That's interesting, but it's like punishing a kid. It may hurt now, but in the long run it will be beneficial if it's done the right way.

Interesting.

sweetness

I gon't get it.

Quickly! To the wildlife reservations!

TAKE THAT TREE-HUGGERS!!!

>.>
<.<

Some of the forests in the US are in poor health due to crowding and overgrowth anyway. Some stands would benefit from thinning.

I don't quite understand this... do the volatile organic compounds break down naturally over time? Trees have been around for thousands of years; why would it now be a problem? Anyone care to enlighten me?

Their research is severely flawed. Here are a list of problems off the top of my head:

1. Many forests are replaced with genetically altered "versions" of the trees that were cut down.
2. Many forests are replaced with 95+% of the same breed of tree - they cut down a mix of douglas fir, alder, cedar, and hemlock, and they replace it with highly concentrated forests full of douglas fir only.
3. How do they know that the pollution they're measuring isn't from the tons of exhaust all the logging equipment puts out, or the oil that wa dripped on the ground and now the trees are eating, or the dead animals that were caused by all the logging in the first place? Note they said "newly planted" forests, which, around here in WA anyway, generally means it was just clearcut and replanted. Even they admit that it's the man-made forests that are causing the problems, not individuals planting trees in their gardens.

Well, it was interesting to read, but I have to agree with Brian. If this research is duplicated with the same, or rather more convincing results, it might give something to think about considering the "artificial", man-made forests. Natural forests? Well, I would rather accept a little O3 than be totally without O2...