[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as facing potential litigation, I would argue that thru use of the resistograph data you would be subjected to LESS litigation. Resistograph data is used in courtrooms across the US and Canada. The data is legally accepted, and it takes a glance from a 5th grade student to effectively identify dangerous levels of decay/cavity in the measurements.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not totally believe this. I absolutely believe that providing (repeatable) measurements is a great idea and certainly beats using a wooden mallet to identify extent of decay, BUT, how does a 5th grader identify dangerous levels of decay? Is not the entire arguement presented by Kane (and others) against Mattheck's t/r<.3, that the number is not only incorrect, but oversimplifies the importance of measuring shell-wall thickness and comparing it to standards? Wessoly and others have suggested that we need to know about tree size, windload, material strength etc. Further, understanding fungal organisms and their methods of decayi and resultant changes in wood strength, is not something for a 5th grader. I wonder what percentage of consultants, let alone arborists, have read and understand Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees?
[ QUOTE ]
As far as facing potential litigation, I would argue that thru use of the resistograph data you would be subjected to LESS litigation. Resistograph data is used in courtrooms across the US and Canada. The data is legally accepted, and it takes a glance from a 5th grade student to effectively identify dangerous levels of decay/cavity in the measurements.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not totally believe this. I absolutely believe that providing (repeatable) measurements is a great idea and certainly beats using a wooden mallet to identify extent of decay, BUT, how does a 5th grader identify dangerous levels of decay? Is not the entire arguement presented by Kane (and others) against Mattheck's t/r<.3, that the number is not only incorrect, but oversimplifies the importance of measuring shell-wall thickness and comparing it to standards? Wessoly and others have suggested that we need to know about tree size, windload, material strength etc. Further, understanding fungal organisms and their methods of decayi and resultant changes in wood strength, is not something for a 5th grader. I wonder what percentage of consultants, let alone arborists, have read and understand Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees?