Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.consumers
Subject: Re: Re: No Leaded Gas -- Now What? [trees]
Message-ID: <256@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 02:58:04 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.256
Posted: Mon Mar 25 02:58:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 04:20:23 EST
References: <341@ho95b.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.auto:6238 net.consumers:2043

> >In what part of the country do trees cause the most pollution (besides
> >the White House of course).    :-)
> >-- 
> >	--steve kramer
> 
> Actually, there was some (not a lot, but some) truth in Reagan's statement.
> Ever hear of the Great Smoky Mountains, or the Blue Ridge Mountains?
> Supposedly, southern pines emit a fair amount of ozone (I think
> that's the right gas), which causes a bluish haze, etc.
> I read this about 5-10 years ago and it just stuck in my mind,
> so I'm willing to retract it if somebody has a reliable source.
> 
> Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran)

The pines probably emit turpenes, which are hydrocarbons similar to
turpentine.  Ozone is ionized oxygen.

I've never heard any evidence that tree emissions are harmful.  On the other
hand, we know that auto emissions are harmful.  Which would you rather breath:
the air from the Blue Ridge Mountains, or that from Los Angeles?

A little common sense goes a long way.  If plants and trees really contribute
more to air pollution than cars and factories do, then why is the air quality
so much worse in urban than in rural areas?
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak