissions > by buying carbon savings elsewhere. > > The Clean Development Mechanism, the United Nations framework that > approves and validates such efforts for projects under the Kyoto Protocol, > has also approved the method of reforesting degraded land to suck up carbon. > No forest-planting project has so far been registered by this mechanism, but > Jackson says afforestation projects could be accredited soon. He only hopes > that all the costs - including the effect on water - are being taken into > account, he says. > > > > *The begining of the Civilization depended on AGRICULTURE - so does it's > FUTURE. * > > dear friends, > > Every chemical reaction has some ignition temperature. > Accordingly may be it be in the initial state of forest growing that it > consumes water, may be afterwards forests may reduce global warming and > invite more rain and help in water conservation. > > I m no expert so this is just an assumption.Afterall the earth has > survived with denser forests than that of today. > > Good luck, > > kanika > > > > ------------------------------ > Yahoo! Photos > Got holiday prints? See all the > ways<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/holidayprints/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38089/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//print_splash>to > get quality prints in your hands ASAP. > > ============================================================================== TOPIC: CAN ANY ONE CONTRIBUTE MORE TO A CAUSE BY REMAINING CELIBATE http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/b68b2bd0fa8d5263 ============================================================================== == 1 of 2 == Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 11:29 am From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Friends, I agree with the points raised by Kanika. We should not create an atmosphere where celibacy is made superior. I sincerely believe that celibacy is a very challenging thing, it has its importance and gives more time to an individual to do service. ON the other hand, I believe that marriage leads to balance in life So I believe that celibacy/non-celibacy should be a personal choice, and so celibacy need not have to be promoted in BM. Regards, Kiran == 2 of 2 == Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 11:58 am From: Ranjan Singh Hi, I don't think BM is promoting celibacy. At least I haven't felt so. So your fears are far fetched. I am not in favor of taking any vow following footsteps of others and I consider it immoral to influence others to take a vow. However, celibacy could be a conscious decision, an experiment, for those who are willing. We have very wrong notions of morality. There are one thousand and one ways to declare that a person is morally corrupt. Let us redefine morality beyond one's sexual behavior. If a celibate relinquish his decision of celibacy, I don't think one is morally corrupt unless he/she embraces hypocrisy. With Regards, Ranjan ============================================================================== TOPIC: rights of chapters http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/browse_thread/thread/ca0447823c508749 ============================================================================== == 1 of 2 == Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 5:07 pm From: "kanika" Like the central and state governments divide certain fields between them for administration e.g agriculture,education etc r managed at state level and defence,foreign relation, co-ordination in states etc r managed at central level. Should we 've some thing like this in our central management and local chapters ? I believe that 'll lead to better ,faster and smarter working of BM.etc r managed at central level . == 2 of 2 == Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 9:37 pm From: "amit hargude" vande mataram, first of all dont compare ourselves with any govt. as the govt. comprises larger number of people and have responsibility of crores of people( though they r irresponsible). first of all let our group be a force of atleast 10,000 active members, then an organisational structure will be required. as far present day goes we are hardly 1000+ with 1/10th number of active members. and also the central team is not yet required as wat ''we do in mumbai would not hold water in chennai'', so for the time being we have to concentrate on our local chapter and not think about it. the central team and local team donot need these kinda division as we r very few in number with respect to active members. so the moral of the story is.. first we should get active members and also continue with our ground work. regards amit hargude ============================================================================== You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BM_discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to BM_discussion@googlegroups.com or visit http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change the way you get mail from this group, visit: http://groups.google.com/group/BM_discussion/subscribe To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ============================================================================== Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
