On 9/10/96, John Innes writes: > unanswered. I have not seen the AP report. If the message from Bret is > true, then AP Press got it wrong. The report published by the EU and UN, > parts of which I wrote on behalf of Switzerland, and all of which I > reviewed, did NOT say that "almost one if five trees show clear signs of > damage from pollution". The AP article specifically attributed foliage loss (at a rate of 18%) to sulfur emmissions, and stazted that the hardest hit species were silver fir, common beech, and two types of oaks. The article did mention drought and insects as factors, but clearly stated that the study attributed "most" of the defoliation to pollution. The report says that 25.3% of the 117 035 trees > assessed in the sample are classed as having more than 25% defoliation. Perhaps we are talking about a differant report, the one I'm referring to mentions that 18% of the trees are experiencing 25% defoliation. This report was released yesterday form Brussels, Belgium. I would certainly be interested in verifying/repudiating the articles claims. Does anyone else know of this report? Bret Diamond Oregon, USA
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0