People on Amazon discovered that the key to making Baby Foot work well - even for ridiculously thick calouses - is to presoak 15 min, POST soak 15 min, then soak (plain water) daily 30-60 min for 1-2 weeks as long as the peeling continues. It can take a week for it to start.

My wife has long had incredibly thick, cracking heels. You would not believe how much came off. Crazy crazy gross - and effective.

1. Colorado, 7000' w/ extreme rain, hail, plenty of winter freeze/melt too
2. Exterior
3. Horizontal
4. No change
5. Driveway, sidewalk

Deck Location State: Colorado Springs (7,000 ft)
Full Sun, Partial Shade, Full Shade: Full Shade (need to protect the support 2x12's under the deck)
Wood Type: Hem Fir KD-HT (Kiln Dried-Heat Treated) #2 (Hampton premium)
Mold or Mildew Issues: No
Reason for Previous Stain Failure: None, new home.

Thanks!

Here's another analogy... Plumbing.

A plumbing system that's always used gently, with low flow everywhere, will eventually and inevitably get clogged.

The "stress" of flushing your sink with a lot of hot water, or flushing the toilet, etc, cleans out the system and enables it to work well overall.

As 1Vigor suggests, many factors are involved in longevity.

I guess I'm immune then. 55 RHR and I don't avoid those things at all.

:-D

Correct. So, we are quite certain that pollution is a bad consequence, and have been mitigating it.

Personally, my bent is toward caution: if we know of a mitigation strategy that will likely solve a real problem, and will not harm a lot of real people, then great. But if our mitigation strategies are not known to work, are not known to address a real issue, and have a significant likelihood of causing great harm... I'm not going to jump for joy.

Problem is, we really don't have a good handle on the CO2 thing. We keep discovering major new ghg sources (cf bovine methane etc.) We haven't settled whether growing new forests / cutting down forests is a good remedy. There's lots of evidence that climate was warmer than this not all that long ago (cf arctic treelines far north of today's treeline.) And most of the recommended solutions are known to be costly not only to Western economies but even more damaging to developing world peoples, particularly in the Global South. (I do a lot of work in those parts of the world...)

The interesting thing is, it doesn't require any changes to the site (although sometimes that helps.)

No promises as to when (I'm as overloaded as anyone) but I'll add this site to my goals for the next version :)

(BTW, Keith if you're interested I'll attempt to make my "CA Assistant" compatible with this site, next time I update it... it's in use at Lucia's and CA's sites...)

I approach this whole thing from the caution of recognizing that humanity has a horrible record when it comes to environmental intervention. Our historical tendency is to presume we understand the issues, presume we know what to do, presume we know the impact of our intended action, and to go ahead... only to discover that our course of action had some pretty awful unintended consequences. This is not universally true of course; sometimes do do the right thing for the right reason in the right way.
But right now, what I see is yet another example of people assuming we know what is going on with carbon and climate... yet we keep discovering major contributors to ghg's and major influencers of climate...and clearly don't have a solid handle on paleoclimate.

And we assume we know the impact of potential solutions ... yet we keep discovering unintended consequences, and gotchas related to various green energy outcomes. So far, I've seen severe downsides to current wind and solar energy. Which leaves me in favor of nuclear but (I assume) that has issues as well.

People are notoriously bad at predicting the future. In general, things work out much better than pessimists assume, but not as perfectly as pie-in-the-sky optimists hope for. And we have close to zero ability to correctly guess what kinds of inventions will be helpful in 10, 25 or 50+ years.

To avoid making it personal... the problem is that "we are right and they are crazy" is exactly what is assumed. On both "sides."

The fact that one group is generally in the driver's seat right now automatically means the other group is seen at best as "the opposition."

Thus, Romm is viewed as generally correct if a bit excessive... while McIntyre is seen as potentially correct yet making nasty insinuations.

I don't know what it will take to "fix" this.

The real problem: science has been politicized and policy-ized (i.e. biased towards certain political or policy views.) And those on the majority side of the politics/policy naturally make it hard for the "loyal opposition" to be heard.

If we could remove the politics and policy biases from the science, I think ideally there would be a scientific bias in favor of skepticism, simply because that's how science best moves forward.

Science improves best when we're all doing our best to poke holes in the latest idea. That is NOT what is happening right now.