Native Dye Plants of the United States :: Botany

Native Dye Plants of the United States The first to use native dye plants in the United States were the Native Americans. Their culture was totally dependent on what the land produced. This is reflected in the wealth of information Native Americans possessed about useful plants, from medicinal to ceremonial and dye plants. This is reflected in the types of houses they built and the names of places (often after the plants that grew there). Early European colonists foolishly ignored the wisdom of the Native Americans and modern Americans are not much wiser. Americans need to learn about the plants and animals in our own country and how they can be useful to mankind. Instead of bringing non-adapted species of Europe to North America we need to learn what native adapted species can fulfill our needs and wants (Gilmore 1977). For example, we spend thousands of dollars feeding, sheltering, and caring for European cattle when we have native bovines, bison which are naturally adapted to the climate and environment. Melvin Randolp h Gilmore sums this idea up well in the following quote: "The country can not be wholly made over and adjusted to a people of foreign habits and tastes. There are large tracts of land in America whose bounty is wasted because the plants which can be grown on them are not acceptable to our people."(Gilmore 1977). Native Americans learned about the plants in their environment through general trial and error and through communication with other tribes (Gilmore 1977). Some of the dyes used by Native Americans of the Missouri River region are discussed below. Far more plants were used for medicines, shelter, and tools than dyes. Various green dyes came from pond scum probably Protococcus, Ulothrix, Chaetophora, and Spirogyra. Another green dye that was used for bows and arrows came from lamb's quarter, Chenopodium album. Yellow dyes came from a variety of places including smooth sumac, Rhus glabra, roots, the lichens Parmelia borreri and Usnea barbata, and young cottonwood (Populus sargentii) leaf buds collected in early spring; this particular yellow dye was used for coloring arrow feathers and quills. An orange dye also used as a feather dye was boiled out of the vines of dodder (Cuscuta paradoxa). Red dyes came from pokeberry (Phytolacca americana) and were used to paint horses and people. The familiar bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) was also used as a skin dye or to dye articles that were boiled with the roots.

Mr. Lake

Arvo Lake, a retired 71-year-old man, bought an air conditioner in May. The unit was installed and operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Unbeknownst to Lake, the unit contained a hole in the refrigeration system that allowed Freon, the coolant, to escape from the unit. By August, the unit had ceased cooling, and Lake's residence reached a temperature of at least 96 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat caused Lake to suffer from hyperthermia, which caused circulatory failure and then death. The executor of Lake's estate sued the manufacturer of the air conditioner for damages resulting from breach of warranty. Is the manufacturer (or anyone else) liable for Lake's death under either a negligence or a strict liability cause of action? What is the difference between these two claims, and how do they differ from a breach of warranty claim? Try and be as specific as possible, preferably running through the elements using the facts from the Lake case. â€Å"Research from the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission indicates that defective or unsafe products cause 29. 4 million injuries and 21,400 deaths each year. You or your child may be injured by something seemingly harmless or something you use everyday, such as a hair dryer, toaster, baby chair, toy, iron, coffee maker, air conditioner, car, hand tool or even your clothing. Product liability law gives consumers the ability to sue for and recover damages from manufacturers, distributors and vendors for injuries resulting from accidents caused by products. Strict liability is the term used to describe situations in which a person can be held liable for damages caused to another person even without negligence or other fault. Strict liability means â€Å"liability without fault,† therefore a person is liable whether or not they were negligent and whether or not they intended to do any harm. The law imposes strict liability on inherently or abnormally dangerous activities, or activities that are likely to cause particular kinds of harm. Strict liability is also often imposed on manufactured products, under the law of product liability. Strict liability claims do not involve proof of whether or not someone acted reasonably or used appropriate care in manufacturing a certain product. The manufacturer of the air conditioner could be found liable for the death of Mr. Lake if it is found that the air conditioner was defective, regardless of whether the manufacturer or supplier exercised great care when designing and manufacturing it. Mr. Lake’s family does not have to demonstrate that the manufacturer or vendor was negligent or careless, only that a defect in the product caused Mr. Lake’s death. In a negligence claim, Mr. Lake’s family must show that a manufacturer or retailer had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the process of manufacturing or selling a product and failed to fulfill that duty, resulting in his death. Negligence consists of doing something that a person of ordinary prudence would not do under the same or similar circumstances; or failing to do something that a person of ordinary prudence would do under the same or similar circumstances. A breach of warranty claim arises under the law of contracts, where the law imposes certain â€Å"implied warranties† on the sale of goods. Such warranties include the warranty of merchantability (that the goods are in proper condition for use and free of defects), and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (e. g. , air conditioner must be able to keep a room or house cool. ) A breach of warranty is often referred to as an implied warranty because the law assumes that they apply even if they are not expressly stated. If a product does not meet these standards, the purchaser may have the right to return it and get back the purchase price, or sometimes to receive monetary damages. The law of contracts covers economic loss caused by the breach of warranties in the sale of goods. The Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, also deals with the sales of goods and the implied and express warranties of merchantability in the sales of goods  §Ã‚ § 2-314 and 2-315. Question 2 we conclude that the district court correctly decided that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the Reardons' statutory claims, but we find that the CERCLA lien provisions do violate the fifth amendment due process clause

The Effects Of Stem Cell On The Human Body - 2802 Words

Reflect back to the year 1984, to the tragic day former professional boxer Muhammad Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. In a blink of an eye, Ali’s career slipped through his fingertips. Unfortunately, many tragedies such as Ali’s occur everyday whether it is due to an accident or disease. I can relate to this issue along with others who may know someone who suffers from a life long disease such as Parkinson’s, paralysis, or diabetes. For quite some time these diseases have been seen as incurable but embryotic stem cells may hold the cure. With that said, many researchers in the medical field have become quite involved in the study of stem cells. A stem cell is an immature cell that has the potential to become specialized into†¦show more content†¦Although this research could theoretically cure life long diseases, ethical concerns have been brought to the attention to many religions that are against embryonic stem cell research. As I took a closer look at the religion aspect, such as Catholicism and Christianity, the research of ESC is ostracized because the process involves the destruction of a human in its early stages of life. For many religions this study has been compared to abortions in that researchers are not giving the embryo the right to its life (Robertson). From my personal view as a catholic, I do believe that conception declares the start of a human life. Embryos are not just an assortment of cells that can be researched without limitations, they are a person and should be held with respect, and have the same rights as a born child or elder. Along with Christianity and Catholicism, Mormons trust it would be wrong to destroy the embryo no matter what the gestational age is (Dawson). However, I do not believe religions are gazing at the scientific prospective of embryotic stem cell research. Religions that are against ESC research oppose it because they believe scientists are harming healthy embryos but I do not consider that to be the case. There are cases in which an embryo does fail to develop whether it is from miscarriage, abortion, or infertility. Only in