In the big bad world of organic standards, the typical pattern of corporate colonization is happening. The organizations that set the standards (about what pest controls and soil additives are allowed) were run by people who were also growers-- small scale, conscionable, concerned for the health of the soil and the food. Now the big organic players are buying up the smaller producers, and they are starting to throw their weight around in the standards area. The big guys, of course, want to dilute the standards, and they have deep pockets to buy the congressmen who make the USDA laws. It's a fascinating story that you can read about here: Organic Farmers Fight National Organic Standards For the non-commercial grower and home gardener, the question is, as Kimmsr so nicely describes, what do I accept in my garden based on my own values and knowledge about soil and ecosystem health? There is no single authority out there to tell us what is right and wrong. All inputs and cultural practices exist on a continuum from downright horrible to accepted without question. For example, should we use mineral soil amendments (such as rock phosphate, greensand, carbonatite, etc.) if the minerals have to be trucked thousands of miles across the country? What role do petro-miles play in determining whether a product is environmentally friendly? Another example: coir. Coir is used as an alternative to peat, to aid with moisture retention and aeration in soil and growing media. It is a renewable resource (unlike peat moss) but coconut does not grow in North America. It has to be transported from Southern Asia. How environmentally sound it this practice? And corn gluten for weed control. It is pretty much impossible to buy non-GMO corn gluten on this continent. So, if I advocate the use of gluten as an alternative to 2-4D, am I promoting GM? And bone/blood meal. I'm pretty sure that no certifying body accepts bone meal or blood meal. Yet these products can be obtained locally and, sometimes you can get ground bones from organic meat processors. They do no harm to the soil, and they recycle resources that would otherwise go to the landfill. You see what I'm getting at. We need to learn about what is generally accepted by most certifying organizations, and then we need to make our own decisions based on our own research and values. Thankfully, in the future, we will not be having this debate. All agriculture will be non-chemical. Most conventional fertilizers and pesticides are either made from oil products, or made in factories powered by oil products, and they rely on massive oil-powered transportation networks to get them from the third-world to us. As oil and gas become more scarce and more expensive, and the carbon age comes to an end, there will be very little chemical fertilizers available. So whether we like it or not, organic localism is coming to agriculture. We won't have the luxury of choice among inputs to our farms and gardens. We'll use rotations, green manures, animal and plant compost, cultural practices, trap crops, and lots of manual labour.

There are now strict land use laws concerning logging (might not have been there in the 80's but now they are). What you talk about in stripping or raping the land is not an issue for most areas. People need to be able to support themsleves and their families but no one wants them to do so because a tree might be harvested. Sustainable logging works. The National Forests are being sold where urban sprawl is bumping up against it... It's not willie nillie process that is being done, not sure where you live but if you haven't personally seen this than a trip might be in order. It's great to have an opinion but make sure you aren't only looking at things one sided. Schools need funding - if not any forest project work than where will the money come from? Most don't want to raise their taxes to fund what once logging did. I can say that the forest being proposed for sale in the west is being chosen in an adult and knowledgable manner. Not one campsite is being sold... Would rather see a forest be useful and managed properly than have all the trees die (which you know they do) and fall on the ground creating a worse fire danger... I believe people are more important than trees but they can both live in a non-radical environment.

Im retired and disabled and have in my lifetime, done a lot of DIY projects as well as having paid to have some done that I messed up. I read and comment on some 30 + DIY forums and others. My favorites are The Garden webs of course Terry Love Plumbing Discussion This Old house House and Garden Master Plumbers.com plumbing.com DIYchatroom.com doityourself.com and off the DIY home subject I spend a lot of time in mercedesshop.com because I collect and drive old Mercedes. Additionally I write a blog on DIY projects and product updates and how to's. Needless to say it keeps me off the streets..LOL Richard

Will the interior walls be open anyway? Filling the interior walls with regular insulation will help a little for sound especially where outlets are back to back in the same stud bay but it won't be anything impressive. For better sound separation you need additional wall board tight to the old finish or mounted with resilient channels or GreenGlue, etc. I can't imagine what kind of insulation would have an R value of only 3 even from the 60's. That would be about an inch of fiberglass. I never saw anything like that in the 60's. Does it fill a 2x4 cavity? Without knowing what the material is I guess the best answer is put the old stuff in but don't expect sound reduction that you would actually notice. If there is a door in a wall it will serve no practical purpose to insulate it with any kind of insulation.