Comments by "Gaza is not Amalek" (@Ass_of_Amalek) on "Business Insider"
channel.
-
1300
-
1000
-
816
-
773
-
507
-
422
-
314
-
275
-
193
-
144
-
@cyantn1634 actually the vast majority of pearls including these are not natural, because they contain a fake core. for the cheapest freshwater pearls, I think they use plastic balls that only get a millimeter or two of nacre coating, and in this case they use mussel shells, which are a similar material to oyster pearls, but still fake filler material and made round and big to give the pearls a big headstart in growing big and round. until a few hundred years ago, all pearls were natural, grown around randomly implanted grains of sand or shell. natural pearls only occur in a small percentage of oysters, fewer per oyster, they take a lot longer to reach the same size because their original core is very small, and they are much less likely to be round due to the lack of a round core as a starting point and the lack of manual turning of the oyster. nowadays, pearls are checked I think with x-rays to show wether they are made of concentric layers of nacre all the way to the center and thus natural, in which case they are far more expensive due to their rarity. plastic cores are certainly easy to identify, whereas these mussel shell cores may be an attempt to fool testing equipment with a similar density to oyster nacre. though I think there probably are ways to identify the lack of concentric layering. but at least the weight of the pearl will be convincing, as opposed to pearls with plastic cores.
143
-
100
-
97
-
could be great, but the video is missing an explanation of what the product actually can and can't do. you talked about very superficial tests about killing bacteria, but people normally clean with the primary intent of removing various types of visible dirt, and you didn't say anything about what this could do there. I know that that primary pineapple enzyme is great at destroying proteins, but that's quite different from the normal soap-based cleaning products that primarily dissolve fats in water. does the pineapple stuff also work for fats?
also you called the product a "soap" after they added oils, but you don't get soap by mixing oils with acids, you get soap by mixing oils with bases.
edit: read the other comments, feel dumb now for not realising that the stuff is vinegar. sure, vinegar has cleaning applications (though I absolutely despise the smell of normal vinegar used for cleaning), and if this process actually preserves the bromelain enzyme, that could make the pineapple vinegar more effective for some cleaning jobs than normal vinegar, since that stuff is really good at breaking down and dissolving proteins, which I believe are a category of substances that soaps tend to have a little bit of trouble with. but it would certainly not be a replacement for detergents, just a potentially better vinegar. and I don't see how it would be suitable for washing skin or accidental skin contact whatsoever, I don't want vinegar on my skin, and bromelain very noticeable attacks skin and mucous membranes whenever you cut or eat fresh pineapple.
83
-
these people are doing a much better job than the other trash repurposing you havs featured. they're cleaning up a lot of really harmful trash, including probably a lot of collection from the ocean (because flip flops float and collect on the shore), which is very environmentally helpful and otherwise quite rare in trash recycling, they have created jobs for a pretty large number of people, those people are now no longer contributing to problematic logging to get carving material, and they're making really good products with a whole lot of skill. it also aounds like they compensate trash collectors better than collection of trash normally pays, since they can afford it and seem to be able to use as much material as they can get, having many carvers employed and very wide distribution. I was wondering what they would do with the waste, and they said that they're making mattresses for refugees, which sounds like it might be a really good use. at least it's probably suitable for using almost all of the foam waste.
and I'm not religious, but I bet some of these guys were VERY happy when the pope was gifted one of their products! :)
P.S. who is the goofball who decided to make the narwhal? xD
81
-
79
-
I'm not buying the claim that what they're using is some plant oil mixture that magically works like epoxy resin. as a violin maker, I'm quite familiar with natural resins and oils usable for making varnishes and the like, and I'm not aware of anything like that, other than perhaps urushi sap that could possibly harden with moist coffee grounds, but I believe that would take weeks, not less than four days. urushi hardens with moisture, all other natural resin and oil options either polymerize with oxygen or dry by evaporation, or would need to be melted and mixed hot. what they're showing is relatively quick hardening of a cold mix with no air exposure or heating - only two-component resins like epoxy harden like that, and the sturdiness of the result certainly suggests a synthetic resin, too.
coffee grounds are excellent for composting, they actually work great for adding nutrients to otherwise leaf- and wood-based garden, park, or plant farm compost, and worms love them. coffee grounds saturated with epoxy on the other hand are effectively particularly toxic microplastic. the subtractive CNC-cut process these people are using produces a lot of waste (much more waste than glasses frames), and whatever that alleged "plant oil mixture" is will certainly make the waste more environmentally problematic than the coffee grounds were to begin with, even if it was just magically epoxy-like natural oil and resin.
in short, the environmentalist branding here is truly absurd, it's absolute hipster BS.
77
-
74
-
73
-
61
-
50
-
50
-
45
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
40
-
I'm a bit surprised that much shorter coconut palms aren't already the norm, it seems like the domestication of the coconut is lagging behind in modernisation compared to many other food crops there. I would consider it to be mostly beneficial for harvesting, especially climbing but also pole-cutting, but it would also simplify most harvesting machinery one might try to develop (because making the machine less tall makes it less prone to falling over). more western common fruit like apples, oranges and peaches have been mostly grown short for easy harvesting for probably well over 100 years, especially for mechanical harvesting, and those don't even get as tall as coconut palms anyway. grapes have been grown short since forever. of course it is trickier with palms because you can't just cut them shorter, since they're incapable of branching out, but grains, which as grasses are more related to palms, have also been bred to grow much shorter (I think barley in particular), as this way they grow more grain and less straw while being relatively resistant to wind damage. use of synthetic plant hormones to shorten stalks is also common (that's how they make those super short potted sunflowers you can buy for decoration).
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
himalayan salt is very moderately expensive (it's mined quite cheaply in very substantial quantities), and proper sturgeon caviar doesn't really have proportionally cheaper options.
expensive fruit are a very specific japanese cultural specialty because of japanese traditions of giving fruit as gifts. extremely rich people giving gifts to extremely rich people WANT their gifts to be extremely expensive, and in japan, what they want due to tradition are extremely expensive fruit. the price has little to do with production costs or value, it's more the other way around that there is a demand for expensive gift fruit to fulfill at various levels of price absurdity that are entirely set by how much rich people WANT to spend to make a point, and then the fruit suppliers compete with one another and the very best fruit (officially, though unofficially I'm sure producers' personal connections and reputations play a role) are awarded the privilege of fulfilling the most expensive demand. it's not like last year the most expensive fruit cost $100k, but this year no fruit turned out as good, so the most expensive ones only sell for $20k. no, there still are the same buyers who want to spend $100k to demonstrate their wealth, and they'll spend that money on the best fruit of the year no matter how good the best of that year is. it's not like they'll be tasting it anyway, because they're buying them as gifts.
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
the vast majority of these videos are of silly little hipster projects that do little more than provide a few jobs, and sometimes inflated profits through successful deceptive marketing and donation drives. in most of them (not in the case of sargassum), what should be happening instead is state investment in the boring but extremely effective garbage solution that are garbage-burning power plants. it's very important that they use good exhaust filtering systems, but if they do, they enormously reduce the environmental and societal impact of garbage, and they produce plenty of electricity to finance their operation and trash collection and sorting. unlike the US, which still dumps a huge portion of garbage in landfills, most of central europe has managed to ban household waste from landfills (now mostly used for construction waste), by burning everything that can't be recycled (though there has been trickery with labelling stuff as recycleable in order to export it to asian countries where it just ended up in landfills). one of these videos where power plants are particularly obviously the correct solution is the one about the second hand clothes imported by ghana, much of which end up littering what would otherwise be tourist-friendly beaches. almost all clothes, whether cotton, synthetic or animal hair, are perfect fuel for garbage power plants, as they burn well and predictably reasonably cleanly. burning trash is not as marketable as recycling because it'sclear that it's destructive, but it often is the best way to handle the quantity of the problem at all. recycling projects just play around with a tiny portion of the problem, they are mostly incapable of solving anything.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@PainlessTrader-h1u well, for quite a while,but not permanently. I think bread or rice can keep an adult for several months, but less than a year. it's much worse in children, as their growth much more strictly requires a large variety of nutrients, whereas adult bodies can get by on just carbohydrate calories because they're not trying to form tissues at as high a rate. in long famines, such as probably most notably the one in yemen since 2014, the adults mostly just get very skinny but still function, but the children not only die at much higher rates, but the ones that survive on nothing but a little grain become incredibly stunted both in their outwardly visible body development, and in their intellectual development. there are many 5-9 year old kids in yemen who look like starving 1-3 year olds with bigger heads, and who can't stand or say a word. they just stay like half-dead infants.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@valoronions well so far it's just an idea with apparently a couple of people working on it. it can only become a sensation if it's proven to be feasible at scale. there certainly are complex problems to solve, such as how to deposit (maybe bury, but that would balloon the energy requirement) the seaweed in such a way and in the right locations that it ends up staying there basically forever, or most of its carbon content does in some form. it may also be difficult to assess the amount of methane still produced by any anaerobic partial decomposition involved in the process - too much methane production has the potential of making the whole endeavour worse for the climatethanburning thestuff wouldhave been (making and burying biochar instead would then be ideal, as that only releases part of the carbon).
but in principle, if much digging is not required, using sargassum sounds like a promising way to dramatically reduce energy requirements relative to most other carbon sequestration methods. it also seems very likely, based on its likely ease of mechanical handling because it's this uniform floating stuff, that it would require little work input to give the sargassum a carbon sequestration rate far greater than that of any fully natural ecosystem - it takes very particular circumstances for ecosystems to heavily sequester carbon by producing biomass that largely fails to decompose, such as fossil coal generation of the carboniferous caused by microorganisms not yet having evolved to digest lignin in wood, or bodies of water that were stagnant with an exceptionally salty layer at the bottom that prevented decomposition of falling biomass, or peat bogs which slowly grow thick layers of dead peat moss that is partially preserved by oxygen exclusion (and humic acid, I think). if the unusually large sargassum growth is the result of human-caused excessive fertilisation of the ocean, then removing the stuff from the nutrient circulation would likely be beneficial for the ocean ecosystem also. the decay of excessive biomas can damage aquatic ecosystems by depleting oxygen.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EleyReiHer salt water doesn't remove waxy coatings (of which there are several, both natural resins and waxes and synthetic ones). it's much more typical on fruit than on vegetables, though it's also done to fruit eaten with the peel unlike citrus normally are, such as almost universally apples. I think I have heard of it on cucumbers, which are relatively fast-wilting which is why they're often shrink-wrapped in plastic.
in general, shelf life coatings like these are supposed to be proven safe to eat (certainly shellac, beeswax and carnauba wax are). what's unsafe on produce are pesticides and fungicides, though I suppose those can also get fixed in place by waxy coatings, so that they're then almost impossible to wash off. in theory, they should be washed properly before coating, but these industrial washes are never as thorough as many people would be inclined to do, which you can typically gauge in factory videos by how visibly dirty the washing bath is. I think some more intricately designed machines finish off such washing cycles with an actually clean water spray to rinse, but definitely not all, since it's an extra expense in machine acquisition that the customer will never know about. you could probably wash a fruit in a zero visibility muddy puddle, shake off the mud water and let it dry, and adding a shiny wax or resin coating would make the dusty appearance disappear, and make the dirt just about impossible to see.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@enlightendbel the "4/5 of all microplastic in the ocean comes from tires" claim seems very non-credible, given the fact that all the common types of plastic break down into microplastic in the ocean, many objects (foils and foams) quite quickly so, and that the amount of other plastic produced is much larger than the amount of tires. worn tire dust is going to stay mostly on land, and the only plausible way lots of tires would get into the ocean is deliberate sea-dumping of collected tires (because of the threats mentioned in the video - very large and very toxic fires, or breeding puddles for mosquitoes). but as far as I'm aware, tires are a relatively popular fuel for power plants and some factories (typically not featuring good enough exhaust filtration, but who cares, it's energy). I haven't heard of tires in particular being dumped in the ocean, and it seems unlikely to me to occur on a very large scale, compared to other garbage dumping, or the unintentional ocean pollution with light bits of plastic litter that gets blown and washed around on land and into rivers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the supposed sustainable harvesting of african blackwood is a TOTAL lie, it is a particularly badly overexploited wood. african blackwood has for the past 15+ years been heavily exploited by chinese companies. it's used as an ebony replacement on cheap chinese violins and such, even though traded through proper channels, african blackwood is supposed tobe more expensive than ebony. clearly the chinese are getting it through shady ways, linked to china's semi-colonialist influence particularly in the east of africa. it's also illegal to trade internationally without CITES documents, and the chinese never have CITES documents, they just pretend that it's ebony which doesn't require them (telling the woods apart requires aome experience, but is not very difficult unless painted black, which chinese producers often do to get their products through customs checks, which are legally supposed to seize undocumented african blackwood but apparently never do).
I checked a few years ago what sort of woods are sold on the giant chinese online platform alibaba (kinda like ebay, but with a lot of wholesale), and I found dozens of completely open listings of CITES regulated or export banned woods being sold by the container load, including african blackwood, and even more infamously endangered madagascar rosewood and madagascar ebony (which due to bad governance were mostly being cut illegally in national parks).
2
-
to be fair, I think this company is certainly buying CITES-certified wood at a premium price, and it is possible that the overall rather small amount of wood they are using genuinely does come from particular places that practice somewhat sustainable forestry. that's just not at all what's generally happening with african blackwood, this wood is clearly being cut and exported at shockingly cheap prices and in large volumes, given how commonly it is used on very cheap chinese products in spite of the fact that by quality, rarity, and low growth speed, it is supposed to be one of the absolute most expensive woods. its hardness is nearly unrivaled (harder than ebony, about equal to snakewood), it has a very dark colour with often very attractive figure, it's arguably prettier than ebony because it's very reflective and ebony is not, and it has an exceptionally resonant sound which makes it a great wood for many kinds of instruments, like woodwinds, guitars, or xylophones. the way the chinese are using it even on garbage instruments (like 100-200$ violins) suggests that they are buying it even cheaper than they could get the much more common and faster growing macassar ebony from indonesia, or that weird spotted soft ebony from india or the brown ebony they use in vietnam. even normal african ebony should be cheaper than african blackwood, but that's clearly more expensive in china, as it's hardly ever used on cheap instruments. the chinese can't even be paying 10% of what african blackwood is worth!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
SednaBoo I think iron and steel have been common in most of africa for at least 1000 years (much longer in some parts, parts of africa were comparatively highly developed in antiquity and the early middle ages), but they would be unsuitable for boiling salt water. iron and steel would rust all the way through. copper is more corrosion-resistant, and I think tin is, too - I don't think that tin has been very widely available for long though, since I know that back in the bronze age, tin supplies for making bronze were very rare and coveted as the main limiting factor in the production of bronze weapons and tools whereas copper was available from many more regions. aluminium oxidizes very easily, but the oxide layer is quite impermeable and very chemically durable, making for a rather corrosion-resistant surface. consuming aluminium is supposedly quite unhealthy though, so that would not be my choice if there are other options. basically aluminium cooking utensils are only if at all advisable for cooking processes that involve little corrosion and little scraping, and this salt-boiling process involves a lot of both. I think copper cooking utensils are less problematic than aluminium. certainly they're very traditional and still common in high-class cuisine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joz534 yes and no - that's known to be much less reliable because many farmers use them at later points before harvest than the usage framework deemed safe permits, and the regulatory mechanisms in even the more regulated countries are fundamentally unsafe because from a standpoint of safety, they're backwards: new agricultural poisons don't need to be proven safe for their use to be permitted, everything is permitted until its use proves it to be unsafe and it gets banned. producers are, to varying degrees in different jurisdictions, incentivised to not market dangerous products to not be sued by the public eventually, but it's often very difficult to prove in court that some health issue was caused by a specific product (except for those caused immediately by contact mostly during use, so those issues do get eliminated by company testing before a product gets sold). fundamentally, the regulatory system having no requirement to prove safety before bringing a new product to market like medications do means that the public is experimented on. and because of the lack of control for other factors impacting people's health, only rather severe impacts can ever be traced back to one agricultural poison, whereas smaller negative impacts of various poisons people are exposed to accumulate without attribution.
also safety of fruit normally eaten without the peel is determined without it, and I believe that does include citrus fruit despite the peel (zest) being used somewhat commonly. of course in places with good regulation like the EU, you can get certified organic produce that's not allowed to have any agricultural poisons on it, or only a small selection of them.
1
-
@darkracer1252 no, it is not. the video narration said that the coating wicks away water, that means that it increases evaporation by drawing water to the surface and/or increasing the evaporative surface, as an oil lamp or candle wick does (with the aid of heat from a sustained flame around and below it). sports clothing is made of materials that strongly suck up sweat through capillary action and transport it through the fabric, that way clothes can be used to evaporate sweat much faster than it would from skin and body hair alone, so the clothing has a pronounced cooling effect if the wearer sweats heavily, meaning that it improves the intended cooling function of sweating. hydrophobic coatings o fruit do not do that at ally and they are applied to do the opposite, more akin to a runner getting his torso wrapped in cling film that prevents evaporation. shellac can basically be accurately imagined as a naturally occurring plastic
it's soluble in ethanol which plastics usually are not, but in terms of blocking water on fruit, it is much like a super thin plastic coating. though I would guess that it does let a little more moisture through, given the fact that prolonged water (or hot water) exposure does damage and eventually work its way through even much thicker layers of shellac, whereas any common plastic is practically invulnerable to water. but in short term contact, shellac does repel water very well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
it sounds to me like with the higher pesticide use, the no-burn sugar is likely to be a slightly inferior product. however air pollution including the kinds one may imagine to be harmless produced by burning fields or forests has been in recent years and decades, to my knowledge, strongly statistically linked to really severe public health impacts, so burning fields from a public health perspective is a huge no-no. aso that sugar cane leaf looks like GREAT mulch, and certainly in any region in need of more water retention on fields, that is a massively beneficial thing.
ethanol was not originally introduced to vehicle fuels as a bioofueln in any modern sense though. it was originally introduced because it mixes in with gasoline at various concentrations, and adding somethjng like 5% makes the fuel more detonation-resistant (anti-knocking agent), and it replces the previously used cheaper option of a much smaller percentage addition of tetraethyllead (a fittingly swast°ka-shaped molecule), which was poisoning people through vehicle fumes in a genuine public health catastrophe (it was a totally deranged idea from the start, it was known that it would be very toxic). that's what "unleased" fuels are, they contain ethanol (and probably trace amounts of other additives) instead of tetraethyllead. nowadays, a lot of cars run on fuel with higher ethanol content like E15, because due to rising oil prices and improved ethanol production as well as government subsidies, the price of ethanol has gotten much closer to the price of gasoline rhan it was decades ago. they still use the old lead stuff in the standard aviation fuels though...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@am9542 that is not something being considered in any place on earth. wastewater from sewers essentially always gets released into rivers or oceans, in well-governed places after undergoing eensive wastewater treatment that would almost make it usable to then further treat it for consumption the way most tapwater gets sourced from rivers, but nobody does that. what is being expanded in places with water scarcity like the south-western US (which is a lost cause) are efforts to seperate "grey water" collected from home sinks and showers separately from toilet outflow, and at least use that for flushing said toilets, or even use it untreated or minimally treated for watering greenery or even agriculture. fully treated sewage water may also be in use for watering fields somewhere I reckon, and shouldn't be an issue.
the collection of only urine from public pissoirs may actually be a somewhat viable source of some useful substances, mostly urea, which I think is quite practical to purify from urine, and is made industrially on huge scales from natural gas to be used as fertilizer, turned into other fertilizers, or turned into many different synthetic chemicals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
cool technology, terrible results. cars have gotten so ugly in the past couple of decades! the biggest flaw in car design that I see is that their complex vurves fon't blent into cityscapes at all, unless the surrounding buildings are all equally new, which most buildings are not. modern cars don't look like they belong between buildings and infrastructure thats decades or centuries older than them. older cars, up to and including the boxy ones from the 80s, so this much better.
the reason is that both old buildings and old cars are to a large degree made of straight lines and simple curves (such as sections of circles), whereas modern cars are made of complex curves all over (curves that change radius along their length following no mathematical formula, or a very complex one). cars are made this way today because modern technology has made it easier than it used to be, and because putting more bends and folds into sheet metal than old cars have stiffens the parts and allows them to be made thinner and lighter. it makes sense, the cars are better as standalone objects, but they look bad in most city/town/village environments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Me Here no, biochar does not counteract soil erosion from bad farming practices. you can still ruin or erode soil that has charcoal in it. it's just one good farming practice among others. I never said anything about planting trees in deserts. your idea of burying biochar in exclusively reforestation projects is what seems unreasonable to me. I don't think it's something that you can do much with all at once, it's more for building topsoil layer by lay over years, which fits well with intermittent agricultural use. in most places, LIKE I SAID, you wouldn't want to give up tediously improved soil to then plant a forest, but in certain places this could be one of few viable options to plant a forest at all. one landscape example are tropical areas where forests have been removed by the typical slash and burn method to then use the area for crops for a few years, during which the very thin topsoil degrades until it is no longer viable for agriculture, at which point the farmer clears the next patch of forest and moves on. in particularly bad circumstances, the remaining topsoil then gets washed away, resulting in areas that can't be reforested because they lack the soil that originally supported the forests there. I'm pretty sure this is the case for large areas of south america and the carribbean, and I would guess africa and asia as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1