Frickin' Fracking  

      A report published just a couple of days ago described the results of extensive studies in the regions around fracking sites.  The verdict is in.  There is definitely groundwater contamination near some of the fracking sites.  Personally, that's no big surprise to me.  It's only logical, that if you break up all the bedrock in an area - bedrock that used to separate natural gas pockets from ground water pockets, then the contents of the two pockets would mix.  
      It's kind of like a horrifying version of the old Reece's commercials.  "Hey! You got groundwater in my gas!" 
      "Well you got gas in my groundwater!"  

      I know, we've been told all along and promised by oil company executives, and their personal politicians that groundwater contamination from fracking wouldn't happen, couldn't happen, and even that it was impossible.  We were also promised by politicians since the 1960's that wiretapping without a search warrant wouldn't happen, and couldn't happen because it was unconstitutional, but.... (enough on that subject before I get on an IRS list - oh wait, I'm a historical reenactor, therefore I already am)
       Robert B. Jackson and his colleagues at Duke University tested 141 water from wells in a fracking region in Pennsylvania.  They found that methane levels in drinking water from wells within a kilometer of natural gas wells were six times higher than from homes farther away.  They also found that the concentrations of ethane levels in drinking water were twenty three times higher. 
      The researchers stated that drinking water contaminated with gasses is not linked to any known health issues (yet, I say), but fire hazards and explosions could be a problem (yeah, I could see that).  The results of their findings were published in this weeks issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.  

Burning water: Natural gas coming from a bathroom faucet.  Concentrations are high enough to ignite it. 

      Jackson and his crew from Duke concluded two possible explanations for the contamination of dissolved gas concentrations in the drinking water.  The first is that the pipe casing from the gas well is faulty, thus allowing the gasses to escape.  The other possible explanation they came up with is imperfections on the cement seal surrounding the well.  
      This is where it's hard to just take a journalist stance and merely report without editorializing.  But, what the heck - this is a blog, not a major periodical that has to worry about sponsors.  My opinion on the matter is still the consequences of breaking up the natural sealant known affectionately as bedrock, but I could be wrong too.  It wouldn't be the first time.  It just makes the most sense to me.  In that these results were only published this week, I wonder if there will be any fall out for Duke with any oil company sponsors.  
      Anyway,... what is known for sure is that there are huge amounts of gas contamination in drinking water from wells near fracked natural gas wells, and there isn't in wells that are not near fracking sites.  
      It must be added here however, that not all wells leak out their contents int the surrounding drinking water.  Jackson and his colleagues concluded that local geologic conditions could play a big role. 

      Note: as I was searching for an image of "burning water" Every picture I found of fire coming out of a faucet came from other articles about fracking contamination. 

Whacked Out Parents

      Up here in Northern Minnesota we have thick woods that go on for miles and miles.  Although on a map it might look like we are dotted with towns, and crisscrossed with highways, county roads, township roads and something called minimum maintenance roads, there's a lot of woods in between.  Those woods are teeming with wildlife.  There are the mostly mild and unoffensive animals, such as squirrels (although they do like to scold you), rabbits, deer, beaver, muskrats, and the like.  There are the offensive, like the skunk (although I seriously only see skunks in towns and near other areas of human habitation).  We also have the carnivores and other animals that the average Citiot looks at in total fear (Citiots = our term for those who live in the Twin Cities and think that meat is made in factories and comes only in plastic wrapped packages - to be fair, there are sensible people who live there too, but my brain explains this as that they are just living in the wrong place).  
      The truth is that we have almost no animals here that one needs to fear.  We have no poisonous snakes or spiders (we're even too far north by about a hundred or so miles for the brown recluse).  You can scare off a pack of wolves just by running at them and yelling.  I've broken up their hunting parties several times doing this (I even did that once in just a pair of Sorrels and my underwear - it must have been a frightening sight.  Fishers and Martens are too small to play ferocious with a human.  Badgers stay away.  A cougar can be scared off by determinedly stomping right at it (if I would have found a hefty stick or something lying on the ground on my way to where it it was growling with ears flattened it probably wouldn't have waited till I was only about twelve steps away before it bolted and ran).  When were kids (11 and 13) my brother and I were chased around by an angry bull moose, but it was in a bad mood because he was rubbing the felt off of his antlers.  That's got to be painful.  On the other hand one of my dad's cousins lassoed and then tamed a moose, so really they're just pussycats with an occasional fit of rage (yes, that's for real, and one day I might post that story here).  
      The only animal one needs fear is a she bear with cubs.  Mama will vigorously attack anyone or thing that she with her micro-brain thinks might be a danger to her little babies.  They would kill to protect their young.  

      That's actually true for a lot of species, including humans.  There have been many stories lately, though, where mothers (human) have gone too far, or were protecting more than just their child's life.  Most recently is the story of the woman who disguised herself as a kid and took a test in school for her daughter.  She got caught (maybe the giveaway was wearing a Walkman playing Guns n Roses instead of an Ipod with hip hop - who knows?)  She might have argued that by taking a test for her daughter she was indeed protecting her daughter's life - but seriously?  Get real.  

      This idea of taking mothering too far is not a new or isolated problem.  It's actually part of a disturbing trend or even an epidemic.  There are numerous reports of mothers not leaving off their screaming fits toward their children's authority figures in high school, but carrying this on into their kids' young adult lives - and beyond.  They don't just demand that their kid's high school grades be changed or that a certain teacher
gets fired for "teaching too strict."  They go into the colleges now and do the same thing.  They demand from coaches that their inadequate young 'un become the member of a college level sports team.  They demand the dismissal or at least the suspension of the officers who arrested their little angel who had a beer (or Bacardi bottle, crack stash, Mad Dog, or whatever) in her hand when the party she was at got busted - claiming everything from "she was just holding it for a friend" (she must have been just holding her friend's B.A level of 2.8 too) to "the evidence was planted."  

      There are numerous stories also of moms going on after that to her kid's work place and demanding raises, more "cooperation" from their supervisor, promotions, and so forth.  If their little darlings get fired for any reason  - look out!  Get the Richter Scale ready, because the ground will shake. 
      Moms have even come to the threshold of murdering their child's rivals.  There was that one woman in the news just a couple of years ago who created a Facebook account to provoke and pick on her daughter's rival for a position on the cheer leading squad.  She picked, pecked, harassed, and humiliated the rival, and didn't stop until the poor girl finally gave up and committed suicide.  Her daughter was able to get on the squad, with her rival out of the way.  Really that was murder, but the courts didn't see it that way.  She was found guilty, but not for murder.  It was for harassment or some other lame crap.  Mom, if you want your kid on the team, teach her to diligently practice, so that she doesn't suck. Dads have done their share to be guilty of this kind of stuff too.  
      So moms and dads, learn when to leave your kids alone.  Get help.  With all your heart you might think you are helping your children, but the reality is that you are hurting them in far worse ways than you can imagine. 

A Brief History of Uniforms 

      I decided it would be a good idea for today's post to write down the subject matter of the talk I gave during the Muster event last weekend.  There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning the use of uniforms, especially that of when the custom began.  Since the group of us that were gathered were all reenactors with varying degrees of experience, I thought it would be a good subject matter during down time between more rigorous activities. 
      Many people think that the concept of an entire army all wearing uniforms was practiced by ancient cultures.  That misunderstanding is easy to conceive though.  All the various Greek city states had their own armorers, each who worked their crafts in their own unique styles.  This would give a passive observer the impression that the armies were wearing something akin to a uniform.  What they would be wearing would be similar.  The same would go for the clothing styles.  To an outsider from a different culture they would think that "all those Greeks dress alike."  
      The Romans came the closest among the ancients to wearing something like a uniform.  All the soldiers were issued a shirt with their armor, but again, the shirts would be locally made in the region where the Legio was being raised, and so would the armor.  This is why there are so many different styles of helmets.  However, each Roman soldier was issued the same things, and the same pieces of armor.  After the fall of the Romans, the idea was shelved for the next 1000+ years.  
      The earliest things after that which could be misconstrued as a uniform would be the tartans of Scotland.  Most people think that each clan had its own particular pattern of plaid dating back many centuries.  That is not so.  The people dyed their yarns with whatever regional dyes that were available to them.  The concept of a special plaid for each clan didn't occur in history until the time of Queen Victoria.  Regional availability of dye stuffs would give an outsider that impression though.  
      The Isle f Lewis had an abundance of crocuses, so saffron was readily available to them .  Therefore the MacLeods living there had the "Loud MacLeod," but unlike today, in various patterns.  If you saw a bunch of men assembled for battle all wearing mostly greens and blues, you knew they came from the southern Highlands and the Grampians, because woad and other dye sources were abundant there.  And if you saw a bunch of red you knew they must be from the western Lowlands.  

Above: "Loud MacLeod" from Lewis on the left, and Macleod from Harris and the Highlands on the right.

                                  Other clans from the Highlands and the Grampians

                                                    Clans from the western Lowlands

      Another case for misunderstanding would come from looking at late Medieval armies.  By this time many of the regiments in an army were raised personally by wealthy individuals, who used their own coffers to outfit their men.  With the advents of handgonnes and the increased use of crossbows and longbows soldiers needed much more armor.  Again, all the armor would be locally produced and would all look similar.  The tunics underneath, however would be whatever color the man already owned.  Besides this, each knight had his own heraldry (during the Crusades the difference between styles of dress between the armies of the West and the Muslims was so great that it almost looked like uniforms). 

Armies at the Battle of Crecy - similar armor on each side, but the clothing underneath is all different

      In contrast to this, from the fall of Rome to the 12th Century if your unit didn't stay with the main body of your army you stood in real danger of being killed by friendly fire.  One would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a band of Viking warriors and an Anglo-Saxon fyrd, until you got close enough to hear them speak, or maybe saw the occasional "goggle" helmet of the Vikings.  The Norman armies you could tell, however, because of their weird, "foreign" look.  A hundred years after the Norman conquest, during the civil wars between Stephen and Queen Maude battles would have been a very confusing affair.  
      During the period of the Thirty Years War, the English Civil Wars, and the French Fronde, the practice of individuals raising their own regiments was full scale.  It became the practice then to provide their troops not only with weapons, but with issues of cloth (usually wool), so the men could have their coats and breeches made from it.  It was up to each individual soldier to find a tailor or someone to sew these up.  Therefore in any particular regiment you would see slight variations in the cuts and even whether or not they had the shoulder epaulets.  There would also be great variation in the buttons. 
      They would all be the same color though.  We could say that they "accidentally" had uniforms.  When raising the regiment, the noble would try to order all the cloth he needed from a single source.  Sometimes the particular color he wanted wouldn't be available at the time, so he would order the color that was available in massive quantities.  As early as the Wars of William of Orange, mercenaries were issued the cheapest cloth available, which was hodden grey kersey (hodden grey is not dyed at all, but is the natural color from grey, black, and white sheep all mixed together).  During this time the practice of enclosures was being instituted in Scotland, leaving many poor farmers ousted from their ancestral homesteads.  Consequently this provided a large pool of poverty stricken men from which to recruit.  From that time, it became common for Scottish mercenary units to be dressed in hodden grey.  When Johan Spence came to the Highlands to recruit for Gustavus Adolphus, he saw the deplorable living conditions of the Scottish people.  He stated in a letter to his king, that they were so poor "they wore their blankets wrapped around themselves for clothing."  He called on the Swedish king's compassion and asked that they could be issued twice the normal amount of cloth as other regiments, so they could have enough cloth for either an extra suit of clothing, or have the extra made into a "cassoque."  

                                Swedish regiments - the King's Lifeguard on the right  

English Civil War: Earl of Essex's Regiment in the front, behind them either Samuel Jones' Regiment, Tillier's Regiment, or Hamden's Regiment in the green (it's hard to tell- they all looked so similar), behind them in the Grey a Scottish Regiment, and in the Red (back row) it looks like a member of the King's Lifeguard (who knows why he's standing in with otherwise Parlimentary forces?)

English Civil Wars: Far left - Prince Rupert's Bluecoats, to the right of them, The King's Lifeguard, Center rear - Lloyd's White Regiment, In the dark green (with armor) - Samuel Jones' Regiment, to the far right - a Scottish mercenary regiment.  In the foreground - various officers.  

                                                 A mixture of various Royalist units

      During the English Civil Wars the Trayned Bands of London, and Lloyd's Regiments (both the "Blew Regiment" and the "White") were quite instrumental in obtaining Cromwell the victory.  They all wore red as their primary color, as did also some of the Covenanter regiments.  Among the Royalists the King's Lifeguard wore a madder red, and the Queen's Lifeguard wore a reddish almost magenta hue.  After his victory Cromwell established what he called the New Model Army.  This became England's first official national uniform style.  Everyone wore the same style red coat with wide cuffs in either white, yellow, or blue.  These uniforms were modeled after The Trayned bands, and Lloyd's Regiments.  

                                           Parlimentary forces under Cromwell

                                                   New Model Army

      According to the book, "The Thin Red Line" this began England's use of red uniforms until the time of WWI (even then many regiments still had a stripe of red piping down the side of each pantleg). 

      The use of cookie cutter uniforms spread all throughout Europe at about the same time.  By the 18th Century what constitutes a uniform came to also include a soldier's packs and even what he carried in them, and how they were to be worn.  For instance they had a powder charge magazine that was worn on the right, held in place by a buttoned epaulet oftentimes along with a horn of priming powder.  Over the left shoulder was a leather haversack for food rations and a white canvass pack sack for an extra shirt, a bowl and an eating implement (mess tents were not yet in use).  In the pack sack soldiers were also required to carry shoe polish, and Prussian units had to also carry mustache wax,  In addition they were required to carry a sewing kit.  Many people today wrongly call the white canvass pack sack a haversack.  
      Across their waist they wore a belt to which was attached a holder for the bayonet (Prussian and Hessian units were also issued sabres - even for enlisted men).  In addition all men were issued a canteen, and some units were issued collapsible canvass water buckets.  In time the "uniform" also included a blanket and a piece of canvass for a tent.  

         A Prussian Grenadier unit.  It looks like it could be the 1st Regiment, but I could be wrong. 

                           Prussian 15th Regiment, 1st and 3rd Battalions - The King's Lifeguard    

      For further reading on this subject, information for this post came mostly from various Osprey Books, The Thin Red Line, and the section on Plaids comes from the Clann Manual from Colonel Gaffney's Regiment of Shotte and Pike.  If you write them, they would be glad to sell you a copy.