These stories annoy me. On the one hand, yes, if you are immuno-suppressed you should probably pursue hobbies other than 'farming' microbes. Here's a thought - Compare the number of instances of someone getting ill from compost with the number of people who die every year from infections they picked up in the hospital. Hospitals are much more dangerous than compost piles and they are 'sterile' right? Then look at the number of people who fall ill from composting or gardening vs the number of people who fall and either die or are seriously injured from slipping in the shower (OK, I shower more because I compost and garden so maybe that increased showering is a composting risk). Take stories like this in statistical context. Dog bites man does not make the headlines, man bites dog does because it is a rarity. How many ER cases are related to the use of pesticides and herbicides - the inherent risk of a chemical gardening regimen, versus the number of cases from organic methods. 100:1? 1000-1? My best friend has been an ER doc for 30 years, he is a poison expert by training and due to experience in the ER. In the last ten years he has had ONE composting case when some complete idiot got distracted and drove a very dirty tine from his composting fork through his foot and needed it cleaned out and an antibiotic prescribed. Yes, my foot, my stupidity. I'm dumb enough to put a metal spike through my foot but not dumb enough to believe that composting is more dangerous than spraying toxins around the yard.

If you would like I am pretty sure I will have the following to trade: water celery, yellow water iris - iff not I have seed) and possibly a pale yellow hardy water lily (I have to dig mine up and check come this may). As far as trades go .. I am always up for part sun/shade/woodland ... well anything for a small space garden or container. Surprise me. Just send me an email kin2mice@yahoo.com as I sometimes don't watch postings. Good luck Mouse aka Rebecca

OH... my favorite time just happens to be any time I take a minute, or 5 or ... G.. only knows could be 15 or more mins... and I start, as you say, clucking like a mother hen... whether its just turning someone to get a bit more sunlight (so scarce lately in New England)... tweek off an untidy dead leaf (leftover from the EA potting room)... or even repot someone... (that is not yet a hoya... but one of my other lovelies... AV or whomever... ) and to be truthful, the dog is snoring, the cat is sleeping and sometimes there's no sound... or I might be supposedly getting ready to go to work... 3 days of the week...so that could end up being a rushing to get ready for work... just always have to touch and peek and talk to the lovelies!... and that's always a favorite time. Thanks for asking! Eileen

from the Wisconsin State Journal, 8-14-05: SC Johnson, A family company H. Fisk Johnson, Ph.D. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dear Wisconsin Neighbor: Like many of you, I was disheartened when the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently cleared the way for the construction of two coal-fired power plants at Oak Creek near our homes and workplaces. Many people may wonder why a company such as SC Johnson would get involved in the decision to build power plants. The construction of a power plant is a very public decision that significantly impacts the environment, public health and the economy for generations to come. That's why my dad, Sam Johnson, four years ago put himself in the unenviable role of opposing WE Energies' plan to build two new pulverized coal plants at Oak Creek. Dad thought it was his duty as a member of this community to speak up and question the wisdom of erecting outdated, polluting coal plants on the shores of Lake Michigan-a very delicate and important regional resource. WE Energies plan was the wrong one and the wrong direction for our time. So, SC Johnson partnered with civic organizations and thousands of Wisconsin residents to fight WE Energies plan for these plants. Our reasons for taking up this cause are as valid today as they were when we started. The Supreme Court didn't dispute them. These plants will spew more than 20 tons of pollutants into our atmosphere yearly and draw more water from Lake Michigan than the entire Chicago metro area draws every day for drinking. The plants will further degrade our air quality in an area the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already declared "a severe non-attainment area." This facility will compromise public health and cost ratepayers $2.5 billion, more than other available, cleaner alternatives. The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the issues. The justices ruled only on the legitimacy of the process, concluding in a split decision that the Public Service Commission had exercised its proper authority in granting the licenses for the plants. So, this new plant will be built from a process that: -Completely excluded testimony from public health experts on the adverse human health effects-and costs-of increased emissions of pollutants. -Mischaracterized the new coal plants and their new water intake structure as an existing facility, subjecting the plants to lower standards than apply to new plants. -Failed to consider other cooling water technologies and other sites to reduce the adverse ecological effects on Lake Michigan, including the destruction of a sensitive shoreline bluff and billions of fish and other aquatic organisms in the intake system. Reasonalble people can disagree about whether burning high pulverized coal and using lake water for cooling are appropriate technologies for 2005 and beyond. However, I think its hard to disagree that the public is entitled to a thorough, robust evaluation of this option as well as alternatives. We fought a valiant fight. We devoted countless hours and significant resources to the cause. Leading experts in ecology, energy generation and human health agreed with us. We joined forces with a legion of concerned citizens. We could continue to skirmish with WE Energies over the issue, but frankly, the fight is over. The high court's decision was heartbreaking, but it was final. So, we will stop pursuing our legal challenges of the air and water permits for the plants. It is time to move forward, not back. The question for all of us now is: Which way is forward? We believe the future is not in 30-year-old technology that harms the environment, impairs human health and stifles the economy. Nor is it in a state approval process that allows something this outdated to be built. The future is in 21st century innovations such as coal gasification and other technologies that hold the promise of cleaner, more efficient, energy production, at lower costs. It is time for our legislature and our Governor to take up this cause and ensure that Wisconsin's citizens benefit from new energy innovations. Other states-including Minnesota, Ohio, and Illinois-are moving in that direction. So must Wisconsin, if we are a state that wants to remain competitive for business and, much more important, a state that is a great place to live and raise a family. I call on Governor Doyle to work with the legislative leadership to that end. We need to improve the state's energy regulatory process. We must have laws that embrace new technology and move us toward alternative energy sources that are cheaper, cleaner and safer. That is the future. That should be our common goal. I want to thank the residents of this great state who joined us in this fight. They exercised their rights and obligations in the finest fashion of our state and our republic. I am proud to have been a partner with them and I salute them. I hope their committment will continue; I know mine will. Fisk